欢迎! 登陆 注册


Part XXXVI: The Fangangsters (VI): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (II) (4080 查看)

February 26, 2014 06:32PM
【Due to the webpage capacity,the note section could not be posted. The full-length article is attached as a PDF file.】

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XXXVI)

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

The Fangangsters (VI): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (II)


Unexpected Responses by MDPI

1. Mr. Dietrich Rordorf, the CEO
2. MDPI, the Company

Abnormal Reactions of Fang Zhouzi

1. Lin’s Legal Representative
2. Fight against an “Anonymous Internet Terrorist,” on Lin’s Behalf
3. Fight against People’s Net, on Lin’s Behalf
4. Fight against Mr. Jeffrey Beall, on Lin’s Behalf

The Photo War

1. Rordorf Initiated the Issue, by Fabrication
2. MDPI Slaps Rordorf
3. Fang Zhouzi Revives a Dead Issue
4. The Ill-intention Revealed by Stupidity

Concluding Remarks


On January 19, 2014, I published the first part of this miniseries[1], exposing the dirty secret and history of Dr. Shu-kun Lin, the founder and the president of the Swiss open access publisher MDPI AG, mainly because his close association with Fang Zhouzi. Ironically, Fang has been known internationally as a “fraud fighter,”[2] and Dr. Lin has been known, more ironically, on Fang’s New Threads website, as “an academic fraud doyen.” Further, Fang, the John Maddox Prize winner for his so called “standing-up for science,”[3] not only has been tolerating Lin’s academic fraud, and his pseudoscience publications, he also has turned himself into the most vicious fighting dog against Lin’s sole business competitor in China, Dr. Zhou Huaibei and his publishing company. In sum, the evidence I presented in the article demonstrates unequivocally that Fang’s “fraud fighting” is as fraudulent as anyone could imagine, and the relationship between Fang and Lin is monetary in nature, rather than about science or pseudoscience, or fraud or truth, as they both have claimed.

To be honest, I had no intention initially to write a miniseries on Lin and his MDPI, because I expected that they would adopt "the last strategy of all the imposters when their frauds are brought to light": play dumb, remain silent, and pretend nothing has happened, the tactic summarized by Fang ten years ago[4]. As a matter of fact, this “last strategy” has been adopted by almost every Fangangster, as well as Fang himself[5]. However, the exposure of Lin’s fraud has resulted in unexpected responses and consequences, which is significant by itself, let alone the revelation of more dirty secrets about Fang and Lin, so I decide to refocus my attention on this pair of “Servant and Master.”

Unexpected Responses by MDPI

1. Mr. Dietrich Rordorf, the CEO

On the next day after I published my Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals, Mr. Dietrich Rordorf, the CEO of MDPI, sent me a message, which contains the following points: First, he asks me to remove his name from my email list. Second, he claims that he is “from one of the oldest and most respected family from Zurich, Switzerland.” Third, he claims that he and his father had checked Lin’s background more than once, and he is “not crazy and would never collaborate with a fraudster.” Fourth, he states that “your claims are not true, not based on facts and therefore clearly constitute libels.” The only untrue fact he pointed out was a picture of their headquarters in Basel, which turned out to be vitally important (see below). Fifth, Mr. Rordorf informs me that “I can only recommend to Dr. Shu-Kun Lin to file a lawsuit against you.” Finally, Mr. Rordorf claims that “Dr. Fang is not associated with MDPI in any way.”

A letter from a Swiss royal descendant

Because Mr. Rordorf’s message was mixed in many emails bounced back from the MDPI editors, I didn’t notice it until two days later. I replied to his message immediately:

Dear Mr. Dietrich Rordorf,

Please kindly allow me to make your reply to me public. Also, please DO encourage Dr. Lin to sue me, anywhere in the world. If he doesn't, then you know who is telling the truth. I'm sorry I got you office building picture wrong, but please don't blame me for that, because what I got was Google Street View result based on the address provided on your website.

Please be advised that the message is bcc to numerous recipients.

Sincerely yours,
Xin Ge, Ph.D.

Mr. Rordorf’s response was prompt:

“Any private message sent by me is confidential any only intended for the recipient. You have to ask me for permission to further distribute my message. I do not allow you to distribute my private, confidential message.”

To which, I replied:

Dear Mr. Dietrich Rordorf,

Please let me state my positions clearly:

1. As the CEO of MDPI AG, an open access publisher, your correspondences to my open letter regarding the character of your president Shu-kun Lin, and the practice of your business, are NOT private messages. I believe I have the right to make them public at my discretion.

2. Also, as the CEO of MDPI AG, an open access publisher, you have No right to refuse accepting my messages regarding the character of your president Shu-kun Lin, and the practice of your business. On the contrary, it is your moral obligation and legal responsibility to seek such information, investigate the matter, and make right decisions based upon the facts you have found.

3. I believe that what Dr. Lin has been doing constitutes the following criminal acts: sponsoring a transnational cyber terrorist group headed by Fang Zhouzi; money laundering; unfair business competition; commercial frauds. I will continue to collect evidence relevant to these charges, and report my findings to the Swiss and Chinese governments, as well as international news media and organizations, when I'm ready.

4. Since the information has already been presented to you, what you and your associates are doing or going to do from now on will be considered intentional or knowingly doing so. In other words, you have to take full responsibility for your association with Dr. Lin’s criminal activities.

5. For the sake of Swiss royal families and Rordor ancestors, as well as yourself, I strongly suggest you consult your attorney or your father before doing anything related to the matter.

This message is cc to every MDPI editors.[sic]

Sincerely yours,

Xin Ge, Ph.D.

I have not heard from Mr. Rordorf ever since.

