Core Viewpoint - The case of a student from Wenzhou Medical University publishing 43 papers in a year raises concerns about academic integrity and the potential for "paper mill" practices, despite some arguing that exceptional talent can lead to such prolific output [1][3]. Group 1: Publication Details - The student has published approximately 50 articles since July 2024, with 44 being included in SCI journals and around 30 in top-tier journals as per the Chinese Academy of Sciences [2]. - Twelve of the student's papers prominently feature "Mendelian randomization" in their titles, indicating a reliance on specific methodologies [1]. Group 2: Academic Evaluation System - The incident highlights issues within the current academic evaluation system, which emphasizes quantity over quality, potentially leading students to engage in "publish or perish" mentality [3][4]. - The existing evaluation framework may inadvertently encourage the production of "routine papers," which, while methodologically sound, may lack genuine innovation [2][4]. Group 3: Institutional Responsibility - Wenzhou Medical University has a reward system for students publishing in recognized journals, which could incentivize the production of "routine papers" if not properly monitored [4]. - The university's investment in student innovation and entrepreneurship, while well-intentioned, may contribute to the proliferation of low-quality research if oversight is inadequate [4]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The phenomenon of "routine papers" could waste resources and pose risks in cross-disciplinary applications, potentially harming the academic ecosystem and long-term development of disciplines [4]. - The situation calls for a reevaluation of how academic success is defined and measured, emphasizing the need for a more balanced and fair assessment system [5].

中青报·中青网记者 张茜 袁军鹏告诉中青报·中青网记者，从数据上看，近十年来全球范围内论文撤稿总量的绝对值呈现出显著 的上升趋势。他分析，撤稿量增加和学术共同体的调查意识增强，以及检测技术日益提升有关。此外， 包括"论文工厂"、数据造假、图片篡改等在内的学术不端行为也是重要原因之一。 在全球撤稿量上升的当下，蒂姆认为，非常有必要重建学术共同体对撤稿行为的"中性"认知。 前不久，科技部会同有关部门部署开展学术不端撤稿论文专项整治行动，科研人员的目光再次聚焦到撤 稿问题上。 实际上，撤稿也是全球科研圈的重要议题。今年8月底，国际出版伦理委员会（COPE）发布了最新版 的《撤稿指南》。近期，中青报·中青网记者就撤稿相关焦点问题对多位专家学者进行了采访。 撤稿的目的是纠正学术而非惩罚作者 国际出版伦理委员会（COPE）理事、学术出版机构施普林格·自然科研诚信团队解决方案负责人蒂姆· 克塞斯（Tim Kersjes）参与了最新版《撤稿指南》的修订，他在北京接受中青报·中青网记者采访时表 示，本次修订的一大亮点是再次强调了撤稿的"中性"属性——COPE官方网站显示，撤稿的核心目的是 修正学术记录并保障其完整性，而非惩罚作 ...

据极目新闻报道，近日，有网络文章称，温州医科大学一名本科生在一年内发表40多篇论文，其论文质量和发文 速度引发热议。 据相关文章称，该本科生是温州医科大学2022级某五年制专业的大四本科生。截图中，一学术网站收录的资料显 示，该网站收录的该生的第一篇论文发表于2024年7月，2025年全年，他发表的论文共有40多篇。 而该消息也在网络上引发巨大争议，"一名本科生，居然有这么高的水平？""这背后肯定有问题"，类似的言论不 少。 有这样的疑问并不奇怪，本科只是高等教育的起步阶段，不少硕士、博士都为了论文头疼，一名本科生如何能在 短短时间便具备充分的学术能力，以如此速度发表多篇论文。这多少会让人觉得不合情理。 其实可以做一个简单的换算，一年发表40篇，平均一个月就要超过3篇，几乎不到两周就要写完一篇。而人们印象 里的论文，立意、论证、实验、修改，都需要花相当的功夫。 而且他的论文似乎还并不"水"。据报道，该生系青年科研人员，来自温州医科大学第二临床医学院，附属第二医 院、育英儿童医院，其以第一/通讯作者在多个国际权威期刊发表论文50余篇，其中2篇为封面论文，累计5篇入选 ESI全球前1%高被引、前0.1%热点论文， ...

