欢迎! 登陆 注册


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

March 04, 2014 07:05PM
【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 XXXVII)

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

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


The Predatory President Shu-kun Lin’s Predictable Responses

1. Lin’s Response in Chinese
2. Lin’s Response in English
3. Ge Xin’s Response to Lin’s Responses

Fraudulent Fraud Fighter Fang Fights for Fraud

1. Retaliatory Slandering

(1) An Italian Cannon
(2) An Old Dog’s Old Trick
(3) A Liar’s Perennial Lie

2. Perjury
3. Framing
4. Breaking His Rice Bowl
5. A Congenital Liar
6. A Subconscious Confession

Congratulations, Mr. Beall, You Have Won!

Based on Fang’s abnormal reactions to the exposure of Lin’s fraud, it can be concluded without any doubt that Fang’s stake in MDPI is vital to the rest of his life. Therefore he will certainly do everything he can to save MDPI from the disaster which is threatening its very existence. Of course, there are two biggest threats to MDPI: Lin’s fraudulent personal history and Mr. Beall’s List.

It seems that some times between Feb. 21, when Fang revealed to the public that he had contacted Mr. Beall on MDPI’s behalf (see:02-21 11:37), and Feb. 23, when Fang posted online the email exchanges between him and Mr. Beall (see: 02-23 16:25), Fang and Lin formulated a comprehensive plan to deal with the situation. Based on what they did later, their scheme contained the following two parts:

1.In the international front, Fang, relying on his “international fame,” fights the Photo War to discredit Mr. Beall and his “Black List”;
2.Lin re-claims his innocence among Chinese.

However, the sharp turn of the event – Mr. Beall changed the Photo but added his comments – derailed their plan. Fang was so furious that he was completely out of control, immediately resorted to what he is really good at, retaliatory character assassination. As matter of fact, Fang’s website, the New Threads, has been known in China since the early 2000s as The Death Camp of Creditability (信誉死, Xìn yù sǐ, which sounds similar to the pronunciation of New Threads’ Chinese name, Xīn yǔ sī). And in this part, I’ll tell you how the scheme worked, or failed, to be exact.

The Predatory President Shu-kun Lin’s Predictable Responses

Obviously, the cause of MDPI’s problem is Dr. Lin, and Dr. Lin’s problem is his shameful record of “academic fraud doyen.” What made the situation even worse is Lin’s association with Fang Zhouzi and his public support for Fang’s “fraud fighting” - it immediately reminds Chinese people an idiom: rats and snakes living together (蛇鼠一窝), or in a western analogy, cops living in the same room with mafia members. Needless to say, if Lin’s record is not whitewashed, his company MDPI’s fate in China will be doomed to death. Furthermore, Fang’s “fraud fighter reputation,” if there is any left, will be completely bankrupted. Therefore, Lin’s name has to be cleaned, the only problem is how.

1. Lin’s Response in Chinese

On Feb. 23, 2014, at 00:55 (US CST), or 14 hours after uploading MDPI’s office photos onto a Chinese website under a fake name[1], Shu-kun Lin, who had been hiding from the public since the outbreak of his scandal more than one month ago, suddenly appeared in the forum of the New Threads, from which he had disappeared for more than 7 years[2], by posting a message in Chinese, and the following is my translation:

“The most important content in Ge Xin (Yi Ming)’s slander against Shu-kun Lin and MDPI is that when I was a graduate student in the Chemistry Department at the University of Louisville, I stole data from my former employer, the Lanzhou Institute of Chemical Physics, to write a paper and published it with my American boss, and was kicked out [by the University for that reason]. The reason I went to Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH-Zurich) was because my wife and I was divorcing. My American boss was Professor Richard J. Wittebort, his recommendation letter and my study transcript in the United States were all sent directly from the University of Louisville to Bernhard Jaun, my advisor at ETH-Zurich.

“I didn’t see the post in 2002 (http://www.xys.org/forum/messages/70000/71881.html), when I was fully involved in organizing the International Symposium on Frontiers in Molecular Science 2002 (July 15 to 18, see [www.mdpi.org]). I saw the post in 2006, and struck back immediately, see [www.xys.org].

“I remember that the last term when I was in the Chemistry Department at the University of Louisville in the United States. I was a TA in a physical chemistry lab, measuring the microwave spectrum of HCl. The improper operation by one of the students resulted in the leakage of the toxic HCl gas. I shouted sharply: ‘Everybody get out here!’ Then I tightened the valve of the HCl tank alone. The next day, the Department Chairman put a commendatory letter praising me in everyone’s mailbox. It was 25 years ago.”[3]

Sheepish and comical fight-back
The screenshot of Lin’s Chinese “statement” on “Ge Xin’s slander” on the New Threads, issued more than one month after the outbreak of the scandal. The text is translated in its entirety above[3].

2. Lin’s Response in English

Two hours after posting his Chinese response to “Ge Xin’s slander,” Lin posted a different version of his response in English, also on the New Threads, entitled “Response by Shu-Kun Lin to allegations about data-stealing in the late 1980s.” Because the response is only available on Fang’s website[4], I copy it in full below, hoping more people could read it:

Response by Shu-Kun Lin to allegations about data-stealing in the late 1980s

“Xin Ge, writing under the pen name ‘Yi Min’ operates a website 2250s.com, with numerous articles written against Dr. Shimin Fang (pen name Fang Zhouzi), a well-known campaigner against academic fraud in China. Since 2012 when Dr. Fang received the Jon Maddox, sponsored by the journal Nature, he has prepared many posts in English, including more than 30 ‘Open Letters to Nature’ (these can be found at [www.2250s.com]).