2. MDPI, the Company

On Jan. 22, 2014, the same day I sent my first response to Mr. Rordorf, MDPI issued a statement on my article, entitled “Statement on Libelous Allegations against MDPI and Its Founder and President Dr. Shu-Kun Lin[6]:

In recent days defamatory messages about MDPI and its founder Dr. Shu-Kun Lin are being distributed by a "Dr. Xin Ge" and "Cunfu Yiming" using a Google e-mail address (yimingcunfu@gmail.com). We have contacted Google to request the shut-down of this e-mail address.

The messages are being distributed to all the Editorial Board members of MDPI journals in groups of 400 e-mail addresses per message. The libelous message contains lies and misrepresented facts. A clear indication of the defamatory character of this message is given by the fact that many presented arguments bear no relationship to the subject of the message.

The message is being sent because MDPI and its founder and President Dr. Shu-Kun Lin have taken a very strong stance against corruption and pseudoscience in the Chinese academic system. Since January 2013 MDPI has sponsored the "Scientific Spirit Prize in China", which is awarded annually by the organization New Threads. New Threads is chaired by Dr. Fang Shi-min (pen name: Fang Zhouzi), a renowned campaigner against academic corruption and pseudoscience in China.

Dr. Fang has made a number of enemies by systematically uncovering cases of corruption and pseudoscience within China and by Chinese scholars abroad. The sender of the message "Dr. Xin Ge" might be one of the targets of Dr. Fang. Dr. Fang Shi-min has been widely and internationally recognized, and awarded the inaugural 2012 John Maddox Prize, jointly awarded by Nature magazine and Sense about Science, in recognition of his extraordinary and courageous work. The message is one of many open letters sent by "Dr. Xin Ge" to Nature (www.nature.com) following Dr. Fang receiving the Nature magazine sponsored John Maddox prize in 2012.

However, MDPI didn’t send their statement on me to me, and Mr. Rordorf didn’t inform me about the statement in his second email to me, either. I only learned its existence when Fang Zhouzi announced the news on his microblogs on Jan. 24, in which Fang also announced that Lin “is considering suing Xin Ge in the United States.”[7] I immediately issued “A Statement on MDPI’s Statement,” and sent it via email to MDPI directly, right after it was posted online[8]. The major points of my statement are presented in the following two paragraphs:

“My message, The Fangangsters (III): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals, was posted online on Jan. 19, 2014, and sent to MDPI’s management team, some of their editors, as well as international news media, immediately after that via my gmail account, yimingcunfu@gmail.com. The article contains more than five thousand words, 14 images, 74 endnotes, and about one hundred links, providing undisputable evidences and facts supporting my statements and viewpoints. No wonder MDPI doesn’t want it to be distributed to their editors and ‘have contacted Google to request the shut-down of this e-mail address.’ What a joke for an open access publisher!

“In the statement, MDPI implied that the reason I wrote the article was because my fraud had been busted by Fang Zhouzi. The fact is, I started studying Fang Zhouzi and the social phenomenon associated with him in September 2007, and since the very beginning I have been inviting Fang’s refutations or even lawsuits, the last invitation was made public on Jan. 4, 2014 (See: 【特别声明】), in which I also extended my invitation to any of Fang’s associates. So far, neither the so called ‘fraud buster,’ nor his numerous gangsters, including Dr. Shu-kun Lin, have found their guts to accept my invitations. I welcome Dr. Lin’s lawsuit. Had Dr. Lin failed to file the lawsuit, then the MDPI’s implication in its statement would have constituted libel and defamation. I reserve my right to take legal actions against MDPI.”

The bizarre thing is, just around the time MDPI issued their statement, Dr. Lin’s CVs on his website, which I cited in my article (note 6), were deleted.

Destruction of evidence
Around the time MDPI issued its “Statement on Libelous Allegations against MDPI and Its Founder and President Dr. Shu-Kun Lin,” the webpages containing Dr. Shu-kun Lin’s CV, which I cited in my “defamatory messages,” were deleted (see the insets), presumably by Dr. Lin. It seems that Dr. Lin was unaware of the fact that these webpages had been saved by WaybackMachine, [archive.org].

What’s even more bizarre is the things happened a few days later. Probably on Jan. 27, 2014, MDPI removed its statement from the homepage of its website. And on Feb. 24, the statement was modified – they called it “updated.”

Unable to make up their mind
The screenshot of MDPI’s original statement (upper) and the “updated” version (lower). The red boxes highlight some important “updates.”

On Jan. 28, my Chinese article, The Recent Development in the Exposure of the Frauds and Evildoings Committed by the Hardcore Fang-fan and Swiss Profiteer Lin Shu-kun, was posted online[9], and I immediately sent it via email to the MDPI employees, especially those who work in China. To my surprise, my email was bounced back from every one of them. Obviously, I was systemically blocked by MDPI.

On Jan. 28, 2014, when I tried to send a message to MDPI’s Chinese employees to inform them the facts about their boss, my message was rejected by every one of the MDPI email accounts.

Of course, MDPI issued another statement on Feb. 24, 2014, Response to Mr. Jeffrey Beall’s Repeated Attacks on MDPI, which was recommended and praised by Fang and ignored and laughed at by others, including Fang’s followers on the New Threads. (The story will be told in the next part of the letter.)

Abnormal Reactions of Fang Zhouzi

As I have admitted, the reason I noticed Lin’s fraud was his close association with Fang. Consequently, I have been watching Fang’s reactions to the article exposing Lin’s fraud closely. The first impression I got from the watching is that Fang, the major recipient of MDPI’s financial support, and the most vicious attacker on MDPI’s business competitor, has been hurt personally much more than Lin has been, because his reactions to the exposure made those exhibited by MDPI and Lin look amateur and childish, which alone serves as a proof of my original suggestion: They are business partners, and they do business the same way as Fang does his “fraud busting” - fraudulently and illegally. Careful examination of Fang’s words and his deeds further supports the notion.