据《韩国时报》21日报道，作弊事件涉及首尔大学自然科学学院一门面向服兵役学生开设的通识课 程，其授课与考试均通过远程方式进行。 在该课程线上期末考试中，为防止作弊行为，考生打开除考试界面外的任何窗口都会被系统记录下 来。助教在考试结束后的审查中发现，36名考生中近半数打开过其他窗口。然而，由于系统无法记录考 生访问的具体页面，难以确凿认定作弊行为，负责该课程的教授最终选择将考试成绩作废并安排替代作 业，但没有给予学生纪律处分。 该教授指出，尽管缺乏确凿证据，但可疑操作的规模之大强烈暗示存在学术不端行为。 首尔大学表示，正针对其描述的"普遍存在的作弊现象"制定"全校性应对措施"。据悉，校方正在讨 论将线下考试作为默认模式，同时在确实无法进行线下考试时，采用开卷和作业等方式代替线上考试。 该校还宣布，将推出适用于全校的人工智能工具使用指南。根据拟议中的框架，教师需在课纲中明 确阐述对使用人工智能工具的规定，以便学生提前了解相关要求。 首尔大学在今年10月期中考试期间曾曝出作弊事件，凸显采取更强有力措施遏制学术不端行为的紧 迫性。 首尔大学与延世大学、高丽大学并称韩国三大顶级高校。不久前，延世大学曝出选修某课程的数 ...

首先，它直接助长了学术不端风气，让部分学生放弃潜心钻研，转而信奉"金钱开路"的歪理，认为无需 付出汗水就能通过"挂名""买项目"获取保研、评优的加分筹码。这种投机取巧的心态一旦蔓延，将摧毁 青年一代的诚信品格，让"一分耕耘一分收获"的朴素道理沦为空谈。 （来源：千龙网） 国创赛、挑战杯等国家级大学生赛事本应是公平竞技的赛场，但新华社记者调查发现，一些中介机构， 包括在校大学生，竟然通过"挂名"和"项目整体售卖"的方式，在网上明码标价出售这些赛事奖项，帮助 参赛大学生"躺拿省国奖"，价格从数千元至数万元不等。 "国创赛、挑战杯、三创赛这些A类创新创业比赛，网上随便一搜，挂名保奖的一大堆，国金3万，国银 2万，国铜1万，一个个明码标价。"部分国家级大学生赛事乱象，早已超出作弊的范畴，形成了一条危 害深远的黑色利益链。 当"国创赛""挑战杯"等国家级大学生赛事的奖项，在某些平台被明码标价，曾经象征创新精神与竞技公 平的赛事舞台，已然沦为部分人牟取私利的"生意场"。这种乱象不仅是对学术诚信的公然亵渎，更是对 教育公平的致命冲击，若不重拳整治，必将侵蚀教育的根基与青年的价值观。 遏制乱象，绝非单一主体能完成的任务，必须 ...

国创赛、挑战杯等国家级大学生赛事本应是公平竞技的赛场，但《经济参考报》记者调查发现，一些中 介机构，包括在校大学生，竟然通过"挂名"和"项目整体售卖"的方式，在网上明码标价出售这些赛事奖 项，帮助参赛大学生"躺拿省国奖"，价格从数千元至数万元不等。 高校作为育人主体和参赛单位，更需守牢审核与惩处的最后关口。一旦查实买卖奖项行为，除严惩涉事 学生外，对指导教师及所在院系进行追责。 同时，教育部门与高校应协同改革学生评价体系，大幅降低单一竞赛奖项在保研、评奖中的决定性权 重，转而构建涵盖课堂学习、科研实践、社会服务、专业实习的多元综合评价模型。 总之，只有坚决斩断背后的灰色利益链，才能让赛事回归本位，让每一分努力都获得公平公正地对待。 奖项买卖的危害是全局性的，不仅践踏了教育公平，还助长了学术不端风气，更严重损害赛事的权威性 与公信力，使其评价功能失真。长此以往，更可能滋生教育腐败，污染学术生态。 斩断这条利益链，需要多方合力、重拳出击。切断线上交易渠道，是遏制乱象蔓延的第一步。网络平台 应建立常态化巡查与快速处置机制，及时查处相关违规信息和账号，堵住信息扩散与交易的"第一道 门"。 升级赛事评审机制，是堵住漏洞 ...