“One of these ‘Open Letters to Nature’ is against me (Shu-Kun Lin;
[www.2250s.com]). I wish to comment on one allegation included in this letter: that I was ‘kicked out’ of the University of Louisville for stealing data.

“I was a graduate student in the USA (University of Louisville, January 1987–July 1989). I moved from University of Louisville in USA to Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH-Zürich) in July 1989.

“The allegation ‘Lin is a chemist. he was kicked out in 1989 by U Lousiville for stealing data’ [sic] and ‘he published a paper with his boss with data stolen from mainland china’ were reported by an anonymous commentator ‘sd237’ in 2002 at [www.xys.org]. At the time I was very busy organizing a conference participated by 4 Nobelists (see: [www.mdpi.org]) and I was not aware of this post. However, when the same commentator reposted the same allegations in 2006 at [www.xys.org] it caught my attention and I responded immediately. The matter was not mentioned further. Xin Ge used only the 2002 post and claimed that I had never responded. My responses at [www.xys.org] and
[www.xys.org] state that the only paper published with a professor at the University of Lousiville is

S. -K. Lin, C. Trapp*, Formation of 9,10-Diphenylanthracene Radical Cation from Friedel-Crafts Alkylation Reactions. Absence of the Triphenylsilyl Radical, Journal of Organic Chemistry, 1988, 53, 698-700
(DOI: 10.1021/jo00238a043, Publication Date: February 1988)

“Professor C. Trapp has listed this paper in his ‘Selected Publications’ at [www.louisville.edu] (accessed in 2006. This page is not there now). The paper has been cited several times.

“My paper with Professor C. Trapp (my first research supervisor at Louisville) was published at the beginning of 1998. I left University of Lousiville in the middle of 1989, long after this paper was published. My PhD supervisor Dr. Richard J. Wittebort at the Chemistry Department of University of Lousiville, provided recommendation letter to support my transfer to another university. I left because my ex-wife, studying at the same university, and I were divorcing. I wanted to leave and she wished to stay (she finished her PhD studies at the Chemistry Department of University of Lousiville). I chose ETH-Zurich in Switzerland, a prestigious university at which Einstein studied.

“I am proud of my academic record at both the University of Louisville and ETH-Zurich and with this statement, wish to clarify the circumstances in which I transferred from one to the other.
See also Announcements from MDPI: [www.mdpi.com]”

Tardy and meek response
The screenshot of Lin’s “Response by Shu-Kun Lin to allegations about data-stealing in the late 1980s,” appeared only on Fang’s website New Threads. Lin’s lies in the “response” are underlined.

3. Ge Xin’s Response to Lin’s Responses

Lin’s responses revealed not only his shamelessness and cowardliness, but also his stupidity and ignorance.

First of all, the allegation against Lin was not made by me in my article published online on Jan. 19, 2014[1], rather, it was made by an internet user first in 2002, then in 2006, on the New Threads, the website fully controlled by his protector Fang Zhouzi. What I did was nothing but blowing off the dust which had been covering that piece of history for more than 10 years. Therefore, Lin was really barking up the wrong tree when he accused me of slandering.

Secondly, in my article, I clearly described Lin’s response to the allegation in 2006 “in a weird way” (see image below), therefore, Lin’s claim that “Xin Ge used only the 2002 post and claimed that I had never responded” looks like a self-incrimination, rather than a self-defense.

False accusation
In his “response” to my article, Lin alleged that “Xin Ge used only the 2002 post and claimed that I had never responded.” The above screenshot clearly shows that I did mention, and even translate, his response to the allegation “in a weird way” in 2006.

Thirdly, Lin’s focus on “stealing data” in his responses was meant, deliberately, to mislead his readers. The fact is, on Jan. 27, 2014, that “Independent Investigator” asked Fang Zhouzi to translate a piece of English, from Dr. Charles Trapp, Lin’s “first research supervisor at Louisville,” which reads:

“...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...”[5]

After being reposted by Mr. Cui Yongyuan on the next day, the above message was read by more than two thirds of a million people[6]. Of course the English Master Fang Zhouzi has never translated the English: he is well-known in China that he suffers selective blindness, unable to see anything disadvantageous to him. Anyway, the old allegation of stealing data, made by that sd237 in 2002 and 2006, was replaced by a new, more accurate allegation of stealing idea, from a more reliable source[7], about 4 weeks before Lin made his responses to “Ge Xin’s slander,” and Lin ignored the new allegation altogether, these facts further suggest that Lin is really guilty of stealing, the only question is what.

An excerpt
On Jan. 27, 2014, internet user “Independent Investigator” posted an excerpt from Professor Charles Trapp’s letter to him, asking Fang Zhouzi to translate it into Chinese. The intact letter by Dr. Charles Trapp was made public by one of Lin’s supporters on Feb. 23, 2014[7], which demonstrates that the excerpt is authentic.

Finally, the HCl story told by the chemist Lin in his Chinese response resembles extremely the lard stories about biochemist Fang, thus demonstrating that these two doctorates of science are nothing but imposters under a science-cloak.

As I have told the story before, Fang has been known among overseas Chinese scholars as Dr. Lard, the reason for that is that in 1996, right after receiving his doctoral degree in biochemistry from the Michigan State University, Fang wrote the following on the internet:

“If glycerol and fatty acids are mixed together and heated till dryness, they will become the important component of cell membrane——phospholipid.”

It is equivalent to that a master chef on TV tells his audience that if you mix potato and tomato together and heat them up, you will get banana. Because the real product of “glycerol and fatty acids” is the major component of lard, hence the title Dr. Lard[8]. Fang would create two more lard jokes in the next 16 years.