1. Lin’s Legal Representative

On Jan. 24, 2014, Fang posted the following message on his microblogs:

“Because the Swiss publisher MDPI sponsored the New Threads Scientific Spirit Prize, Cui Yongyuan, Yi Ming (real name Ge Xin) and others have been spreading rumors against and slandering MDPI and its founder Shu-kun Lin. MDPI has issued a statement on the matter: [t.itc.cn]. Shu-kun Lin has decided to sue Cui Yongyuan in China for damage to reputation, and he is considering suing Ge Xin in the United States.”[7]

As mentioned above, I only knew MDPI’s statement against me after Fang posted this message. Obviously, Fang’s tie to MDPI was much more direct and closer than mine.

About 20 hours after posting the above message, Fang posted another one for Lin:

“Besides having decided to sue Cui Yongyuan in Beijing, Shu-kun Lin has also decided to sue Yi Ming (Ge Xin) in the United States. I am thinking of finding a lawyer in South Carolina where Yi Ming resides or in the neighbor states. Is there anyone who wants to recommend [a lawyer]?”[10]

If you know nothing about Fang, you might be puzzled by Fang’s posts, on Lin’s behalf: Why didn’t the publisher Lin, who has more than one hundred employees and has websites in both China and Europe, announce his own decisions?

If you know a little about Fang, you might be puzzled even more: in the past several years when his gangsters’ frauds were exposed, Fang rarely offered his help to any of those unlucky guys, no matter how badly they were hurt by the exposures. For example, in last July and August, I wrote a series of 4 letters to expose the dirty history and evildoings of the fake American Ph. D. Yuan Yue, the very person who nominated Fang for the John Maddox Prize “organized” by a tiny British PR firm[11]. The exposure hurt Yuan Yue so much that Dr. Chen Tingchao, one of Yuan’s classmates at Fudan University and, ironically, one of the well-known Fang-haters, could not help but jump out to his rescue[12]. However, Fang didn’t say a single word to clean Yuan’s name and save his face in the entire duration. Fang’s reactions, or non-reactions, were the same when his other followers, such as Rao Yi of Peking University, Sun Wenjun of Harbin Institute of Technology, Pan Haidong of hudong.com, Wang Cheng of Wang Medical in New York, Xiao Ying of Tsinghua University, and Zhang Gongyao of Central South University, were exposed and pounded[13]. However, in defense of Shu-kun Lin and his MDPI, Fang has so far posted more than a hundred messages on his microblogs[14].

However, if you know Fang very well, Fang’s bizarre reactions to Lin’s misery will be totally understandable: ever since 2010, when his plagiarism history was dug up, Fang has been instigating his followers to sue me in the United States, even though he is a permanent resident of the United States, even though he has two funds available for his fight in the U. S. court, even though he has been my major target of criticism. So, why hasn’t Fang found his guts to sue me? Because he knew very well that he couldn’t win his lawsuits against me anywhere in the world – my conclusions are all based on evidence. Also, because Fang is so noxious in China right now, the only place he could take refuge is the United States, that’s why he purchased the house in California in last October. However, Fang knows the fact that there are so many “Fang-haters” in the United States and they won’t let the crimes and the evildoings he has committed over the last two decades unpunished. Therefore, if Lin files a lawsuit against one of the Fang-haters in the United States, Fang would be able to evaluate the situation more precisely. That why Fang were so actively announcing Lin’s “decisions,” for the purpose of instigating and pressuring Lin to take the action. The only problem is, Lin is not any more courageous than Fang is. He will never serve as Fang’s cannon fodder.

Last refuge
The house Fang purchased on October 2013 with $670,000 cash, possibly contributed by Lin and his MDPI.

2. Fight against an “Anonymous Internet Terrorist,” on Lin’s Behalf

Many evidences against Lin and his MDPI were collected by an internet user who identifies himself as “Independent Investigator.” The evidences are so compelling that even Fang’s believers began to doubt Lin’s trustworthiness. On Jan. 26, Cui Yongyuan reposted the following message, obtained by the “Independent Investigator” from Dr. Charles A. Trapp, Lin’s advisor at the University of Louisville:

“His former research advisor in China claimed that Lin got the idea for this project while working in his research laboratory...Lin was dismissed from our Chemistry Department for a variety of reasons...”[15]

Two days later, one of Fang’s fans sighed:

“Well, maybe Old Fang has really made a mistake in Shu-kun Lin’s affair. If what [has posted by] I. I. is fabricated, then he would be bankrupted completely. Hope Old Fang could refute the rumors.”[16]

Here is Fang’s response to the message:

“Who is this guy, he even thinks that I. I. whose rumors and lies have been exposed countless times is still not bankrupted? And [he] is still asking other people to treat each piece of rumors by the anonymous internet terrorist seriously? Let me give an example. Didn’t I. I. say that no Nobel laureates serve on the editorial board of MDPI [journals]? I pick a random example: Nobel Physics Prize winner Steven Weinberg is an editor of MDPI journal Symmetry: [t.itc.cn].……”[17]

In less than an hour, the “Independent Investigator” reposted the emails he received from Steven Weinberg, as well as Nobel laureate Richard Ernst, which was originally posted on Jan. 21[18]. Fang initially ignored the evidence, just like he ignores every piece of evidence against him. However, the repost was reposted by several influential people, including Mr. Cui Yongyuan who has nearly 16 million followers on his microblog on qq.com[19], which forced Fang to respond. And here is Fang’s response:

“An image without clear source and without context presented by the internet terrorist Zhang Shenghua of Shenzhen has been treasured by Cui Yongyuan, Wang Zhian, Yun Wuxin, and Xiao Chuanguo. Even if the email was not faked, what’s strange about Weinberg’s saying that he doesn’t remember he is an editor of an MDPI journal? MDPI is an abbreviation of a publisher, it’s not a name of a journal. If you want to ask him, you should ask him whether he is the editor of Symmetry (Weinberg is over 80 years old, so I suggest that you don’t bother him with emails for the purpose of convicting or exonerating a person). The website of the Department of Chemistry at Florida International University has a piece of news: its associate professor David Becker has been appointed to the editorial board of the journal Symmetry and he is editing a special issue. In the news it is mentioned that Weinberg is an editor of the journal [t.itc.cn]. There are 10 Nobel laureates serving as the editors of MDPI journals, including Yuan-Tseh Lee [t.itc.cn]. Is Cui Yongyuan going to spend his own 500,000 RMB to investigate the matter? It doesn’t matter you don’t know English, Yuan-Tseh Lee knows Chinese. Also, Cui Yongyuan, Zhang Shenghua have spread rumors saying that MDPI’s journals are meant to fool Chinese. The fact is, the authors and readers of the journals published by MDPI are mainly located in Europe and North America, Chinese constitutes only a small part. There are indeed many fraudulent ‘academic journal’ publishers, and the expert in the area is Jeffrey Beall of the Library of the University of Colorado. He has built a website specially to expose these companies, maintaining a long black list [t.itc.cn], on which is the Scientific Research Publishing run by Zhou Huaibei of Wuhan University, but MDPI is not on the list. Jeffrey Beall’s opinion about MDPI AG is that they don’t have problems; they are doing their best to run [the the journals] professionally:

‘I don’t see any major problems with this publisher. It appears that they are open access but don’t charge article processing fees at this time. I did see a couple small examples of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. The publisher requires copyright transfer. The papers bear a copyright statement but are open access. I will not be adding this publisher to my list at this time. It looks like they are putting in much effort to operate professionally.’

“As a matter of fact, Jeffrey Beall himself has published a paper in an MDPI journal: [t.itc.cn].”[20]

MDPI claims that there are ten or nine “Nobel Prize Laureates on the Editorial Boards of MDPI Journals.” However, at least two of them denied the claim. The image was initially posted online on Jan. 21 (see: 01-21 21:00) by an internet user who calls himself “Independent Investigator.” The post was reposted six days later by Mr. Cui Yongyuan and read by hundreds of thousands of people.

Denial of Denials
The above image is the screenshot of Fang’s post translated above (red underlines were added by me to highlight Mr. Jeffrey Beall’s name mentioned by Fang). Please note that the image inside the post is the screenshot of the emails from Drs. Steven Weinberg and Richard Ernst who had denied their involvement with MDPI. Even though confronted with such evidence, Fang, as usual, is able to deny the value of the evidence by attacking its provider, “Zhang Shenghua of Shenzhen,” who was identified by Fang just 17 hours earlier as “anonymous.” Please also note the message was posted 3 weeks before Mr. Jeffrey Beall listed MDPI as a “Questionable Publisher,” and that’s the reason Fang cited Mr. Beall as the Expert Witness for MDPI’s creditability and trustworthiness. Mr. Beall would soon be attacked by Fang as a fraudster, or even a criminal.

Later that day, Fang announced, proudly and braggingly, that Lin had expressed his willingness to sponsor the New Threads Internet Science Popularization Prize[21].

For the next nine days, it seemed that Lin and his MDPI had survived the crisis.

3. Fight against People’s Net, on Lin’s Behalf

However, on Feb. 7, 2014, Dr. Wang Zebin (web ID Yun Wuxin) published an article on People’s Net, the website own and operated by People’s Daily, the official newspaper of CCP Central Committee. The title of Dr. Wang’s article is: Could the Exposure of the “International” Journals Manufactured by Shu-kun Lin for the Purpose of Collecting Money Wake Up the Frenzy of “SCI Papers”?[22] Although short of details, the article listed almost every allegations against MDPI and Shu-kun Lin.

When Fang learned the news the next day, he behaved just like a frenetic: from 1:42 pm to 11:27 pm, he posted 23 messages, all, except for one, were about MDPI: first attacking Dr. Wang, then defending MDPI; then attacking Dr. Wang again, then defending MDPI again. Even after he had put most of these posts into an article, entitled Refute Yun Wuxin’s Slanderous Column Article on People’s Net against Shu-Khun Lin[23], and posted it on an income-generating website at about 7 pm, he couldn’t stop: he howled all the way till midnight. When Fang and his wife’s plagiarism cases were exposed in Chinese newspapers in 2011, Fang’s wrath wasn’t even close to this one. Here are two of these posts, just to show how much Fang had been hurt by the article:

“Yun Wuxin (Wang Zebin)’s ‘teacher,’ Professor Arun K. Bhunia of the Department of Food Science at Purdue University is the editor of MDPI journal Foods, and in his CV he listed that he had edited a special issue for MDPI [t.itc.cn]. Does Yun Wuxin dare to translate his slanderous article into English and show it to his teacher, accusing him of collecting money with Shu-kun Lin?”[24]

“There are many professors at Purdue University serving on the editorial boards of, and publishing papers in, MDPI journals. [You people] should send group [emails to them], let them know that their school has such a famous alumnus [like Yun Wuxin] in China.”[25]

4. Fight against Mr. Jeffrey Beall, on Lin’s Behalf

Again, the MDPI issue seemed to be fading away in the next ten days. And then Mr. Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado posted his article, Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers[26] on Feb. 18, 2014. Fang seemed to be the first person who got the news, and he was also the person who cried loudest.

Hours after Mr. Beall posted his article, Fang posted a comment on his New Threads[27]. One day later, Fang expanded the comment and posted it on his microblogs:

“Yi Ming (Ge Xin) sent many people an English letter slandering Shu-kun Lin, and [if a letter is] sent to many people, someone will eventually be fooled. That librarian of the University of Colorado who maintains the black list of fraudulent academic journals is the one who is fooled; he has just added MDPI on the black list, and his reasons for doing that were all copied from Yi Ming’s letter:

“The funny thing is, one of the reasons he listed is that Shu-kun Lin has become a controversial figure in China, therefore it’s better to keep away from him. Isn’t just that he was attacked by the psychopathic Fang-haters because he sponsored the New Threads Scientific Spirit Prize? If he believes Yi Ming, he should add journal Nature on his black list as well, [because] Yi Ming has written dozens of open letters to protest against Nature. Nature also has one-word title and its papers cover a broad scope. He should read these open letters written by Yi Ming, then he will know by what kind of person he has been misled. Some of the editors and authors of the MDPI journals have already been debating that book managerial clerk.

