Dear Duan,

I apologize for my delayed response to your emails. Because your emails originate from China, I needed to approval from our Chief Information Security Officer before responding.

When investigating allegations of research misconduct, I first identify whether the allegation meets the definition of 1. Plagiarism, 2. Falsification, or 3. Fabrication.  I ran the following publications through a plagiarism detection software program, Copyleaks.

📷

Copyleaks did not identify any plagiarized content in these publications.

I then ran a program to check for matches between Dr. Haye’s publications and the three pre-prints that you authored that I was able to download from ResearchGate or PubMed, including the one from PsyArXiv. These comparisons did not indicate any true plagiarism.

While it’s possible that researchers use each other’s ideas without appropriate credit, unless there is actual plagiarism in published material, no determination of research misconduct can be made. I would advise you to take your case to the publisher of the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, but it sounds it sounds like you already did this.

Please understand that I’m not ignoring your concerns, but there is nothing more I can do regarding this situation.

Best regards,

Michele

____________________________________

Michele Dondanville

Director, Research Integrity & Security

University of Nevada, Reno

(775) 784-6360

From: dxx36732 Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 5:25 AM To: Michele A Dondanville Subject: report plagiarism

For example, this kind of honest officer who uses duplicate software to investigate plagiarism, this kind is obviously covering up the plagiarist, how we can he rely on such people to investigate academic misconduct?

In my opinion, stealing money and stealing food is stealing, and plagiarizing others' theory is not a more serious "stealing"? Making fake goods is a fraud, the paper fraud is not a more serious fraud? Why is this "theft" and "fraud" not within the scope of the police profession?

Dear Duan Xian Xiang , in the cases of harassment, police investigation is a MUST!

This case study is from India.

Female research scholar files complaint against MG University faculty for 'misconduct'

"A research student who came to attend a seminar at M G University from another state has filed a complaint against a faculty in the campus over alleged misbehaviour. The complaint has been forwarded to the University’s internal committee...

As part of the seminar, the student had gone with the said faculty to visit migrant worker camps in Ernakulam. The complaint states that the faculty had misbehaved with the student during this visit. The student has also expressed concerns about her mental health following the incident in her complaint..."

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/female-student-files-complaint-against-mg-university-faculty-for-misconduct-1.10172726

This is related research question with many cases, sources and examples.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_scientific_fraud_be_handled_as_criminal_offense

Ljubomir Jacić

Yes, sexual harassment must be investigated, but I believe other forms of academic misconduct should also be investigated.

Duan Xian Xiang

Of course, any type of academic misconduct should be investigated, not only by academic institutions and its relevant bodies, like ethical and integrity committees..., but also by prosecutor's office, which depends on misconduct qualification.

Research to Ruin: The Worsening Spectre of Academic Fraud

"Rather than breaking barriers to knowledge, these days universities seem more adept at breaking the norms of academic conduct. An apparently endless stream of cases involving data manipulation, plagiarism, retractions and other errors and deceptions by researchers ranging from obscure graduate students to world-famous scientific names is plaguing academia in Canada and around the world. But is this avalanche of academic malpractice – what one scientist bemoaned as “corrupt, incompetent, or scientifically meaningless research” – a sign of weakening standards? Or are we now just paying more attention? Examining several troubling examples and interviewing experts from the frontlines, Lynne Cohen probes the dark underbelly of academic fraud...

And yet Oransky is too careful a scientist to come to any unverified conclusions. When asked whether the problem of academic fraud is getting worse, he replies, “I don’t know how you would prove it.” The observed uptick in retractions and academic scandals could be due to an increase in bad behaviour among scholars. Or it could be a result of more attention being paid. If police decide to crack down on speeders, for example, they might assign more officers to patrol the roads, who will then write more tickets. But an increase in speeding tickets doesn’t necessarily prove the number of speeders has increased. Just that more speeders got caught."

https://c2cjournal.ca/2025/01/research-to-ruin-the-worsening-spectre-of-academic-fraud/

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

Thank you for raising your concerns to us. My name is Priyanka and I work in the Research Integrity department. Please note that we will investigate these concerns and let you know of the final outcome. In the meantime, I kindly request further information. Your co-operation is most appreciated. Here is what we need from you

• Please share a link to your article
• Also, I kindly request an institutional email from you and the name of your institutional affiliation.
• Please explain your link with with authors Hayes and Hoffman. In one of the documents you sent, you mentioned that you discussed your paper with them and have emails as evidence. Could you share this with us?
• Lastly, please further explain your collaboration with Hayes and Hoffman.

