The giraffe “revives” in the thesis, and the academic authority “dies” in the hypothesis

If an operation fails, it is a failure; if it is not saved, it is not. The author of the hospital participating in the operation should not confuse the black and white, use the results of brain tonifying as a demonstration of some “achievements” of medical skills, and use various pretexts to cover up the wrong.

a giraffe who died after fracture reduction surgery in Nanjing jinniuhu wildlife park in May 2019 was “resurrected” in an article published in a comprehensive journal, which also said that “the affected limb recovered well after 5 months of telephone follow-up”. The incident has raised doubts about relevant research.

according to the report, in May last year, a giraffe in Nanjing Jinniu Lake wildlife Kingdom suffered an accidental fracture. Because he had no bone setting equipment and experience, he turned to a professional hospital for help, and the Nanjing Hexi AMC central animal hospital undertook the operation free of charge. This controversial article was written by four doctors who participated in the operation.

in terms of the results, this extremely difficult and high-risk operation failed in the end, and the giraffe died within a week after the operation. However, in the articles written by doctors, the dead giraffe was strangely “revived”, “the infected deer could temporarily step on the ground on the second day after the operation” and “after 5 months of telephone follow-up, the affected deer’s affected limbs recovered well”, which was obviously contrary to the facts.

obviously, the animal hospital did not conduct telephone follow-up, and did not track the actual recovery after the operation, so it made up the fact that the giraffe was saved. In the face of doubt, the first author of the article, the chief surgeon, argued that the rehabilitation situation was “advanced hypothesis”.

the so-called “advance hypothesis” is nothing more than the concept of stealing, without actual verification, that is fraud. How well the giraffe recovers after the operation is actually an easy question to verify. You can make a phone call to solve it. If there is a bit of rigor, I believe that we will not make such low-level factual mistakes. What is even more puzzling is that after being pointed out, the animal hospital and relevant doctors still argue, even diluting the fault with this article as a communication release.

but the problem is that it is an academic journal with strong professionalism, and it also publishes research reports and literature reviews in various fields of animal husbandry and veterinary medicine. To publish an article on it is not to write essays or diaries, but to pursue preciseness and to conform to the facts is the most basic requirement. The act of fabricating facts is untenable under any circumstances.

as a matter of fact, the first item in the requirements for contributions to the official website of the journal mentioned that “the argument should be reliable”. This article on giraffe surgery is obviously not supported by reliable evidence. Not to mention the “hypothesis” of rehabilitation results in advance, even the plot of “temporarily stepping on the ground on the second day after surgery” is also the conclusion from watching reports and video brain tonic, which has no rigor.

to say the least, even if the article is not a strict paper, but only a communication, can we cover up the fault of fraud? If an article is published for the industry and the public, it must be supervised by the outside world and be authentic, rather than full of speculation and brain toning.

it is understood that after raising doubts, the author has applied for “correction” to the case concerned. Perhaps in the author’s opinion, such obvious forgery seems to be just a minor flaw, which only needs to be corrected. If we hold this attitude, what is the seriousness and authority of academic research?

anyway, netizens’ criticism on this matter is not a storm in a molehill. Academic research should have an academic appearance, and no adulteration and speculation are allowed. If an operation fails, it is a failure; if it is not saved, it is not. The author of the hospital participating in the operation should not confuse the black and white, use the results of brain tonifying as a demonstration of some “achievements” of medical skills, and use various pretexts to cover up the wrong.

for this journal, we should strictly deal with the fraud cases on the basis of thorough investigation, and withdraw the manuscript if it reaches the withdrawal standard. If we blindly protect the way to deal with the big problems, we will only dispel the professional and authority of the journal in the end. 08/16/2020