“eCampus News has published a report on the incident: [t.itc.cn]. Because this book managerial clerk maintains a black list of journals and has been mentioned by me once, the Fang-haters then found their goal to fight for, and this time they are going to celebrate their big win. The majority of the papers published in the MDPI journals are indexed by SCIE, PubMed, and Scopus, and to the academic community, that is the thing which really matters. The opinion of a librarian is actually unimportant.”[28]

Whining and complaining
On Feb. 19, 2014, the next day after Mr. Jeffrey Beall listed MDPI as one of the “Questionable Publishers,” Fang whined and complained on his microblogs like he himself had been victimized. The above is the screenshot of one of Fang’s many whining posts, translated above.

Yes, right after adding MDPI on his list of “Questionable Publishers,” Mr. Jeffrey Beall was downgraded by the “fraud fighter” Fang from “The Expert in the area of predatory publishers” to an unimportant, insignificant, marginal, lowly, and blue-collar like “book managerial clerk,” which, of course, is based on one of Fang’s concrete creeds: “A person’s value is determined solely by his value to me.”

On that fateful day, when Fang learned his patron’s fraudulent business is on the verge of credit bankruptcy, Fang didn’t go to bed until after midnight. Here are some messages he posted on his microblogs:

“The Fang-haters are now stampeding toward [Beall’s website], [even] Xiao Chuanguo went there to criticize MDPI, and that librarian treated Xiao Chuanguo warmly. I only read a report about his black list from the Science [magazine] or [the journal] Nature, and mentioned it. Based on [the facts that] he readily believed Fang-hater’s report, didn’t communicate with MDPI for their explanation, and the reasons [he] stated [for adding MDPI on the list], the things he has done are unreliable.”[29]

Someone commented:

“At the beginning it was you who wanted everyone to read his list, and now, the list becomes unimportant, it doesn’t sound good.”[30]

Fang’s reply:

“At the beginning, I only mentioned the existence of the black list once on my microblogs, I didn’t mention it in the article refuting Yun Wuxin’s slanderous article, how could that [fact] make you think I valued it dearly? It is Fang-haters who make a fetish of it, filing organized complaints, and now [they] are celebrating.”[31]

Someone commented:

“Actually I think Old Fang should have not involved himself in the matter from the very beginning. You can guarantee your own integrity, [however,] for a large institution like MDPI, it will be relatively easy to find faults.”[32]

Fang’s reply:

“The reason for Cui Yongyuan and Fang-haters to target and slander Shu-kun Lin and MDPI constantly is because they sponsored the New Threads Scientific Spirit Prize, which could be regarded that I am the reason for their implication, therefore I am certainly obligated to let everyone know the truth. Based on what I know about Shu-kun Lin and MDPI for many years, [they] won’t have problems, the majority of their papers have been indexed by SCIE, PubMed, and Scopus, and many professors from reputable schools, including Yun Wuxin’s teacher, serve on their editorial boards, which is the best proof.”[33]

On the next day, an “oztiger,” an ardent Fang-lover and a fanatical “New Atheist,” posted two comments on Fang’s Beall-posts:

“It seems that [Mr. Beall] is indeed credulous, Yi Ming gave him a photo and he used it. That photo is a wrong one, of a fast food restaurant, its street number is 62. MDPI’s address number is 64.”[34]

“It’s funny, I looked up Nature’s headquarters, it is located in a small alley.”[35]

About two hours later, Fang reposted these messages, with the following comment:

“According to the criteria they formulated, [they] should add Nature to the black list as well. Yi Ming has written countless protesting letters to Nature anyway.”[36]

From that very moment on, Fang began to pester Mr. Beall with the photo issue.

The Photo War

1. Rordorf Initiated the Issue, by Fabrication

As mentioned above, on the next day I published my article exposing Lin’s fraud, Mr. Rordorf, the CEO of MDPI, replied to me, and he pointed out the untruthfulness of my “claims” by providing one, and only one, piece of evidence, the photo of their office building. Here is what He wrote:

“What I can say is that your claims are not true, not based on facts and therefore clearly constitute libels. (You even did not get the picture of our office at Klybeckstrasse 64 right. Attached is a picture of the office entrance - just for your information.)”

The photo of MDPI office building sent to me by their CEO Mr. Dietrich Rordorf on Jan. 20, 2014

I was rather surprised by the different appearances between Google Street View photo and the photo sent to me by Mr. Rordorf, just as I was rather surprised by his quibbling about such an issue but ignoring the other much more important ones. I thought I was googling with an outdated address, so I used the address in Mr. Rordorf’s email to google again: the result was the same as what I got originally. Then, I thought that maybe the Google file was outdated, so I apologized in my email to Mr. Rordorf immediately:

“I'm sorry I got you office building picture wrong, but please don't blame me for that, because what I got was Google Street View result based on the address provided on your website.”

The original sin
The above is the original photo I used in my article to show the external appearance of MDPI’s headquarters. I only added a red arrow to the photo, everything else, including the pinkish address mark, was the same as I got originally from the Google Street View using the address “Klybeckstrasse 64, 4057 Basel, Switzerland.” Till today, Feb. 26, 2014, the address yields the same photo. The reason I added the arrow was not only because of the address sign marked by Google, but also the fact that the door on the right is marked 62, so the next door is supposedly 64. Also, I thought the street number 64 was covered by the sunshade.

To be honest, I had never doubted the authenticity of the photo Mr. Rordorf sent to me, neither did I thought it would become the fuse which ignited an international war, because, at that time, I thought Mr. Rordorf was deceived to serve as Lin’s CEO, I didn’t realize that they actually belong to each other. However, it didn’t take me very long to find out the truth.