Group 1 - The Russian Academy of Engineering's China headquarters is investigating the academic misconduct case involving Guo Wei from Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, particularly regarding his claim of being elected as a foreign academician in 2025 [1] - Jiangsu University of Science and Technology has acknowledged receiving a report about Guo Wei's alleged academic misconduct in September 2025, and has initiated an investigation which confirmed serious academic misconduct, leading to the termination of his employment [3] - The university has reported the case to law enforcement, and the investigation is currently ongoing [3]

Group 1 - The Russian Academy of Engineering has temporarily suspended the foreign academician title of Guo, a former professor at Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, pending a compliance review of his submitted materials [1][2] - Jiangsu University reported that it received allegations of academic misconduct against Guo in September 2025, leading to an investigation that confirmed serious academic misconduct, resulting in the termination of his employment [1][2] - The university has acknowledged issues in the material review process during Guo's recruitment and has committed to accountability measures [1] Group 2 - Guo held multiple prestigious titles, including chief scientist at Jiangsu University, professor, doctoral supervisor, and foreign academician of the Russian Academy of Engineering, prior to the misconduct allegations [2] - The Russian Academy of Engineering was established in 1991 and currently includes 1,350 scientists and engineers, with over 200 foreign academicians from 30 countries [2]

Core Viewpoint - The statement by economist Song Qinghui highlights a systemic issue within China's higher education evaluation system, suggesting that the problem lies not with individuals like Guo Wei, but with the flawed system itself [3][4][5]. Group 1: Systemic Issues in Higher Education - The phrase "the higher education evaluation system is itself committing fraud" refers to a systemic and institutionalized false prosperity rather than simple data falsification [6]. - The evaluation system emphasizes quantity over quality, leading to a focus on publishing numerous papers rather than engaging in deep, meaningful research [7]. - A culture of "inflation" is prevalent, where researchers break down one result into multiple publications, chase trends, and replicate studies to meet evaluation criteria [8]. - The system has fostered a "paper factory" culture, where academic misconduct such as ghostwriting and interest exchange has emerged as a gray industry [9]. - The simplification of complex educational and research activities into cold numbers and metrics distorts talent evaluation, favoring those who can navigate the system over those who conduct substantial research [9]. - Resources are misallocated, with significant research funding directed towards projects that yield easy publications rather than addressing critical challenges [10]. Group 2: Public Resonance and Controversy - Many in academia resonate with the statement, feeling that it articulates a widely recognized issue that they often cannot voice [11]. - There are concerns that this flawed system produces graduates with superficial qualifications, damaging the reputation and long-term development of Chinese higher education [11]. - Some argue that even if the system is flawed, individual academic misconduct should not be excused, raising questions about moral responsibility [11]. - The extremity of the statement has sparked debate, as it may overlook the efforts of many scholars who are genuinely dedicated to research [11]. - The challenge remains in reforming this complex evaluation system, which is a global issue, and finding solutions is a significant hurdle [11]. Group 3: Implications for Higher Education - Song Qinghui's statement serves as a critical examination of the current state of higher education in China, prompting a national reflection on the purpose and direction of universities [12]. - It raises fundamental questions about whether universities should prioritize metrics and indicators or return to their core mission of truth-seeking, character development, and societal service [12]. - The reality is that when a system rewards misconduct, every individual who engages in fraud is merely a product of that system [13].

Core Points - The incident involving Guo Wei, a former chief scientist at Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, has attracted widespread attention due to allegations of academic misconduct [1][3] - The university has initiated an investigation after receiving reports of Guo's academic fraud, leading to the termination of his employment and a report to law enforcement [3][10] Group 1: Allegations and Investigation - Guo Wei was accused of serious academic misconduct, which prompted Jiangsu University to terminate his employment and report the case to the police [3] - The university acknowledged shortcomings in the review process during Guo's hiring and promised to hold accountable those responsible [3][10] Group 2: Student Experiences and Concerns - A former doctoral student, Lin Chu, expressed doubts about Guo's qualifications, noting that he had never attended classes and had imposed unreasonable admission criteria [4][6] - Lin reported that Guo's teaching style was unprofessional, lacking in-depth academic discussion, and that he had no laboratory or research equipment available for students [7][9] Group 3: Financial Misconduct - Lin provided evidence of Guo's questionable financial practices, including expenses for self-promotion and non-existent research activities [8] - Allegations surfaced regarding Guo potentially misappropriating research funds, although university officials denied claims of significant financial misconduct [11][12] Group 4: University Policies and Hiring Practices - Jiangsu University has a structured process for hiring chief scientists, which includes rigorous evaluations and criteria for selection [10][12] - The university's policies stipulate that any misconduct during the hiring process could lead to disqualification from future appointments [12][13]