Generating 31 Sequences From 23 Mutations: No Recombination

[marshall320]

Hi, I’m Marshall. I report here an event of academic cheating because I find their data is fraudulent or their figures are fake.

 

These figures has been published on Molecular ecology with title “Warm–cold colonization: response of oaks to uplift of the Himalaya–Hengduan Mountains” (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/mec.14092).

 

 

Then, I show, how to find this academic cheating event.

Following the Section Data accessibility,

 

I download the sequences from ncbi GenBank. Then I align these sequences using MEGA and I account the number of variant sites. A total of 23 polymorphic sites are found. Then, I plan to do phylogenetic analysis and network analysis.

 

However, I am conscious of an abnormal situation. That is, the authors reported 31 different sequences in their paper. Or say 31 haplotypes.

Everyone know that, one mutation produce one novel sequence. How many mutations are needed if producing 31 haplotypes? At least 30 mutations if there are no recombination.

As the paper’ show in Fig. S1, there is no recombination in their data and a tree-like evolution model was suitable. The figure 5 and 6 draw the relationship of these 31 haplotypes.

 

 

How to produce 31 haplotypes from 23 mutations? Obviously, it can be done by cheating. Maybe the figures 5, 6 and S1 are bogus, maybe the data is fake. Or maybe both are cheating.

Edited August 14, 2018 by marshall320

[Vmedvil2]

I believe this to be true of many peer reviewed academic works, they falsify data constantly which is why I tend to even to be skeptical  of peer reviewed works, half the time I don't know how they even got published, peer review and publishing is just a large money racket anyways. I have submitted over 30 papers to be published and I never published them due to the fact they wanted like 2 grand to publish the paper, I was like you are insane, then began to post of forums, free publishing.

 

The Funniest published work I had seen in recent year was about odderons of CERN and how they discovered these magic particle that defined QCD, I laughed and made a thread about it on this forum and they changed it on the CERN website. I once saved CERN from Particle Lunacy may your post do the same.

Edited August 25, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[blyeanna]

I really had a great time with  write my paper for me reviews

 

your post! I am looking forward to read more blog post regarding this! Well written!