2. MDPI Slaps Rordorf

On July 22, 2013, MDPI posted an announcement on its website, announcing the “New MDPI Office Location and Address,” accompanied with a photo and a link to the Google Map of “Klybeckstrasse 64, 4057 Basel, Switzerland.” The photo shows several stores covering several street numbers, but MDPI didn’t say specifically which door belongs to them. Furthermore, the link showed exactly the photo I posted originally. In other words, Mr. Rordorf knowingly made a wrong allegation against me. I revealed the finding in a Chinese article published online on Jan. 28, 2014[9]. It would take me a few more weeks to realize that the photo was fabricated (see below).

Mr. Rordorf intentionally made a false allegation
The above image was posted online on Jan. 28, 2014[9], showing that Mr. Rordorf knowingly made a false allegation in his letter to me on Jan. 20, 2014, in which he used the photo in my original letter (lower right) as an evidence for my “libels.” The fact is, six months earlier, MDPI posted their office photo (lower left) and provided a link to Google Map of their office location (red arrow). The MDPI photo resembles the photo I posted, and the link showed exactly the same photo also. Neither of the photos looks like the one Rordorf provided to me (upper right).

3. Fang Zhouzi Revives a Dead Issue

Then, exactly one month after Mr. Rordorf made his wrongful allegation against me, the photo bomb was detonated. On Feb. 20, 2014, at 9:52 PM, 26 minutes after he reposted the oztiger’s messages, Fang made his own allegation against me:

“Yi Ming (Ge Xin) said that the bakery is MDPI’s headquarters, and that librarian believed him, posted the street view photo as the evidence for MDPI’s fraud. In fact MDPI’s headquarters is the office beside that bakery, with the company’s label. This librarian is so easily be cheated by a cheater, how could he catch [other] cheaters?”[37]

The photos Fang posted in his microblogs to show MDPI’s real address[37]
Please note that there is no MDPI sign visible in the photos.

Fang was so excited by the discovery that he posted three more messages for MDPI before he went to bed:

“Suggest Yun Wuxin et al. ask the librarian to list Nature on the black list, the reasons are the same as [he used to list MDPI]: 1. The title of Nature has only one word; 2. The scope of Nature’s papers is broader than that of MDPI, publishing papers in any areas of natural sciences; 3. Nature has published pseudoscience papers, for example, in the 1980s, they published papers on paranormal ‘Master’ Uri Geller, which provoked protests from science community; 4. Nature’s headquarters is located in a small ally in London, looks shabbier than MDPI’s headquarters.”[38]

“In protest against Nature’s awarding me, Yi Ming (Ge Xin) has written open letters to Nature for one and a half years, and has just finished the 35th letter. Shouldn’t Cui Yongyuan and Fang-haters issue an award to encourage him? Even if he has not achieved anything, he has worked hard indeed. Yi Ming is so addicted to writing English letters that he has written an English open letter to Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who is reading it? If his English is not so broken, I might be interested in taking a look.”[39]

“Yi Ming used to teach elementary Chinese in the Confucius Institute in South Carolina (part-time), at the same time he made tofu himself with a tofu machine for sale. Now he is probably unemployed, has all the time in the world. Suggestion to Fang-haters: every one of you contributes some money to raise him so that he could study Fang’s Studies full-time.”[40]

Yes, that’s how dutifully and desperately Fang Zhouzi, the fraudulent “fraud fighter,” has been fighting for frauds.

On the next day, Feb. 21, Fang announced that he had contacted Mr. Beall, but Mr. Beall didn’t take him seriously:

“I wrote a letter to Jeffrey Beall, the librarian of the University of Colorado, telling him that he’s assessment on MDPI was misled by Fang-haters’ intentional [misleading information], for example, he took the next door bakery store as the MDPI headquarters, and I attached the photos of the MDPI headquarters. He thanked me for the information in his reply, but he didn’t want to correct his mistake, continuously using the bakery store photo as the MDPI headquarters.”[41]

Two days later, Fang made his letters to Mr. Beall, as well as Mr. Beall’s letter to him, public, which shows that Fang’s first letter to Mr. Beall is as following:

“I am regret that you are misled by Mr. Xin Ge, who has attacked me and tried to discredit any supporters of mine by deliberate fabrications, for almost ten years after I had exposed his frauds. You didn't do your own investigation and just bought everything Mr. Ge provided. I only need to give one example. You posted a bakery store photo, apparently provided by Mr. Xin Ge, and said it’s the MDPI’s Basel headquarter. It's not. MDPI's Basel headquarter is at next door. See the attached files.”[42]

The very first sentence in Fang’s letter contains at least three lies: it was in 2007 when I started studying Fang; it was in 2010 when Fang started retaliating on me, because I was going to report his plagiarism to Michigan State University, his Alma Mater; and my writings have never been refuted by Fang for the last 6 years (see my A Statement on Shi-min Fang’s Defamation and Lies[43]). No wonder Fang dared not to show his letter to the public at the very beginning.

4. The Ill-intention Revealed by Stupidity

It is really difficult to understand why Fang wanted to make his letters to Mr. Bealll public, because they revealed not only his stupidity and evilness, but also his broken English, for the countless time. For example, Fang’s “I am regret” was picked on by so many Chinese that Fang had to issue several posts to defend himself[44].

Broken English
In October or November 2012, Fang recorded, in his private room, alone, a 40-second English speech in accepting the John Maddox Prize. When the video clip was uploaded onto the internet, the entire China was shocked by Fang’s broken English, not because it is really broken, but because Fang had been pretending to be a person with extraordinarily high English proficiency. Even though having been laughed at by the whole nation, Fang is still constantly laughing at other people’s English, demonstrating his innate shamelessness.

