A Major Scandal: The Collapse of the Academic Leap Forward in Xi Jinping's Era

China's Stock Market Disappoints! A Crash Similar to 2015 May Be Looming! (Video Screenshot)

[People Newst] In 2026, an academic fraud scandal ignited by a dropout PhD student known as "Geng Tongxue" swept through the life sciences sector of Chinese universities. This controversy extends beyond the authenticity of a few high-profile journal articles; it represents a courageous challenge to the entire Chinese research ecosystem, educational foundations, scientific integrity, and even deeper political structures and levels of social civilisation. The exposure of multiple scholars at the dean and vice-dean levels, who hold prestigious titles such as "Changjiang Scholar" and "Outstanding Youth", for falsifying research data and producing substandard academic papers reveals not just isolated incidents of misconduct, but a systematic and structural fraud operation and industrial network, signalling a crisis in the academic leap forward of Xi Jinping's era.

The Absurd Clash of Low-Level Fraud and High-Level Titles

The scandal began in April 2026. Geng Hongwei, referred to as Geng Tongxue, took to social media to expose issues with the papers authored by Wang Ping, dean of the School of Life Sciences and Technology at Tongji University, Chen Qian, dean of the School of Life Sciences at Nankai University, Kuang Moumou, vice-dean of the School of Life Sciences at Sun Yat-sen University, and Kang Moumou, deputy director of the Tumor Prevention and Treatment Center. These papers, published in "Nature" and its affiliated journals, displayed glaring signs of fraud: data tails were excessively concentrated, with many ending in the number 5, identical postures of deceased mice, reused images without any modifications, and fixed differences of 0.3 between two columns of data. These discrepancies were easily identifiable even to non-experts, yet they managed to pass through peer review and journal evaluations without consequence.

Universities in China are responding to issues with remarkable speed. On May 6, Tongji University announced that it had found the research paper by Wang Ping's team to be involved in academic misconduct. As a result, Wang was removed from his position as dean and had his professional technical rank reduced by two levels; the first author, Jin Moumou, was dismissed. Following this, on May 30, Nankai University and Sun Yat-sen University took similar actions, removing Chen Mou from his dean position and dismissing Kang Moumou and Kuang Moumou from their roles as deputy director and vice dean, respectively. The paper was ordered to be corrected or retracted. Such prompt action is rare in the Chinese academic community.

On May 26, Xinhua News Agency published an article that criticised the situation, stating that 'despite their prestigious titles, the data in the paper is absurd and poorly constructed.' The article condemned the trend of name-only authorship, the outsourcing of research, and a quantitative evaluation system that prioritises numbers over quality. It pointed out that many 'Outstanding Youth' and 'Changjiang Scholars' who have moved into administrative roles still feel pressured to produce papers, leading to situations where students do the work and data is fabricated. In this 'digital competition,' quality control has become almost nonexistent.

Some commentators have derided this type of forgery as having 'insulted the forgery industry.' In the past, professional forgery was at least done with a level of precision, with some forgers even managing to create works that could easily be mistaken for genuine articles. Today, however, the approach is 'lazy' and 'perfunctory,' reflecting the forgers' overconfidence in the laxity of the review system.

The Communist Party of China represents a facade: from academia to social governance.

The 'Most Busy Five-Person Group' phenomenon that emerged at the end of 2025 involved common names from Baidu's name database, such as Zhang Jiwei and Lin Guorui, being extensively used in government bidding evaluations, award competitions, and public welfare project announcements. This situation has highlighted the widespread issues of formalism and fraud. State media have criticised this trend for eroding social trust, reducing government information disclosure to mere formalities. Some bidding processes involve tens of millions of yuan, yet they may simply serve as a facade for the transfer of interests.

Concurrently, the crackdown on academic misconduct has led to the emergence of a grey market for 'invisible retractions.' Intermediaries are offering services on platforms like Xianyu and Taobao, claiming they can erase traces of retractions, with prices ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of yuan per paper. Internal channels within databases like CNKI have turned into a business, which not only conceals fraudulent practices but also allows problematic papers to continue being cited, misleading subsequent research. On an international scale, in 2023, three-quarters of retracted papers involved Chinese scholars, indicating that the systemic issue of academic fraud in China has gained infamy.

