Investigation Report: Study on the Relationship Between Growth and Leaf Functional Traits of Different Grade Seedlings of Ormosia hosiei (DOI: 10.11931/guihaia.gxzw202505015)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates a 2026 pre-print article in Guihaia authored by Fu Zhigao and colleagues concerning growth and leaf functional traits in Ormosia hosiei seedlings. The overall verdict is 'questionable' (🟡). Two issues were verified or partially verified. First, the methods section claims that SPAD values (a metric requiring a chlorophyll meter using transmittance, e.g., SPAD-502) were measured using a PocketPEA chlorophyll fluorometer, an instrument fundamentally incapable of producing SPAD readings. Second, a timeline/growth inconsistency is noted: although the paper describes the species as slow-growing, seedlings reportedly increased basal diameter and height by roughly 60–70% within only six months (planted February 2024, graded August 2024), which may indicate a clerical error in dates or initial specifications. Findings regarding the timeline carry a benign alternative explanation. Raw data are unavailable, so conclusions remain provisional pending author clarification and institutional review.

Verdict

🟡 Questionable — One confirmed methodological error and one partially confirmed consistency issue. Final determination of misconduct requires raw-data inspection and institutional investigation.

Key findings

Confirmed (Finding 1): Instrument–methodology mismatch. Section 1.2.3 states that "PocketPEA chlorophyll fluorometer" was used to determine SPAD values, photosynthetic performance index, and Fv/Fm. Pocket PEA measures chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics (Fv/Fm, PI), not SPAD. SPAD values require a leaf chlorophyll meter based on light transmittance (e.g., SPAD-502, Konica Minolta). The two instruments rely on different optical principles; a fluorometer cannot yield SPAD readings. This is treated as a confirmed common-sense methodological error indicating possible careless writing or unfamiliarity with instrumentation.
Partially confirmed (Finding 2): Growth-rate vs. self-described slow growth. The introduction characterizes Ormosia hosiei as "naturally slow-growing," yet Table 1 implies that 3-year-old seedlings planted in February 2024 (initial basal diameter 8.74–9.86 mm, height 0.55–0.61 m) reached grade thresholds of ~14.75 mm and ~0.98 m within six months (grading in August 2024). This represents ~60–70% increases in both diameter and height within a half-year, conflicting with the stated slow-growth characterization. The most parsimonious interpretation is a clerical error in planting date, initial specifications, or grading window; raw data are needed to confirm.

Evidence highlights

Direct quote (Finding 1): "利用PocketPEA叶绿素荧光仪测定SPAD值(soilandplantanalyzerdevelopment，表征叶片叶绿素相对含量)、PSⅡ的最大光化学效率(Fv/Fm)和光合作用性能指数."
Quantitative figures (Finding 2): initial basal diameter 8.74–9.86 mm and seedling height 0.55–0.61 m at planting (February 2024); grade-I thresholds DGL ≥ 15.43 mm and SH ≥ 1.05 m at August 2024 grading; grade-II thresholds 14.07 ≤ DGL < 15.43 mm and 0.91 ≤ SH < 1.05 m.
DOI: 10.11931/guihaia.gxzw202505015; ChinaXiv pre-print: 202606.00248v1 (posted 2026-06-26).

Notes

Confidence for Finding 1 is high (instrument operating principles are unambiguous and independently verifiable).
Confidence for Finding 2 is moderate; a benign clerical-error explanation remains plausible until authors provide raw measurements and exact dates.
No fabricated datasets, no statistical red flags, and no image-manipulation indicators were identified in the available materials; this report does not assert fraud.
Recommended actions: (1) request authors clarify the actual instrument used for SPAD measurements and provide raw experimental records; (2) ask authors to verify planting dates, initial seedling specifications, and grading timing; (3) consider a neutral, factual post on PubPeer pending author response.
This is an AI-assisted analysis for academic discussion only and does not constitute an official finding of misconduct.