Secondly, by revealing these letters, his lies to Mr. Beall were revealed also, as demonstrated in my A Statement on Shi-min Fang’s Defamation and Lies. Of course Fang’s lies are not limited to the first sentence in the first letter. As a matter of fact, his last sentence in the last letter is full of lies also. Here is that letter:

“Now you think you are qualified to judge a biochemistry paper? Do you know Xin Ge had sent his accusation to my mentor Dr. Zachary Burton, the editorial board of JBC and many other biochemists, and they all rejected his accusation?”[42]

The fact is, I have never sent letters to Dr. Zachary Burton, or the editorial board of JBC, or “many other biochemists,” about Fang’s fabrication of data in his Ph. D. dissertation. As a matter of fact, I have never had a private communications with any of these people, a fact could be easily verified. So why did Fang want to tell such a stupid lie? Because what Mr. Beall brought out is Fang’s worst nightmare: the “fraud fighter” Fang has never issued a formal statement on the allegation that he fabricated data in his Ph. D. dissertation, which was used in his JBC paper, even though he constantly asks those who are attacked by him to prove their own innocence. Not only that. Fang, along with his gangster Rao Yi, the dean of the School of Life Sciences at Peking University, played a really stupid self-victimization game, saying that someone pretending to be a professor at Peking University had written to “the editorial board of JBC” to accuse Fang of fabrication, but the board informed Rao Yi that they “rejected his accusation.” Till today, 3 and a half years after the incident, and despite the tremendous public outcry, neither Dr. Rao nor Dr. Fang has revealed to the public the exoneration letter from “the editorial board of JBC” yet[45]. It doesn't need a Sherlock Holmes to figure out what was really going on. So, why don’t the editors of the MDPI journals make an assessment on the figures?

An overexposure of Fang’s figures in his JBC paper shows the evidence of fabrication[46]

Although no clue about Fang’s intention for making public the letters between him and Mr. Beall could be found inside these letters, the clue was revealed from the outside. 95 minutes before Fang posted the letters on his New Threads, Shu-kun Lin posted on the same website his personal “response” to my article, in Chinese[47], which was his first appearance in the forum for the last 7 years. 106 minutes later, Lin posted his response in English[48]. (These responses will be discussed in the next part of the letter.)

Concerted actions
In a time span of 106 minutes, Shu-kun Lin, for the first time in more than 7 years, posted two messages in the forum of the New Threads (red boxes), and Fang Zhouzi posted the English letters between him and Mr. Jeffrey Beall (black box) during that period.

Almost simultaneously, Fang posted these letters on his microblogs, but with two photos and a comment:

“An internet user Leiao-615 of Basel went to the MDPI headquarters and took some photos, what he found was that the bakery had changed hand to a Turkey food store, and the MDPI headquarters hung a big sign. I transmitted the photos to the librarian of the University of Colorado, Jeffrey Beall, telling him that he should at least remove the incorrect ‘MDPI Headquarters’ photo provided by Yi Ming (Ge Xin). Not only didn’t he do it, he mocked me in his reply, saying ‘Yes, the building is extremely important. If the publisher is based in a nice building then automatically it's a high quality publisher.’ I told him that I just pointed out that he had used an incorrect photo, whether the building is important or not is another issue, I didn't understand why he refused to correct an obvious factual error, and confusing a fact with an issue. Then he asked me whether I got paid extra for this extra work. I told him nobody paid me to do this; couldn’t you ever understand that there are some people seeking truth without getting paid? I thought he was a decent person, however, because he was unwilling to correct a simple mistake, he insulted my integrity. Then he used the material provided by Yi Ming to discuss the issue about the figures in my biological chemistry paper……The followings are the communications between me and him.”[49]

Right after Fang posted the MDPI photos from that “internet user Leiao-615 of Basel,” many “Fang-haters,” or more exactly, “ex-Fang-lovers,” which mean they used to be Fang’s fans, but changed to Fang-haters later, pointed out that the user was registered on Jan. 28, 2014, and he had posted no messages at all, and he must be Dr. Shu-kun Lin[50]. The funny thing is, that person soon disappeared completely from sohu.com.

The fact is, at 00:08:00 on Feb. 23, 2014, Beijing Time, 15 hours before Lin posted his Chinese response to “Ge Xin’s slander” on the New Threads, a person called himself Leiao Jinman (雷奥金曼) posted the two photos in a forum on tianya.cn, under the title of “The New Outside Photos of MDPI’s Headquarters,” with the following message:

“It seems recently that there is a person named Yi Ming (Ge Xin) who spreads the rumor that the headquarters of MDPI is a bakery store. An internet user who resides in Swiss city Basel went to the place for the only purpose of seeking for truth. What he found is, the idiotic Yi Ming not only got the address of MDPI headquarters wrong, he also made a low level mistake. Based on a local internet user, that bakery (originally French style) stopped operating a long time ago, and sold the store to Turks, which is selling genuine Turkish snack and non-genuine Bubble Tea. According to Yi Ming’s logic, doesn’t it mean that MDPI has changed from selling bread to selling Turkish food?”[51]

Based on the stupidity in the tone of these words, that Leiao Jinman could be no one else but Dr. Lin. Indeed, the two photos posted by this Leiao Jinman are the same as those posted by Fang Zhouzi 16 hours later on his microblogs, along with the letters between him and Mr. Beall, to demonstrate his points: Ge Xin fabricated the photo of MDPI office building to cheat Jeffrey Beall, the factual error has been pointed out by the internationally renowned fraud fighter Fang; however, the local fraud fighter Beall refuses to correct his own mistake - Conclusion: Beall is unqualified to fight against frauds, so his list is worthless.

However, Fang didn’t realize that the two photos he just posted differ from the two he posted four days earlier[35], which do not have MDPI sign. Then, the questions are: where and how did Fang get these photos? And, more importantly, why did he say the photos have “the company’s label” when they don’t? (The street address labels at the top of the photos were obviously manually added.)