The evidence you share with us will not be stored or shared, and will be immediately deleted after the investigation is complete and we will confirm the deletion of the data with you. Please be assured that we are taking this matter very seriously.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes Priyanka Chandi Senior Research Integrity Specialist Frontiers | Research Integrity Team | London Office 📷 New Broad Street House 35 New Broad Street EC2M 1 NH, London, UK www.frontiersin.org We deliver the best OA publishing experience Office T +41 215 101 797 For technical issues, please contact our Application Support team “Discover how Frontiers ensures research integrity through peer review, quality checks, and proactive fraud detection. Explore our research integrity page.”. --------------- Original Message --------------- From: dxx36732 [[email protected]] Sent: 06/12/2024, 04:00 To: [email protected] Subject: report plagiarism

Frontiers in Psychology Editorial Office2025-02-20 20:28 发至dxx36732 详情 Thank you for your email. We are currently experiencing a high volume of emails, and it may take up to 5 working days for us to respond to you. Thank you for your patience. Need an answer quickly? Our AI Assistant, Fronton, is ready to help you in the Review Forum. Fronton can help answer most questions, including status updates and technical questions, as well as advise you on the next steps of the peer review process. Log in to the Review Forum to chat with Fronton today. Kind regards,

Frontiers Editorial Office Frontiers in Psychology - Peer Review2025-02-20 20:16 发至dxx36732 详情 Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

Thank you for sharing your concerns with us in detail, it is very much appreciated. After further discussion, I kindly advise to raise your concerns with the relevant institution of Hays and Hoffman. Please note that we abide by COPE guidance and are acting in line with it.  Your feedback has been valuable, however, as we have taken necessary steps to review your concerns and discussed what further actions or improvements might be appropriate based on your insights, we will be closing this case for future discussion. As such, please note that we are unable to respond to any additional inquiries or follow-up communication on this matter, beyond this final correspondence.  We appreciate your understanding and support as we continue striving for excellence in maintaining the integrity of our journal. Best wishes

Priyanka Chandi

Senior Research Integrity Specialist

Frontiers | Research Integrity Team | London Office

New Broad Street House 35 New Broad Street EC2M 1 NH, London, UK

www.frontiersin.org

We deliver the best OA publishing experience

Office T +41 215 101 797

For technical issues, please contact our Application Support team

“Discover how Frontiers ensures research integrity through peer review, quality checks, and proactive fraud detection. Explore our research integrity page.”.

--------------- Original Message ---------------

From: dxx36732 [[email protected]]

Sent: 23/01/2025, 11:15

To:[email protected]