The phrase 'Everything can be fake' aptly describes the social landscape under the Communist Party of China. GDP data is fabricated and inflated; infrastructure projects are substandard, akin to 'tofu dregs.' Technological patents are plagiarised from other countries; the regime is illegitimate, having usurped the Republic of China; the educational qualifications and authority of leaders are fraudulent, obtained through illegal means; and the military's combat capabilities are exaggerated, filled with impostors.

The PI system is distorted, and the institutional fallacies intertwine evaluation orientation with power.

Chinese universities have widely adopted the PI (Principal Investigator) system, which is designed to enable project leaders to manage resources effectively. However, in practice, the Communist Party of China (CPC) views universities as ideological bastions, prioritising political considerations. This has led to a significant prevalence of administrative dominance within universities, where PIs often hold key administrative roles and manage large teams. Consequently, a considerable amount of their time and energy is consumed by bureaucratic tasks, hindering their ability to conduct thorough reviews of research project data. The academic mentorship system has become corrupted by financial interests, turning graduate students into mere workers and paper producers. They face pressures from graduation requirements, mentor authority, and reliance on project funding, leading to the simplistic and crude practice of fabricating false data to enhance results. On the journal review side, there is a strong focus on logical consistency, with minimal verification of original data, which effectively facilitates academic misconduct.

The underlying issue is that the technology system under the CPC during Xi Jinping's era resembles a comprehensive Great Leap Forward model. The Party has long emphasised "technological self-reliance and strength," investing substantial funds into projects. Local officials treat this as a performance evaluation metric, reflecting the demand for a correct view of achievements. This politicisation of technological development inevitably leads to a culture of exaggeration and fraud in science. Furthermore, the evaluation system still prioritises the quantity of publications, impact factors, and administrative titles. The close binding of administrative positions with research resources has secularised the research field, driving out quality researchers and allowing those skilled in networking and piecing together results to occupy high positions in their fields. This directly contradicts the spirit of science and the laws of scientific development, as the logic of power dominates resource allocation and technological advancement, inevitably yielding negative outcomes.

Civilisation Level, Scientific Spirit, and Political System

Academic fraud is not merely a professional or technical issue; it reflects the overall level of civilisation, scientific spirit, educational environment, and even political culture in a country or region.

In today's social ecology of China, 'fraud' has become a daily necessity and a norm. Scientific research has been reduced to a tool for the advancement of bureaucrats and a cash machine for funding. Graduate students are indoctrinated from the moment they enter school with the goals of 'publishing in top journals' and 'securing projects.' This is not academic reasoning; it is a commercial strategy. The educational and research environment has become highly utilitarian, administrative, and monetised, making discussions of innovative research outcomes seem extravagant.

In a highly centralised political environment that prioritises authority and power, the concept of academic independence is difficult to discuss. Many 'Outstanding Youth' and academicians not only control funding but also engage in business ventures and military-civilian integration projects. In recent years, several academicians have been implicated in scandals, revealing a systematic chain of interest transfer within research. When political correctness takes precedence over scientific standards, and academia serves political ends, academic oversight becomes virtually nonexistent, and self-dealing can occur. Internal self-assessments become mere formalities, and peer reviews are often bound by unspoken rules.

After dropping out, Geng Tongxue committed himself to exposing fraud full-time, gaining over 2 million followers. This grassroots, spontaneous supervisory force is viewed by the Communist Party of China as fundamentally abnormal and improper. Initially, Xinhua News Agency and Ban Yue Tan publicly supported Geng Tongxue to demonstrate the official zero tolerance for academic fraud, calling him a mirror reflecting the shortcomings of the academic oversight system. However, when Geng Tongxue continued to investigate deeper into academic fraud scandals, touching on systemic issues within the Communist Party's academic research framework, the official stance quickly shifted. Geng Tongxue's Douyin account was permanently restricted, and his commercial partnerships were banned, with other platforms seemingly following suit in censorship.

The rules of the game must always remain under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). When Geng Tongxue is utilised as a tool to demonstrate the official approach to academic fraud, everything proceeds without obstacles. However, if Geng Tongxue oversteps and activates the CCP's stability alarm, addressing academic fraud becomes a secondary concern; the immediate priority shifts to combating the exposure of academic fraud.

(First published in People News) △