The answer to the first question is obvious: Fang got his original photos from Google Street View; but the answer to the second question is a little tricky: if Fang Google with MDPI address, he would definitely get the same photo as I did; so he had to deliberately search for the door with the two rubbish bags. In other words, when Fang accused me of “cheater,” he knew the person who had cheated was himself. The answer to the third question is: before Fang posted these two photos on Feb. 19, he had already got the photos he posted on Feb. 23, most likely from Lin. However, Fang was afraid that his tie with Lin would be exposed by using these photos, so he used the photos from Google Street View instead, but described the photos according to the ones from Lin. Since Mr. Beall disregarded his initial request for removing the “incorrect ‘MDPI Headquarters’ photo provided by Yi Ming,” then Lin disguised as “an internet user Leiao-615 of Basel” to upload the photos onto the internet so that Fang would be able to tell his source. Yes, the sole reason for them to waste so much time and energies was to hide their secret, and must be really dirty, tie. What a pair of idiots!

However, the real important revelation from Lin’s supposedly fresh photos is this: they differ completely from what Mr. Rordorf sent to me more than one month ago, which demonstrates one thing and one thing only: Rordorf’s photo was fabricated, for the only purpose of cheating. In other words, the management team of MDPI had already planned a cheating scam before Jan. 19, when I exposed Lin’s fraud.

Too stupid to do anything right
The upper two photos were posted online by Lin under a fake ID at 00:08 on Feb. 23, 2014 (Beijing Time)[51]. At 16:25 of that day, Fang reposted them on his microblogs, along with his communications with Mr. Beall[49]. The photos demonstrate that the outside appearance of the location is the same as those shown by Google Street View, which differs dramatically from the photo Mr. Rordorf sent to me on Jan. 20, 2014, to discredit my article (lower photo). Conclusion: Rordorf’s photo must be fabricated, obviously for the purpose of cheating. (Please note the curling visual effect of the building on the right side, which could only be done by software manipulation.)

Concluding Remarks

In Feb. 24 (Beijing Time), Mr. Beall replaced the original photo with the one similar to what Fang posted on Feb. 19, with the following note:

“An earlier photo incorrectly indicated that MDPI’s Basel office was in the bakery behind the red car. This photo better shows MDPI’s location, which is accessed through the glass door in the center of the picture, located, rather fittingly, next to the two bags of rubbish.”[26]

Of course Mr. Beall knew what’s really going on:

“This is a red herring designed to draw attention from the real issue — the quality of the publishing venue. Why are the Lin lackeys so hung up on the picture?”[52]

The winner of the Photo War is……

Retrospectively, it is really stupid for Fang, Lin, and the MDPI group to fight the Photo War: the “victory” gives them nothing but more humiliation and negative exposure. So, besides “to draw attention from the real issue,” are there any other reasons for them to start the War?

The fact is, looking for “a red herring” and then barking at it as loudly as he can is one of Fang’s conventional tactics to fight off his enemies and to cover up the frauds committed by himself and his closest gangsters, such as his wife. For example, in 2011, I made public a document detailing the plagiarism committed by Liu Juhua, Fang’s wife, in her Master’s degree thesis[53]. The evidence is so convincing and compelling, - 90% of the words in the thesis were copied from other sources directly or with little modification, - that even Fang’s hardcore followers have to acknowledge it as plagiarism. But not Fang. He picked up one comparison out of 148, insists that the entire document was maliciously fabricated[54]. In Chinese, the tactic is described as “attack somebody for a single fault without considering the whole.”

The tactic works in offensive as well: if Fang wants to fix you as a fraud, a cheater, a “faker,” then a microscopic spot in your face is more than enough: he and his gangsters would magnify the spot to infinity, and bark at it until the whole world knows the “fact” that you are a dirty person[55]. As a matter of fact, even if you think you are spotless, Fang is still able to fix you by fabricating some spots for you, as he has been doing to Mr. Beall in the last few days (the story will be told in the next part of this letter.)

In summary, the reason for Fang’s insisting on the removal of the original photo was indeed as deciphered by Mr. Beall, “designed to draw attention from the real issue,” i.e. MDPI’s predatory publishing. However, there are more to the plot. What Fang and Lin fear the most is the reputation of the MDPI journals among Chinese, because China’s market is what MDPI really is targeting at and coveting for. Had Mr. Beall removed the photo without these comments, Fang would have declared his victory immediately, and announced the news that Fang-haters had been disapproved by “The Expert in the area of predatory publishers,” and the expert has admitted his own wrongdoing, therefore MDPI has been exonerated. Although such a trick has been played numerous times, and it could only fool an idiot, Fang nonetheless likes to play it whenever there is a chance to play it, because what he has been doing in China in the last dozen years is to fool the simple minded people.

Unfortunately to Fang, and Lin, and Rordorf, and MDPI, Mr. Beall is too smart to fall for the stupid trick.

【Please download the PDF file for the notes.】

被编辑3次。最后被亦明编辑于06/10/2015 11:48AM。
打开 | 下载 - The Fangansters (VI)_Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (II).pdf (1.79 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Open Letter to Nature: Part XXXII: The Fangangsters (II): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (I) (4989 查看) 附件

亦明 November 15, 2013 07:33PM

Part XXXIII: The Fangangsters (III): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (18532 查看) 附件

亦明 January 19, 2014 07:24PM

Part XXXIV: The Fangangsters (IV): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (II) (3949 查看) 附件

亦明 February 02, 2014 06:01PM

Part XXXV: The Fangangsters (V): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (III) (3653 查看) 附件

亦明 February 19, 2014 01:54PM

Part XXXVI: The Fangangsters (VI): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (II) (4080 查看) 附件

亦明 February 26, 2014 06:32PM

Part XXXVII: The Fangangsters (VII): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (III) (6846 查看)

亦明 March 04, 2014 07:05PM

Part XXXVIII: The Fangangsters (VIII): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (IV) (4980 查看) 附件

亦明 March 16, 2014 02:35PM



2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.