Subject: Re: report plagiarism

Dear Priyanka  Hi,Nice to meet you. My email link may be unstable, so the sharing link may be corrupt. My paper is called "Psychological Program", which can be found on the preprint PsyArxiv, including the 2018 to 2023 version, and there are also papers on the ResearchGate website. I am not a professional psychologist, I am a psychological consultant, even I am not a full-time psychological consultant, I only occasionally consult on the Internet for people in need, so, I don't have institutional email. My degree is only an associate degree in psychology. But as I did to the other investigators. The black swan event exists, although the probability is very small, but it may happen. I am an Oriental, living in a country with underdeveloped psychology, wrote a theory, and then I claimed that it was plagiarized by famous scholars in the most developed country in the world. The probability of this happening is very small, but it may happen. I hope that my degree and status will not affect the investigation. I only learned about the existence of ResearchGate website in 2018. Before that, I did not know Hays and Hoffman, although Hayes's ACT was introduced in 2016, And it was spread to China in 2016，but I have never heard of or read this book. After I sent a preprint in 2018, I desperately wanted to communicate with people. So I sent private messages to many psychologists on the Research Gate website, including Hayes and Hoffman. Hoffman never responded to me, and Hayes quickly responded to me, and I am grateful to him. In 2018, Hays actually didn't agree with my theory, just a polite comment. That didn't change until 2020. However, I didn't know that things had changed at this time. I did not contact Hayes after 2018 and 2020. Until 2022, because of this paper ((Embracing the Complexity of oru lnner Words: Understanding the Dyanamics of Dynamics of Self-Compassion and Seluf-Criticism), I suspected that Hayes was stealing my theory.So, I sent a private message at the research gate asking him what was going on, and I put his email in the attachment. He responded to the email. However, the view of this email is not his 2022 view, but his 2018 view, he deliberately repeated his 2018 view, but the 2022 paper shows that he has already changed his view of my theory in the email. In 2022, he was already plagiarizing my theory on a large scale, his papers were his real thoughts and opinions, and his email in response to my plagiarism accusation was just a repeat of his own views on my theory in 2018. But after January 2020 (that is, after the discussion), his thoughts and opinions have already changed. The views in his 2022 email are inconsistent with those in his contemporary thesis.（Embracing the Complexity of oru lnner Words:Understanding the Dyanamics of Dynamics of Self-Compassion and Seluf-Criticism)（Because the editor in chief of this paper did not understand the paper, and because I did not know at that time that Hays changed the "treatment process" of PBT to "biopsychosocial process" in September 2020, the editor found that the two papers were not saying the same thing. Of course, I don't admit the result, but it seems to matter. So, I decided to wait, I knew Hayes and they would post related papers, and I knew he would eventually come up with the whole theory.） In 2024, I found this paper by Hayes (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices), in which he fully proposed the theory of psychological procedure (he still called it PBT), so I decided to pursue it. I downloaded almost all of Hayes's papers after 2018, and some were papers from before 2018. Then I found something that I couldn't believe by myself:Since September 2020, Hayes has modified the "therapeutic process " in PBT to "biopsychosocial process" (because my theory is "psychological process", "physiological process", "interpersonal relationship process", etc., and Hayes and others have used "biopsychosocial process" to perfectly replace my term). Then I found that after 2020, they published papers corresponding to various parts of the theory, but in different terms. In January 2020, after Hayes and I discussed it, he and others published many papers. The first is this article (A process-based approach to psychological diagnosis and treatment: The conceptual and treatment utility of an extended evolutionary meta model), in which they propose EEMM to change the "therapeutic process" in PBT to "biopsychosocial process." In this paper (A process-based approach to cognitive behavioral therapy: A theory-based case illustration, They used functional analysis instead of my "psychological analysis" to identify psychological processes. In this paper (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices) uses case conceptualization to replace "psychological analysis" to identify psychological processes, physical processes, etc. In this paper (Embracing the Complexity of oru lnner Words: Understanding the Dyanamics of Dynamics of Self-Compassion and Seluf-Criticism), They replace my "program flow chart" with a "network model" . In the article D (Toward a Unified Framework for Positive Psychology Interventions: Evidence-Based Processes of Change in Coaching, Prevention, and Training), they cite the terms "variation, selection, retention," in evolution as this part of the "modified mental process" of the theory. Finally, they also proposed in article F (Developing an item pool to assess processes of change in psychological interventions: The Process-Based Assessment Tool (PBAT)) that PBAT (I will not say that PBAT will steal my method of psychological process measurement). In this way, they copied all my theory, and they wrote a theory like me by proposing EEMM, extending functional analysis (or case conceptualization), and introducing evolutionary terms and network models. Of course, they published more than one paper in each part of the theory, and the above are just the most typical papers in each part of the theory. Most of the papers published by Hayes and C et al. after 2020 were plagiarism of my theory, especially PBT and ACT. In short, Hayes and others want to put forward this theory, use "EEMM" to replace my "process" as elements and tools unified psychology fields "," with "functional analysis" or "case conceptual" replace my "psychological analysis", "with" network model "to replace my" program flow chart ", with" evolution of'variation, selection, retention "to replace my" psychological program modification method ". Thus, they proposed the theory "separately" and "independently". Of course, this is condensed from the 2024 paper (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices).To see the change concept trick they played, we have to focus on almost all papers by Hayes et al. after 2020, especially PBT and ACT, and ACT has also been modified. They are the theory apart: "process as a unified psychological tool", "with 'psychological analysis to identify psychological program", "with" network model "or" process flow chart describe psychological activity "," with' selection, variation, retain'modify the psychological process "," with PBAT measurement and quantitative psychological process ", they put the theory of these parts respectively. In 2024, this paper (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices) then summarizes and proposes the complete theory. As for Hoffman, I did not discuss with him. Although I sent the paper to him at the researchgate in 2018, he never replied (he is smart, so I have no evidence that he read my paper), so I have no evidence to prove that he read it. I certainly guess he saw it, but that is not in evidence. In 2024, I email him accusing him of plagiarizing my theory, and he did not respond to me. Instead, he withdrew from the ResearchGate website and deleted all his papers and materials. Other authors of this event, including Ciarrochi et al of the Australian ACU, also never take notice of me, however, I knew they were all participants. My main connection is with Hayes. I didn't collaboration with Hayes, Hoffman, etc, and Hayes didn't agree with my theory until 2020. But, after I discussed with him in January 2020, he started using different terms, citing different concepts and tools from September, and then, they published a lot of papers, and they completely copied my theory. They extend the functions of concepts such as functional analysis, case conceptualization, enabling functional analysis to identify mental processes, citing evolutionary terms as a way to modify mental processes, and using the "network model" as a model to describe mental processes.(Their network model is not a real network model, because the real network model is spider-shaped, its nodes are "symptoms", while Hayes's network model is "processes", which is obviously the same as my program flowchart.)。They did not use the same terms and concepts as I did, they extensively cited previous works and papers, and then used them to separately propose the "psychological procedure" theory (PBT). But, just like the calculus. Now I know Newton's calculus, and then I go to the previous works such as Archimedes, Barrow, Fermat, etc., to quote the relevant calculus ideas, and then I say I found calculus independently, is that ok? Obviously that doesn't work. Hayes and others are like this, read my paper, and discussed with me (know my most critical idea: process or procedure as a tool to describe the law, and should take the "psychological process" as the goal.), Then, Hayes and others extended their ideas and concepts, and thus proposed another theory. But their new theory is the same as mine, except for the "PBAT," which is used to measure mental processes. Best Duan Xian Xiang     dxx36732 [email protected] 展开引用 dxx36732 Dear Priyanka Hi,Nice to meet you. My email link may be unstable, so the sharing link may be corrupt. My paper is called "P 2025-01-23 19:15

