Investigation Report: Optimizing Human-Powered Energy Generation Using Gaussian Process Regression (JoVE, DOI 10.3791/69810)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report examines the JoVE protocol paper 'Optimizing Human-Powered Energy Generation Using Gaussian Process Regression' by Ding et al. (DOI: 10.3791/69810, published January 9, 2026). The verdict is that multiple substantive integrity issues are confirmed, suggesting AI-assisted fabrication or incoherent authorship rather than rigorous scholarship. Key issues include: (1) References are misaligned with claims — e.g., a thermoelectric gelatin paper [26] is cited for chain-installation misalignment effects; (2) the headline metric (peak Relative Efficiency Index) is reported as 168% in Section 3.3.6 but 110% in Section 4, an internal contradiction; (3) human-subject experiments lacked an IRB approval number, relying only on verbal consent, which is incompatible with university standards; (4) the RULA ergonomic tool, designed for static upper-limb postures, was misapplied to high-intensity cycling; and (5) the introduction references 'projections to 2025' in a 2026 paper. Confidence is high on the textual contradictions and reference mismatches; lower on intent. The journal has been notified.

Verdict

🔴 Confirmed integrity concerns. The paper contains multiple independent issues (reference mismatches, internal numerical contradictions, missing ethics oversight, methodological misapplication, and temporal inconsistencies) consistent with AI-hallucinated or inadequately reviewed content. Journal and institutional reporting actions have been initiated.

Key findings

Reference–content mismatch: citations supporting mechanical/bicycle-chain claims point to unrelated works (e.g., [26] Han et al. on room-temperature ionic gelatin thermoelectrics; [27] Zou et al. on wearable triboelectric nanogenerators; [29] Wang Z. L. on triboelectric nanogenerators).
Internal contradiction on the headline metric: Section 3.3.6 (Page 10) states peak REI = 168% at 48 V (+68% over 12 V baseline); the Optimization landscape section (Page 14) states "Peak REI reaches 110% of baseline."
Ethics oversight deficiency: experiments involve human-subject physiological measurement, but only verbal informed consent is documented; no IRB/ethics-committee approval number is provided despite affiliation with Westlake University.
Methodological misapplication: RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment), intended for static seated/standing postures, is used as a comfort objective in dynamic high-intensity cycling.
Temporal inconsistency: a 2026 publication projects 85 million job displacements "by 2025" as if future tense, and uses third-person phrasing ("accessed on 2025-09-20") for what appears to be the authors' own dataset.

Evidence highlights

Page 3, Protocol 1.1.3 / 1.1.7 / Page 4, 1.1.10 — cited references [26], [27], [29] concern triboelectric nanogenerators and ionic thermoelectric gels, not rim configuration or chain-drive efficiency.
Page 10 (Section 3.3.6) vs Page 14 — REI values of 168% and 110% for the same peak condition.
Page 7 (Protocol 2.1.1) — informed-consent section cites verbal consent only; no approval ID.
Page 12 (Section 4.2.4) — RULA-based comfort metric applied to cycling workload up to 85% HRmax.
Page 1 (Introduction) and Page 15 (Supplementary File 1) — forward-looking language toward 2025 within a 2026 paper; dataset "accessed on 2025-09-20."

Notes

DOI: 10.3791/69810 (Journal of Visualized Experiments, JoVE).
Author affiliation noted: Westlake University.
All flagged items were cross-checked and marked as ✅ Confirmed by the original analyst.
This is an automated/AI-assisted report for academic discussion; final determination of misconduct requires investigation by the journal and the authors' institution. False positives and false negatives are possible.