Just like biochemist Fang who knows little about biochemistry, chemist Lin’s knowledge in chemistry seems also extremely limited. The major health effect of HCl, or hydrogen chloride, is corrosive upon contact. Therefore, trace amount of HCl, as leaked from a gas tank, is basically harmless. Further, HCl gas “forms white fumes of hydrochloric acid upon contact with atmospheric humidity[9], which is much heavier than the gas. Therefore, unless the entire tank is broken, an evacuation is unnecessary, unless it is stipulated by regulatory rules. Either way, Lin’s self-promoting heroic story sounds funny and idiotic.

The fact is, most people on the New Threads were disappointed by Lin’s responses. One person replied to Lin bluntly:

“It is useless for you to talk these nonsenses here. You should sue Ge Xin in the court, let him bankrupt, only by then the matter is over forever.”[10]

Of course Lin knows that. However, he also knows he is guilty of stealing. As of today, March 4, 2014, Lin hasn’t posted his English response on MDPI’s website yet.

The fact is, on Feb. 24, 2014, Lin modified his original statement on my article, Statement on Libelous Allegations against MDPI and Its Founder and President Dr. Shu-Kun Lin, issued originally on Jan. 22 on MDPI’s website and was removed from its homepage a few days later. As of today, Lin still doesn’t have the guts to show that statement on MDPI’s homepage[11].

In summary, If Lin is an innocent person, he has absolutely no reason to behave like he did.

Fraudulent Fraud Fighter Fang Fights for Fraud

As mentioned above, Mr. Beall’s decision to change the photo of MDPI’s office in his article and add a comment on the new, “authentic” photo, as well as his “red herring” remark, made Fang and Lin the instant losers of the Photo War, which they initiated deliberately, hoping the War could turn the tide. Out of other options, Fang resorted to what he is best at: attacking the critic. And Fang indeed pulled out all the stops to do just that, against a person acknowledged by him as “The Expert in the area of predatory publishers” just a few weeks earlier.

1. Retaliatory Slandering

(1) An Italian Cannon

On Feb. 23, 2014, at 9:48 AM (US CST), 36 minutes after Mr. Beall posted his comment on the Photo War, “This is a red herring designed to draw attention from the real issue - the quality of the publishing venue,” Fang posted the following message on his New Threads:

“Professor Nicola Bellomo of the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Polytechnic University of Turin in Italy wrote a whistleblowing article in 2013, exposing Jeffrey Beall, a Librarian at the University of Colorado, as a cheater and a criminal. His discoveries are: 1. Beall has only a Bachelor’s degree in Spanish and English, has not graduate education, and knows nothing about how to conduct academic research. 2. Beall had listed a publisher on his black list because some of its reputable and old academic journals ‘had copied Maxwell Equations’ from a 2007 article. 3. Beall probably collects protections fees from certain publishers, [so he] doesn’t put them on the black list, or removes them from the list. 4. Beall opposes all open access journals, because these journals do not need to pay to subscribe, and as a librarian he is unable to profit from his subscriptions (receiving kickbacks from the publishers). Nicola Bellomo’s whistleblowing article is here: [groups.google.com]”[12]

An instant retaliation
36 minutes after Mr. Beall pointed out the secret of the Photo War (upper panel), Fang posted his slanderous post on his New Threads against Mr. Beall, saying the originator of the post was from “Professor Nicola Bellomo of the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Polytechnic University of Turin in Italy.” Please note that Mr. Beall’s website Scholarly Open Access uses US MST (supposedly), and Fang’s New Threads uses US CST (actually).

Simultaneously, Fang posted the slanderous message on his microblogs, and reposting them several times by commenting on it[13].

On the next day, Feb. 24, at 8:09 (Beijing Time), the “Independent Investigator” issued “An Authorized Statement by Jeffrey Beall” in Chinese, which says:

“The article Fang Zhouzi is using to attack me, A Predatory Librarian: Jeffrey Beall: The crook, the felon, the criminal of the Academic Community, was actually written by a Greek man named Nikos, who is the owner of several large predatory publishers and conference organizers, which are on my list, therefore he posts his article widely on the internet, trying to discredit me. He usually uses other people’s names, and the article was published by falsely using an Italian professor’s name. The bogus article has been posted in hundreds of places all over the internet. There is little I can do to stop them. I understand that many publishers on my list are criminals, and they behave in criminal ways. Fang Zhouzi wants to find the negative information about me, so he would rather to believe that. He has the same goal as the Greek Nikos. However, he obviously doesn’t have the ability to evaluate the credibility of information.”[14]

The statement was sent to Fang Zhouz via microblogs at 8:49 and 8:52[15].

Mr. Beall’s Statement on Fang Zhouzi’s malicious attack
In the morning of Feb. 24, 2014, the “Independent Investigator” posted Mr. Beall’s statement on Fang’s malicious attack on him. The message was sent to Fang directly via microblogs (see red underlines.)

However, Fang not only completely ignored the statement, rather, he reposted the malicious message two more times[16]. As a matter of fact, Fang incorporated the information in an article, and posted it on his income-generating blog:

“I thought that those who work in American universities must have a character high than normal people. Obviously, Beall doesn’t. Please read the full text of A Weird Librarian at an American University: [t.itc.cn].”[17]

In the article, Fang reiterated his frustrating experience with Mr. Beall about the MDPI photo, and added the following to justify his digging up the dirt from the “Italian Professor”:

“Beall’s attitude, refusing to correct a mistake, changing the subject, and attacking the person who corrected his mistake, showed that he is not like an academic, which made me feel peculiar. Then I read an exposing article written in 2003 by Professor Nicola Bellomo of the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Polytechnic University of Turin in Italy, A Predatory Librarian: Jeffrey Beall: The crook, the felon, the criminal of the Academic Community (http://sci.techarchive.net/Archive/sci.math/2013-11/msg00446.html), which seems to offer the explanation to Beall’s abnormal behavior.”[18]

Of course, the above words were followed by Fang’s summary of “Professor Nicola Bellomo’s findings.” Fang would post the article in all of his other blogs after the income-generating potential on his blog on baidu.com had been exhausted.