We should be aware of importance of training police to avoid and fight against academic misconduct!

Professional Ethics and Academic Integrity in Police Education

"The involvement of police officers in qualifying training and professional development at universities has highlighted the issue of academic misconduct. There has been relatively little attention paid by universities to the particular issues raised by academic misconduct on professional programmes, including policing. Police students involved in academic misconduct, face the prospect of receiving more serious sanctions than student contemporaries on other programmes, as they could face direct sanctions from their employer as well as reputational damage that could negatively impact on future career prospects. This article will set out the challenge of responding to academic misconduct in police and other professional programmes. It will outline the findings of a small pilot investigation into the views of professional partners and summarise lessons that might be learned from other professional disciplines. It will argue that academic integrity on police programmes should be conceptualised and taught as a matter of professional ethics."

Article Professional Ethics and Academic Integrity in Police Education

Before January 2020, Hoffman and Hayes's PBT theory looked like this:

1. The theme is "therapeutic process ";

2. The analysis method is "time-series analysis";

3. The description model is a network model; namely, a spider web-shaped model;

4. There is no way to modify the "mental process";

However, after January 2020 (after Hayes and I discussed it), Hoffman and Hayes and others fully revised the PBT. They changed the "therapeutic process" to "biopsychosocial process", "time series analysis" to "functional analysis" or "case conceptualization", "Node of network model" to "process"; and introduced the evolutionary terms "variation, selection, retention". Through these operations, their PBT became my theory of psychological program.

Dear Priyanka

Hi,Nice to meet you.

My email link may be unstable, so the sharing link may be corrupt. My paper is called "Psychological Program", which can be found on the preprint PsyArxiv, including the 2018 to 2023 version, and there are also papers on the ResearchGate website.

I am not a professional psychologist, I am a psychological consultant, even I am not a full-time psychological consultant, I only occasionally consult on the Internet for people in need, so, I don't have institutional email. My degree is only an associate degree in psychology. But as I did to the other investigators. The black swan event exists, although the probability is very small, but it may happen. I am an Oriental, living in a country with underdeveloped psychology, wrote a theory, and then I claimed that it was plagiarized by famous scholars in the most developed country in the world. The probability of this happening is very small, but it may happen. I hope that my degree and status will not affect the investigation.

I only learned about the existence of ResearchGate website in 2018. Before that, I did not know Hays and Hoffman, although Hayes's ACT was introduced in 2016, And it was spread to China in 2016，but I have never heard of or read this book. After I sent a preprint in 2018, I desperately wanted to communicate with people. So I sent private messages to many psychologists on the Research Gate website, including Hayes and Hoffman. Hoffman never responded to me, and Hayes quickly responded to me, and I am grateful to him.

In 2018, Hays actually didn't agree with my theory, just a polite comment. That didn't change until 2020. However, I didn't know that things had changed at this time. I did not contact Hayes after 2018 and 2020. Until 2022, because of this paper ((Embracing the Complexity of oru lnner Words: Understanding the Dyanamics of Dynamics of Self-Compassion and Seluf-Criticism), I suspected that Hayes was stealing my theory.So, I sent a private message at the research gate asking him what was going on, and I put his email in the attachment. He responded to the email. However, the view of this email is not his 2022 view, but his 2018 view, he deliberately repeated his 2018 view, but the 2022 paper shows that he has already changed his view of my theory in the email. In 2022, he was already plagiarizing my theory on a large scale, his papers were his real thoughts and opinions, and his email in response to my plagiarism accusation was just a repeat of his own views on my theory in 2018. But after January 2020 (that is, after the discussion), his thoughts and opinions have already changed. The views in his 2022 email are inconsistent with those in his contemporary thesis.（Embracing the Complexity of oru lnner Words:Understanding the Dyanamics of Dynamics of Self-Compassion and Seluf-Criticism)（Because the editor in chief of this paper did not understand the paper, and because I did not know at that time that Hays changed the "treatment process" of PBT to "biopsychosocial process" in September 2020, the editor found that the two papers were not saying the same thing. Of course, I don't admit the result, but it seems to matter. So, I decided to wait, I knew Hayes and they would post related papers, and I knew he would eventually come up with the whole theory.）

In 2024, I found this paper by Hayes (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices), in which he fully proposed the theory of psychological procedure (he still called it PBT), so I decided to pursue it. I downloaded almost all of Hayes's papers after 2018, and some were papers from before 2018. Then I found something that I couldn't believe by myself:Since September 2020, Hayes has modified the "therapeutic process " in PBT to "biopsychosocial process" (because my theory is "psychological process", "physiological process", "interpersonal relationship process", etc., and Hayes and others have used "biopsychosocial process" to perfectly replace my term). Then I found that after 2020, they published papers corresponding to various parts of the theory, but in different terms.

In January 2020, after Hayes and I discussed it, he and Stefan G.Hofmann and Joseph Ciarrochi(ACU) published many papers. The first is this article (A process-based approach to psychological diagnosis and treatment: The conceptual and treatment utility of an extended evolutionary meta model), in which they propose EEMM to change the "therapeutic process" in PBT to "biopsychosocial process."

In this paper (A process-based approach to cognitive behavioral therapy: A theory-based case illustration, They used functional analysis instead of my "psychological analysis" to identify psychological processes.

In this paper (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices) uses case conceptualization to replace "psychological analysis" to identify psychological processes, physical processes, etc.

In this paper (Embracing the Complexity of oru lnner Words: Understanding the Dyanamics of Dynamics of Self-Compassion and Seluf-Criticism), They replace my "program flow chart" with a "network model" .

In the article D (Toward a Unified Framework for Positive Psychology Interventions: Evidence-Based Processes of Change in Coaching, Prevention, and Training), they cite the terms "variation, selection, retention," in evolution as this part of the "modified mental process" of the theory.

Finally, they also proposed in article F (Developing an item pool to assess processes of change in psychological interventions: The Process-Based Assessment Tool (PBAT)) that PBAT (I will not say that PBAT will steal my method of psychological process measurement). In this way, they copied all my theory, and they wrote a theory like me by proposing EEMM, extending functional analysis (or case conceptualization), and introducing evolutionary terms and network models.

Of course, they published more than one paper in each part of the theory, and the above are just the most typical papers in each part of the theory. Most of the papers published by Hayes and C et al. after 2020 were plagiarism of my theory, especially PBT and ACT.

In short, Hayes and others want to put forward this theory, use "EEMM" to replace my "process" as elements and tools unified psychology fields "," with "functional analysis" or "case conceptual" replace my "psychological analysis", "with" network model "to replace my" program flow chart ", with" evolution of'variation, selection, retention "to replace my" psychological program modification method ". Thus, they proposed the theory "separately" and "independently". Of course, this is condensed from the 2024 paper (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices).To see the change concept trick they played, we have to focus on almost all papers by Hayes et al. after 2020, especially PBT and ACT, and ACT has also been modified. They are the theory apart: "process as a unified psychological tool", "with 'psychological analysis to identify psychological program", "with" network model "or" process flow chart describe psychological activity "," with' selection, variation, retain'modify the psychological process "," with PBAT measurement and quantitative psychological process ", they put the theory of these parts respectively. In 2024, this paper (Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices) then summarizes and proposes the complete theory.