On Feb. 25, Fang was questioned by an ex-Fang-fan: why does he ignore Mr. Beall’s statement and keep reposting the slanderous message? And here is Fang’s reply:

“Don’t you think it is strange that an American authorizes an anonymous internet user to issue a statement in Chinese? Nikos is a common Greek name, when mentioning a stranger, foreigners won’t just say his first name, without saying his surname, let alone a common name, because it cannot identify the person. Zhang Shenghua couldn’t differentiate a foreigner’s name and surname again.”[19]

It seems that the fraud fighter Fang had never realized that it was his responsibility to verify the authenticity of both Professor Nicola Bellomo’s post and Mr. Beall’s statement.

(2) An Old Dog’s Old Trick

The fact is, one of Fang’s most frequently used tactics to attack his enemies is to dig dirt on the internet, and then dump the dirt on his targets, and he deliberately won’t bother himself to verify the authenticity of the “evidence,” because he knows that most of his evidences could not pass the slightest scrutiny. The following is a true story happened about two years ago, showing that Fang had used the tactic before.

In October 2011, Fang’s column in China Youth Daily, a national newspaper which had hosted Fang for nearly 7 years, was terminated, mainly because of his plagiarism scandal. Disgraced and out of job, Fang surfed the internet full-time, looking for prey so he could regain his fame and influence. The prey he found was Mr. Han Han, a young racecar driver and a writer. Starting from 2012, Fang launched an ferocious attack on Mr. Han Han, accusing, based purely on speculation, that Mr. Han Han’s articles and books were all written by a ghost writer or a team of ghost writers. Because of Mr. Han Han’s popularity, Fang’s attack on Mr. Han immediately became national news. One day, an internet user tried to test how rigorous Fang’s fraud busting really is, so he designed and implemented an “experiment”: he first made up a story that one of his friends confessed to him that he was one of Mr. Han’s ghost writers, and then, the story goes:

“In the morning of Jan. 21, I posted a completely fabricated message; the message was deleted in the afternoon; in the evening, Teacher Fang personally asked me for the deleted message, never questioned the authenticity of the message; on the next day Teacher Fang used the message in his article. I hereby clarify: that message was made up by me. For detail, see the attached long post.”[20]

The story was reposted thousands of times on the internet, and known to so many people[21]. However, Fang never commented on the story, and till today, the article he cited the fabricated “evidence,” Han Han’s Farce of Reward, is still on his blogs, including the New Threads, intact[22]. Yes, even though Fang knows the fact that his evidence is fake, Fang still keeps using it, because it is in his favor. Furthermore, even though he knows the fact that other people know that he is using fake evidence, he still keeps using it, because he hopes that there will be some people in somewhere at some time who would believe him. On the other hand, if evidence is unfavorable to him, he will ignore its existence, no matter how compelling it is, no matter how many people are aware of the fact.

Have you ever wondered why Chinese people hate Fang so much? The answer is simple: because of his unprecedented and unparalleled evilness.

A 24K pure evil
An internet user (Xiumu Zhiyi, 朽木之一) posted on weibo.com a completely fabricated story which could be used by Fang to frame Mr. Han Han. The post was deleted later, but Fang asked for the deleted message personally from the person who made up the story, and used it as one of the evidences against Mr. Han. The storyteller revealed secret to the public, but Fang refuses to delete or modify the article containing the fabricated evidence.
Top: the original fake story as told by the storyteller; middle: the portion of Fang’s article on his blog on sina.com retaining the fake story; bottom: the portion of Fang’s article on the New Threads retaining the fake story. The red underlines highlight the story exactly as it was originally told. Fang replaced 4 Chinese characters with X to pretend that he was hiding the real identity of the character in the story, so that the story looks more convincing.

(3) A Liar’s Perennial Lie

Since early 2000s, Fang has been telling Chinese news media repeatedly that he always verifies his data before making an allegation. For example, in 2001, Fang told a reporter from Taiwan:

“For each article I received, I would verify the credibility and reliability of the content and the source, over and over. I normally ignore the anonymous articles. I dislike anonymous complaints very much. I require that the whistleblowers reveal their true identities to me, but I promise I will not reveal their identities to any other people without their consent. If the content of an article involves knowledge outside of my specialty, and I am unable to tell whether it is reliable, then I will ask for the opinions of at least two specialists in that area before I decide whether to publish it.”[23]

In 2004, a chat room host on sina.com asked Fang:

“When you suspect that someone might be a fraud, or have preliminary evidence [for the suspicion], what’s your next step: immediately write article to expose it, or conduct further verification, investigation, and contact the person involved?”

Fang’s answer:

“Some [cases] are relatively easy to be verified, such as plagiarism, which we publish relatively fast……The cases such as CV fraud need to be investigated by internet search and contacting the schools involved……The cases need the most time to investigate are those involving academic achievement fraud……”[24]

As a matter of fact, in as late as 2012, right after the whole nation had known that he had been intentionally using false evidence to frame Mr. Han Han, Fang still shamelessly told reporters that his fraud busting is nearly flawless, and he always check the reliability of his data:

“I judge the creditability by checking whether the allegations are based on evidence, whether there are factual evidences.”[25]

“I also will perform preliminary verification via internet search, and during the interactions with the whistleblowers I usually find new evidences.”[26]

A Liar who lies without blinking
On Feb. 1, 2012, Fang was interviewed by Hong Kong-based Phoenix New Media, and he told the reporters that he checks the creditability of the allegations based on whether they are evidence-based[25].

The fact is, not only didn’t Fang contact the Italian Professor to verify the data before he used the post to attack Mr. Beall, he actually ignore Mr. Beall’s clarification. That’s how evil he is.

2. Perjury

Besides finding an ally in that “Italian Professor,” Fang also found an ally in a British chemist. On Feb. 24, Fang posted the following message on his microblogs:

“Dr. Peter Murray-Rust, a chemist at Oxford University, has published an article, criticizing Jeffrey Beall, the librarian at the University of Colorado, that his criticism against MDPI lacks evidence and is irresponsible [t.itc.cn]. Is Beall going to scold Dr. Murray-Rust as Lin’s lackey? Dr. Murray-Rust has absolutely no relationship with MDPI, he initiated the Blue Obelisk movement in 2005, demanding open access to chemical information, and he was awarded the Herman Skolnik Award of the American Chemical Society. It has been demonstrated by facts that those who hold together with Fang-haters will eventually be discarded by academic community, and Americans are no exception.”[27] (Note: the bold font was added by me.)

Of course, the Herman Skolnik Award winner lied about, or conveniently forgot, a key fact, when he said “I have no personal involvement with MDPI” in his “Beall’s criticism of MDPI lacks evidence and is irresponsible.”[28] Hours after being cited and praised by fraud fighter Fang, Dr. Peter Murray-Rust was confronted by Mr. Beall:

“Murray-Rust’s statement ‘I have no personal involvement with MDPI’ is not reflective of the facts. Indeed, he is listed as serving on the editorial board of one of MDPI’s many (empty) journals, the journal Data. See: [www.mdpi.com] (Peter, if you did not know that you were listed here, please let me know, because this is a common practice, adding people to editorial boards without their permission. Otherwise, please explain your statement that you lack involvement with MDPI.)”[29]

26 hours later, Dr. Peter Murray-Rust made his confession:

“Yes, I am an editor of MDPI’s new Data journal and pleased to have been invited. I have no other involvement with MDPI.”[30]

For the record
Seven days after claiming “I have no personal involvement with MDPI,” and 26 hours after being questioned by the person he criticized, Dr. Peter Murray-Rust confessed[30].

The fact is, almost immediately after Fang claimed that “Dr. Peter Murray-Rust, a chemist at Oxford University, …… has absolutely no relationship with MDPI,” the true identity of Peter Murray-Rust, and his relationship with MDPI, became public knowledge on the internet. For example, one of Fang-fans posted the following message at 7:20 PM, less than three hours after Fang’s post:

“1. According to Wiki, Peter Murray-Rust is indeed at the University of Cambridge, [I’m] not clear what’s the basis that Fang Zhouzi believes that he is a chemist at the Oxford University. Two possibilities: Fang’s memory erred or Peter has transferred recently; 2. If Peter is indeed a member of MDPI editorial board, then it cannot be said that he has absolutely no relationship with MDPI. However, if [someone] accuses Fang Zhouzi of lying based on that, [it is too] assertive. It is possible that he didn’t know, which makes the mistake [a mistake of] imprecision.……”[31]

Even though he knew Fang had got Dr. Murray-Rust’s information completely wrong, this Fang-lover is still trying his best to exculpate his Master. The image is the screenshot of the post translated above[31].

On the next day, another person questioned Fang again:

“Saw the following from MDPI Editorial Board: Prof. Dr. Peter Murray-Rust Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK Tel. +44 1223 763069 Website: [t.itc.cn] Interests: open data, data mining, molecular informatics, computational chemistry, Chemical Markup Language (CML). How could [you] say they have absolutely no relationship? Could it be that they are not the same person?”[32]

On qq.com, Fang’s post was also questioned:

“Data website: Data Editorial Office MDPI AG, Klybeckstrasse 64, 4057 Basel, Switzerland Editorial Board Prof. Dr. Peter Murray-Rust Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge. Could it be possible that Prof. Dr. Peter Murray-Rust Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge is the same as Dr. Peter Murray-Rust, a chemist at Oxford University?”[33]

“I don’t know whether Dr. Fang could act like that librarian, correcting his own mistake! Hope Dr. Fang doesn’t lose scores in this regard!”[34]

Having been served
Before the end of Feb. 24, 2014, Fang had been informed numerous times that Dr. Peter Murray-Rust DOES have a relationship with MDPI. The image is the screenshot of the two posts translated above[33-34].

So, how did Fang respond to truth? He corrected the mistake about Dr. Murray-Rust’s academic affiliation immediately after he knew he had made a mistake, first secretly in his article A Weird Librarian at an American University[18], and then, after being questioned by one of his fans, admitted that mistake on his microblog on sohu.com[35], but not on qq.com.

However, Fang has never changed his claim that “Dr. Murray-Rust has absolutely no relationship with MDPI.” As a matter of fact, Fang would keep reclaiming so when he reposted his A Weird Librarian at an American University on his New Threads on Feb. 28[36]. In other words, Fang has absolutely no regard for facts, if the facts are against him.