As for Hoffman, I did not discuss with him. Although I sent the paper to him at the researchgate in 2018, he never replied (he is smart, so I have no evidence that he read my paper), so I have no evidence to prove that he read it. I certainly guess he saw it, but that is not in evidence. In 2024, I email him accusing him of plagiarizing my theory, and he did not respond to me. Instead, he withdrew from the ResearchGate website and deleted all his papers and materials. Other authors of this event, including Ciarrochi et al of the Australian ACU, also never take notice of me, however, I knew they were all participants. My main connection is with Hayes.

I didn't collaboration with Hayes, Hoffman, etc, and Hayes didn't agree with my theory until 2020. But, after I discussed with him in January 2020, he started using different terms, citing different concepts and tools from September, and then, they published a lot of papers, and they completely copied my theory. They extend the functions of concepts such as functional analysis, case conceptualization, enabling functional analysis to identify mental processes, citing evolutionary terms as a way to modify mental processes, and using the "network model" as a model to describe mental processes.(Their network model is not a real network model, because the real network model is spider-shaped, its nodes are "symptoms", while Hayes's network model is "processes", which is obviously the same as my program flowchart.)。They did not use the same terms and concepts as I did, they extensively cited previous works and papers, and then used them to separately propose the "psychological procedure" theory (PBT). But, just like the calculus. Now I know Newton's calculus, and then I go to the previous works such as Archimedes, Barrow, Fermat, etc., to quote the relevant calculus ideas, and then I say I found calculus independently, is that ok? Obviously that doesn't work. Hayes and others are like this, read my paper, and discussed with me (know my most critical idea: process or procedure as a tool to describe the law, and should take the "psychological process" as the goal.), Then, Hayes and others extended their ideas and concepts, and thus proposed another theory. But their new theory is the same as mine, except for the "PBAT," which is used to measure mental processes.

Best Duan Xian Xiang

Russian Thermophysicist Handed 5-Year Suspended Sentence in FSB-Linked Fraud Case

"A Siberian court on Tuesday handed thermophysicist Oleg Kabov a five-year suspended sentence for allegedly falsifying research results in a case widely criticized by the scientific community.

Kabov, 69, was arrested in October 2022 and accused of defrauding the state of 7 million rubles ($81,000) during a 2014-2016 research project on an experimental cooling unit.

Russia’s Ministry of Science and Higher Education approved his research in 2017. However, the following year one of Kabov’s former students contacted the Federal Security Service (FSB) and made fraud allegations against him..."

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/02/25/russian-thermophysicist-handed-5-year-suspended-sentence-in-fsb-linked-fraud-case-a88159

China’s top court calls for paper mill crackdown

"China’s supreme court says research fraud should be severely punished and that lower courts should crack down on paper mills — businesses that churn out fraudulent or poor-quality manuscripts and sell authorships. Some researchers are cautiously optimistic that the court’s guidance will help curb the use of these services, while others think the impact will be minimal. “Paper mills are very popular in China and there is a very huge business” involving them, says Gengyan Tang, who studies research integrity in China..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00612-3

Scientific misconduct is on the rise. But what exactly is it?

"German anaesthesiologist Joachim Boldt has an unfortunate claim to fame. According to Retraction Watch, a public database of research retractions, he is the most retracted scientist of all time. To date, 220 of his roughly 400 published research papers have been retracted by academic journals.

Boldt may be a world leader, but he has plenty of competition. In 2023, more than 10,000 research papers were retracted globally – more than any previous year on record. According to a recent investigation by Nature, a disproportionate number of retracted papers over the past ten years have been written by authors affiliated with several hospitals, universities and research institutes in Asia...

The call for an independent research integrity watchdog is long overdue.

Only through impartial oversight can we uphold the values of scientific excellence, protect public trust, and foster a culture of accountability that strengthens the integrity of research..."

https://theconversation.com/scientific-misconduct-is-on-the-rise-but-what-exactly-is-it-247352

Chinese Scientist Ostracized Over Gene-Edited Babies Seeks Comeback

"Chinese scientist He Jiankui set off global outrage and landed in prison after he skirted ethical guidelines and claimed he had produced genetically modified babies designed to resist HIV infection.