Total disregard for facts
On Feb. 24, 2014, Fang claimed on his microblogs that Dr. Murray-Rust had absolutely no relationship with MDPI. By the end of the day, Fang had been informed multiple times that the claim was false. Further, by the next day, Dr. Murray-Rust confessed his relation with MDPI on his blog. However, Fang, while corrected the mistake about Dr. Murray-Rust’s academic affiliation from Oxford to Cambridge in his article attacking Mr. Beall, A Weird Librarian at an American University, has deliberately kept his false claim about Murray-Rust’s relationship with MDPI. Please note that above image is a composite of Fang’s article on six different blogs of Fang’s, posted from Feb. 24 to Feb. 28, 2014. The sentences underlined are all the same, meaning “Dr. Murray-Rust has absolutely no relationship with MDPI.”[36]

3. Framing

While looking for foreign aid to save MDPI, Fang didn’t forget to continue his attacks on MDPI’s enemies. 24 minutes after Fang announced the support for MDPI by the “absolutely independent scientist” Dr. Murray-Rust, an anonymous internet user with a masquerade web ID asdfsgfg posted the following comment:

“Here is a webpage accusing Beall on mathforum.org (http://t.itc.cn/xjUaX), in which it says: ‘I was astonished when he told me that he could remove SCIRP from his black list provided that we would give him 160,000 USD not by bank account, but in cash in a place in New York.’ One hour ago.”[37]

The link provided by that asdfsgfg directs to a post by a “Dr. Lu Chen” of Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), an open access publisher and MDPI’s archrival. Fang responded to asdfsgfg’s message in 11 minutes:

“SCIRP is run by Zhou Huaibei of Wuhan University, they are true fake journals, and it has been exposed that they used the entire content of an academic journal as their own. Therefore, [you] should not readily believe what they said. However, it is not impossible that Beall has blackmailed them.”[38]

The thing is, the post by “Dr. Lu Chen” contains nearly 500 words, and it will take Fang 5-10 minutes to read and comprehend it, considering Fang’s English proficiency. In other words, even if Fang reacted to asdfsgfg’s message immediately, he hardly had enough time to read the post, let alone to conduct his famous “preliminary verification by searching the internet,” and yet, Fang was able to make his “killing-two-birds-with-one-stone” comment. How could he accomplish such an impossible mission?

The secret of the trick was actually revealed in asdfsgfg’s post: the phrase of “one hour ago” (一小时前) at the end of the post is completely out of context, therefore it was obviously intended to mislead the readers to believe that the post was made one hour earlier than it was actually made, 24 minutes after Fang posted his post. Why would that masked person want to do that? The only plausible answer is that he, or she, wanted to give Fang more time to make the comment to blast both SCIRP and Mr. Beall. Have you got it? If not, please don’t blame yourself too much: it is not because that you are too stupid to understand the trick, rather, it is because that Fang’s evilness is beyond most people’s imagination. Let me explain the scheme straightforwardly:

Looking for “evidence” to destroy Mr. Jeffrey Beall, Fang found a post slandering Mr. Beall by a person claiming to be associated with MDPI’s archrival SCIRP. Fang wanted to use the post to attack Mr. Beall, but he didn’t want SCIRP to get the benefit from his using the slanderous post. So he arranged one of his confidants, or himself, under a fake ID asdfsgfg, to “inform” him the existence of the post, and then he made a comment on it, pounding both Mr. Beall and SCIRP. The entire process needs only a few seconds, but Fang waited, impatiently, for 11 minutes to finish it, pretending to have read the post, and have verified the reliability of the content. To hide his impatience, Fang let that asdfsgfg add “one hour ago” in the place where the time marker of a post normally shows.

It seems a perfect plan, the only problem was that Fang was too impatient to wait, so he tried to outsmart the readers of his blogs by putting the phrase “one hour ago” in the post, which serves as nothing but the Fox’s Tail: according to a Chinese story, a fox transformed itself into a beautiful woman to allure a man, however, the fox could not transform its tail into a human part, which served as an evidence of its identity.

Please note that it is well known in China that Fang owns hundreds or even thousands of fake internet IDs - even on his own New Threads, Fang has at least dozens of fake IDs. Also, literally everyone in Fang’s family, his sisters Fang Yunqiu and Fang Yunhuan, his brother Fang Shixiong, his wife Liu Juhua, his mistress Sharon G. Li, and his nephew Fang Jinquan, fights for Fang Zhouzi on the internet, and all of them use fake IDs. Therefore, whether that asdfsgfg is Fang himself or one his family members is anyone’s guess. However, it is absolutely certain that the post by asdfsgfg was manipulated by Fang Zhouzi.

The trail of a devil
The above image is the screenshot of the dialogue between Fang and ghostly asdfsgfg, the black arrows show the routes Fang wanted his readers to believe how the things happened: he noticed asdfsgfg’s post, read the linked post, and made the comment. However, the real sequence of the actions is: Fang found the slanderous post, Fang arranged the post by asdfsgfg, and Fang made the comment to attack both SCIRP and Mr. Beall, the enemies of MDPI. The red underlines highlight the times these two messages were posted, the red box highlight the phrase “one hour ago,” and the purple underlines highlight Fang’s targets of attack, SCIRP and Mr. Beall. The inset is the screenshot of the original post by asdfsgfg, showing the position where a time marker is located - asdfsgfg deliberately put an artificial time marker in that position. Please note that the real, permanent time marker of a post usually shows up several hours or even several days after the post is made; before that, the time marker is dynamic, appearing as something like “one minute ago,” “two hours ago,” etc.

It is still possible that some people are incapable of believing that the fraud buster Fang could be as evil as I just described. However, Fang is much more evil. In 2005, under a fake ID Shuizhonghua (水中划), meaning “Sailing in Water,” Fang wrote, and published on his New Threads, 6 articles slandering Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, a professor at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, in Wuhan, China, who reported the first identified plagiarism case committed by Fang to Science magazine in 2001. Based on these slanderous and anonymous articles written by himself, Fang wrote a formal article criticizing Dr. Xiao in his column in a newspaper. And when he was sued by Dr. Xiao, Fang reposted these slanderous articles on other websites under various fake ID, and presented these reposts as evidence of facts to the court[39]. In 2006, Fang used that fake ID again, this time to slander and attack Dr. Fu Xinyuan of Indiana University, simply because Dr. Fu organized an open letter, which was signed by 120 Chinese scientists, against Fang’s style fraudulent fraud busting[40].

Therefore, what Fang did to Mr. Beall in the past few days is no surprise at all to people who know Fang, it is nothing but an old trick by an old rabid dog.

4. Breaking His Rice Bowl

More than 3 years ago, I wrote an article entitled Fang Zhouzi’s Source of Strength Is His Evilness, in which I said:

“The most vicious tactic Fang Zhouzi has used to fix his enemies is to break their rice bowls. Any person, if he opposes Fang Zhouzi, intentionally or not, Fang Zhouzi and his gangsters will do everything they can to let that person lose his job.”[41]

Of course Fang has absolutely no scruples to apply “the most vicious tactic” to Mr. Beall, who, inadvertently, touched Fang’s cheese. 64 minutes after certifying his British ally as the most reliable character witness in the world for MDPI’s honesty and legitimacy, Fang announced:

“I wrote a letter to Dr. Murray-Rust, attached the communications between me and Beall. He suggests that I write to OASPA and SPARC-Europe. I followed his advice. I agree with Murray-Rust that the work of supervising academic journals shouldn’t be conducted by a person who lacks professional knowledge. I want to supplement that: it shouldn’t be done by a person who lacks integrity. Beall’s problem is not only his lack of professional knowledge, but also lack of integrity.”[42]

28 minutes after that, Fang made another announcement:

“I have already written to the President, Provost, and the Director of the Library at the University of Colorado to tell them the situation. However, this person has already got his tenure from the fame for maintaining the black list, I guess my letter won’t have much effect.”[43]

Although Fang hasn’t revealed to the public the letters he wrote to “the President, Provost, and the Director of the Library at the University of Colorado,” the contents of these letters are really predictable: Mr. Beall is unqualified for whatever he is hired to do, and what he does on the internet hurts the reputation of the institution he is affiliated with; so, you’d be better off firing him. The only thing I am not so sure about is whether Fang had the guts to threaten these Americans by saying:

“If you don’t do what I’m telling you to do, I’ll do what I have done to Mr. Beall to you!”

Yes, that’s exactly Fang has been doing in China.

On April 28, 2011, one day after his wife’s plagiarism scandal was reported by Legal Weekly, Fang issued a threatening statement to the leaders of the Legal Daily, the owner of Legal Weekly, pressuring them to fire Mr. Guo Guosong, the executive editor-in-chief of Legal Weekly:

“If Guo Guosong remains with the Legal Weekly, I’ll investigate the leaders of Legal Daily. If Guo Guosong goes to other news media, I’ll investigate the leaders of whichever news medium [which hires Guo]. If a leader of a news medium believes that Guo Guosong is a qualified journalist, and he also believes that his own entire life record is clean, then he can go ahead and hire Guo.”[44]

The internet tyrant is issuing a threat
The screenshot of Fang’s post threatening the entire Chinese news media that if any of them hires Mr. Guo Guosong, who was responsible for the publication of the reports exposing the plagiarism cases committed by Fang and his wife Liu Juhua, he’d “investigate” their leaders.

Just a few months ago, Fang threaten the leaders of various Chinese academic institutions:

“If the problem of Zhu Yi is not resolved this year, I’ll start to fully expose the leaders of China Agricultural University, the College of Food Science at China Agricultural University, the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Botany at CAS.”[45]

The internet tyrant is issuing another threat

So, who is Zhu Yi? What’s the problem of Zhu Yi? Why is Fang so enthusiastic about Zhu Yi?

Briefly, Dr. Zhu Yi is an associate professor in the College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering at China Agricultural University; she received her doctoral degree from the Institute of Botany at Chinese Academy of Sciences, through the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Also, Dr. Zhu Yi is a popular science writer.

Have you got it? Dr. Zhu Yi’s prime crime is her invasion into Fang’s territory - science popularization. Furthermore, during her online resistance against Fang’s bullying last year, Dr. Zhu exposed Fang’s ignorance and plagiarism. Therefore, Fang has determined to disable and destroy her completely and permanently. What Fang did to Dr. Zhu is exactly what he did to Mr. Beall: looking for “evidence” on the internet, and reporting his findings to the “leaders,” asking them to revoke Dr. Zhu’s doctoral degree, or even better, fire her[46].

Therefore, the leaders of the University of Colorado had better be prepared. A Chinese villain, the British John Maddox Prize winner, the Mighty Fang Zhouzi, is invading the Rocky Mountains!

5. A Congenital Liar

On Feb. 24, 2014, Mr. Jeffrey Beall posted his second article on MDPI since the publisher had been listed, Under Pressure, MDPI Tries to Clean House, Retracts Paper, in which he wrote the following two paragraphs:

“I’ve also angered someone named Fang Zhouzi (real name Shi-min Fang, or Fang Shi-min). He apparently markets himself as a Chinese science watchdog, trashing science published in journals other than those published by his friend Shu-Kun Lin, from whom he reportedly receives a stipend.

“Fang is feverishly searching for dirt about me on the internet and publishing whatever he finds in his U.S.-based blog, all to defend his patron, Lin.”[47]

The hyperlinked “U.S.-based blog” directs to one of Fang’s posts on his New Threads, Jeffrey Beall, a Librarian of the University of Colorado, Is Accused of Cheater and Criminal. Apparently frightened by Mr. Beall’s implicative warning, Fang issued a 3-point statement:

1. What I have been "trashing" for 14 years is not "science", but pseudoscience, fraud or misconduct. My campaign against academic corruption in China has nothing to do with MDPI business. My activities have been reported many times by Science, Nature, New Scientist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc and honored by several international and national awards, including the John Maddox Prize (by Nature) and Cliff Robertson Sentinel Award (by ACFE).