Now, the self-styled gene editing pioneer is trying to stage a comeback with another controversial project, aiming to use gene editing to prevent Alzheimer’s disease in future generations..."

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-scientist-he-jiankui-gene-editing-alzheimers-1b1af283

Fired prof accused of research misconduct, FBI involvement unclear!!!

XiaoFeng Wang, the tenured cybersecurity professor fired by Indiana University the same day as mysterious FBI raids on his homes, stood accused of academic misconduct for not properly identifying people involved in his research...

https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/fired-prof-accused-of-research-misconduct-fbi-involvement-unclear.php

Former Italian university head faces retractions and criminal investigations

"A prominent Italian pharmacologist under investigation for embezzlement and rigging university contracts has garnered a dozen and a half retractions in the last year for image alterations and duplications.

But Salvatore Cuzzocrea, the former rector of the University of Messina, told us he did not agree with the retractions because they were decided “without clear communication,” and that none of the papers had problems that he wasn’t able to reply to.

Cuzzocrea, a professor of pharmacology at Messina, is set to face an Italian court over rigging bids for university contracts and is under investigation for allegedly embezzling more than 2 million euros worth of reimbursements..."

https://retractionwatch.com/2025/04/04/salvatore-cuzzocrea-italy-university-head-retractions-criminal-investigations/

repaort paper [email protected]

📷

dxx367322024-10-07 17:152

发至acumedia

详情Hello, I don't know if it is appropriate to send this email, I want to report serious academic plagiarism, involving the following people from your university:

Joseph Ciarrochi

Keong Yap

Baljinder Sahdra

I found a paper in a journal called Journal Psychotherapy Inetgration (titled Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices) copying my theory, completely stealing my theory.I can't find the email of this journal, In 2018, I published a paper called Psychological Program in the preprint psyarxiv, while I was studying it and discussing it with psychologists. I sent this paper to many psychologists at the ResearchGate, including Hayes and Hofmann. Hays has read my paper, and I have his email as evidence to prove that he has seen my paper in 2018 and discussed it with me. I will send the email to you in an attachment.

In September this year, I found a paper they published in different terms completely proposed my theory, only different terms, ideas, thoughts, ideas and methods are exactly the same. However, you can't find out the plagiarism, because it uses completely different terms. If you compare two papers together, it will be difficult to find plagiarism from sentences and paragraphs.

They previously studied "process-based" theory and "CBT", but before 2018, there was no progress in their work, and their definition of "process" was very confused, most of the time referring to "treatment process". However, since 2019, their papers have changed very much and their thoughts have jumped. By 2022, they published a paper in another journal, and I sent an email to the editor accusing them of copying my theory. However, after rehearing, the editor thought that the two papers were not saying the same thing. I insisted that the two papers were proposing the same theory, except that the theory in their papers was very concise.

Now, I found that this paper is plagiarized, this one they write in more detail. Of course, this is the theory I put forward, and I am very sensitive to it, and I am 100% sure that they copied my theory, and that they plagiarized the whole theory.

Let me briefly introduce it below,details are sent to you as attachments:

First, their paper is about:

1. Denial DSM and statistical methods.

2. Use "process"Unified psychology

3. Propose new methods to replace the DSM and statistical methods, which are as follows:

First use the case to conceptualize the patient's psychological process, and then try to modify it.

4. Conceptualize the psychological process with cases.

5. Using a network flow chart for psychological processes

6. Modify the l psychological process.

The contents of my paper are follows:

1. Use "process" (or "program") to unify psychology to establish a general psychological theory.

2. Denial of mental statistics.(However, I have only denied a few words about psychological statistics, and they write very long.）

3. Mining the patients' psychological programs with psychological analysis.

4. Psychological programs are described in natural language and flow charts.

5. Provide ways to modify the psychological procedures.

Is it the same idea? It's just in different terms. They use the word "process", I use the "program", they use the "case conceptualization" method, I use the "psychological analysis", and they use the "network model", and I use the "program model". However, I will explain in the attached document that these are just different names, they are one thing.The word "program" in my paper is very close to "process". I didn't use the word "psychological process" at that time because it did not include "physiological process", and the word "psychological process" is not as accurate as "psychological program", so I chose this term. This is just a different name, there are many cases in my paper, I use psychological analysis to dig out a lot of psychological programs, from the perspective of these "psychological programs" itself, it is a psychological process.

Hayes and Hoffman et al use the word "mental process" to construct exactly the same theory as myself. They all use psychological analysi (they call it "case conceptualization") to dig out the psychological program (they call it "psychological process"), and then use the process to draw it out, and finally say how to modify the psychological program (they modify the psychological process). The terms are different, but the theory is exactly like mine. And I released it in 2018, and I sent it to them, so it was a very serious plagiarism.

It's not easy to see that they are copying, and you can't struggle with specific terms, because the terms of the two articles are completely different. You need to read the two articles completely and summarize what theories they put forward respectively. You need to summarize and refine their own ideas and ideas. You should look at them from an overall and macro perspective, and not tangle with the specific statements.If he is CBT (but psychologists in cognitive psychology may not necessarily have this ability, because cognitive psychology is different from cognitive behavioral therapy) or psychologists based on process theory, it is easier to see plagiarism.

In addition, don't be distracted by the "statistics" and "scales" in their paper. Their 2022 paper was so large in statistics and scales that many people attracted attention, unaware that the last few pages of their paper copied my theory.

I hope you can investigate clearly, they copied all of my theories, because of their social status, I do not know what to do, can only ask you to help to investigate.

Thank you very much, Duan Xianxiang.

附件(2)全部下载全部保存到大师空间

Dear Duan Xian Xiang , I think it is not good for your fine research question, to post 22 replies. It becomes so difficult to follow and comment. And, it all happened in three hours. I have recommended your letter/report on plagiarism.

Let me suggest the better way. Form a file from all those 22 answers and attach it to first reply.

What do You think about this proposal?

Best regards.

Dear Duan Xian Xiang , have You got any feedback from Priyanka Chandi Senior Research Integrity Specialist at Frontiers? Last communication was two months ago?

Ljubomir Jacić

Dear Duan,

After a comprehensive review of the relevant policies, procedures, and extensive documentation, the Review Officer (RO) Professor Julie Cogin, upholds the decision to dismiss the complaint. No sufficient justification was found to overturn the original findings.

The initial investigation conducted by Professor Myriam Amielh, adhered to ACU’s due process, ensuring fairness and adherence to both institutional and regulatory standards. The conclusions reached were supported by the evidence and consistent with applicable guidelines.

The RO emphasised that all concerns were meticulously reviewed and carefully given full consideration. Additionally, the RO  wishes to provide additional commentary on this case:

The complainant refers to plagiarism of a theoretical model; however, their conclusion is that the claims largely pertain to overlapping or similar language and manuscript structure (e.g., use of flow charts). These elements fall within the range of acceptable scholarly practice, especially as the content involves common disciplinary conventions in psychology, the development of definitions, and standard methodologies.

No evidence was found to suggest that the work in question involved the misrepresentation of original authorship or other forms of misconduct. Consequently, this case is now considered closed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,

Leanne

Leanne Stirling

Senior Ethics and Integrity Officer, Research Stewardship

Research Operations

Australian Catholic University

Ljubomir Jacić

The Australian Catholic University refused to conduct a formal investigation. They declined to investigate despite my possession of strong evidence.

Ljubomir Jacić

Dear Duan Xian Xiang, Thank you for sharing your concerns with us in detail, it is very much appreciated. After further discussion, I kindly advise to raise your concerns with the relevant institution of Hays and Hoffman. Please note that we abide by COPE guidance and are acting in line with it.

Your feedback has been valuable, however, as we have taken necessary steps to review your concerns and discussed what further actions or improvements might be appropriate based on your insights, we will be closing this case for future discussion. As such, please note that we are unable to respond to any additional inquiries or follow-up communication on this matter, beyond this final correspondence.

We appreciate your understanding and support as we continue striving for excellence in maintaining the integrity of our journal.

Best wishes Priyanka Chandi Senior Research Integrity Specialist Frontiers | Research Integrity Team | London Office 📷

Ljubomir Jacić

They refused to investigate. These journal or university integrity officers are ineffective—they exist to eliminate troubles for the journals or institutions, not for academic justice. These individuals shield their own institutions; without an independent investigative body, it won't work.

Court sentences three Moscow State Pedagogical University employees to prison terms for bitcoin bribes

They received rewards for defending dissertations and awarding academic degrees...

https://www.vedomosti.ru/society/articles/2025/07/10/1123327-sud-prigovoril-treh-sotrudnikov-mpgu