2. I am not a friend of Dr. Shu-Kun Lin's. He is not my "patron" either. I don't have personal relationship with him. In fact, Dr. Lin is just one of many fans of mine.

3. I have never received a stipend from Dr. Shu-Kun Lin. I am the most popular and successful science writer in China and make a living by publishing articles and books. I don't receive any stipends, kickbacks or protection rackets from anyone. Mr. Jeffrey Beall claims he has a report about my receiving a stipend from Dr. Shu-Kun Lin. I am sure the so-called "report" is not from a credible source, but just another canard created by a sick mind.

Mr. Jeffrey Beall has right to maintain a list of questionable publishers, but based on my experience with him, he is not qualified to do so. He hesitated to correct an obvious factual error. He believes and spreads rumors and canards, no matter how ridiculous they are. He labels anyone with different opinions as "Lin's lackey". It's sad that a highly regarded blacklist is maintained by a person clearly lacking discipline knowledge, professionalism, good judgment, responsibility and integrity. I will do my best to let science community know the truth and "trash" this list.[48]

Of course the statement, like many of his other statements, is full of lies. First of all, as I have demonstrated several times, the John Maddox Prize Fang received is not a Nature prize, instead, it was manipulated by the GMO force via a tiny British PR firm called Sense About Science; the only connection of the prize to Nature is that Dr. Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of the journal, was one of the four judges, apparently in his private capacity - Dr. Philip Campbell told me explicitly that he was the only person in Nature associated with the Prize. Furthermore, Nature states on its website that it only supports two awards, the Nature Awards for Mentoring in Science and the Eppendorf Young European Investigator Award - the John Maddox Prize is not even mentioned[49].

A pheasant prize
The John Maddox Prize was “stimulated and organized” by an organization who calls themselves Sense About Science, based in a one-room headquarters in London. The above photos show the outside and inside of its headquarters. Even though the organization has no money to pay its own employees, it has nonetheless sponsored the fake doctor Albert Yuan (Yuan Yue), an American citizen but based in China to promote GMO, and one of Fang’s inner circle associates, to attack Chinese scientists all over the world. SAS also asked Yuan to nominate Fang for the Prize. For detail, see: Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ── An Open Letter to Nature, Part XXX: Why Fang Shi-min Was Awarded the John Maddox Prize? (V): Why Was Albert Yuan Invited to Nominate Fang?[50]

The GMO Triangle: Why did the British award Fang Zhouzi the John Maddox Prize?
See [50] for answer(s).

As for Fang’s “Cliff Robertson Sentinel Award (by ACFE),” it’s even more a joke: the organization, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc., is registered in the State of Texas as a “Domestic For-Profit Corporation,” and headquartered in a personal building, which has been also the headquarters of several other “Domestic For-Profit Corporations.”[51] What more interesting is: the appraised value of the ACFE’s “global headquarters” in 2012 was only $644,848[52], $25,152 less than what Fang paid for his mansion in southern California in 2013. As a matter of fact, the joke behind Fang’s “Cliff Robertson Sentinel Award” has been known to almost every Chinese since the moment Fang announced the news in June 2013[53], however, Fang keeps telling his lie. Why? Because that was the very reason he and his backers bought the prize in the first place: to deceive the public by decorating an evil.

The award scheme
In November 2013, while deflating the value of the awards Mr. Cui Yongyuan had received, Fang inflated the value of his own award from ACFE, saying that “The Gregor Building,” the global headquarters of ACFE, is a historic property of the State of Texas, and there are more than 70 full-time employees working inside[54].

The Gregor Building
The “global headquarters” of Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, located at 716 West Ave. Austin, TX 78701, USA. The photo was obtained from Google Street View on March 4, 2014. The inset photo in the lower left corner is from ACFE’s website.

Sure, when Fang wrote that “My activities have been reported many times by Science, Nature, New Scientist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal,” he was not lying per se. However, he won’t tell you the other side of the story.

Ms. Xiong Lei, a senior reporter with Xinhua News Agency, reported Fang’s fight against DNA supplements in Science magazine in 2001, which was Fang’s first appearance in a western mainstream media[55]. However, it has been exhaustively demonstrated that Fang’s initial intention to launch the so called “Online War Against Ethical Lapses” was to revenge on Academician Li Zaiping (李载平), who supported Dr. Wu Bolin when he was attacked by Fang[56]. Therefore, the entire story was false: the War had nothing to do with ethics, had everything to do with revenge, just like Fang’s bloody fight against Dr. Xiao Chuanguo. Also, in the report, Ms. Xiong introduced Fang as “a consultant to a bioinformatics company.” Till this day, more than a dozen years later, Fang is still refusing to reveal the company’s name, and the nature of his service to that mysterious company.

As a matter of fact, almost all the articles about Fang in Science magazine were contributed by Chinese journalists, such as Ms. Hao Xin (Cindy Hao) and Mr. Jia Hepeng[57]. Ms. Hao, the daughter of Academician Hao Bailin who is a good friend of He Zuoxiu, Fang’s strongest backer, has been one of the most loyal followers of Fang’s among Chinese journalists. Last year, Ms. Hao was banned by New York Times for her involvement in the organized attacks on American entrepreneur Fu Ping[58]. Of course, Fang was behind these “cyberwarriors” and “assailants.”[59].

Similarly, Mr. Jia, who has contributed to both Science magazine and journal Nature, was fired from his post of the editor-in-chief of the Science News, and his journalist eligibility was revoked by Chinese government just a few years ago, apparently for his involvement in the malicious attacks on Chinese seismologists and Dr. Xiao Chuanguo.

The Fang-lovers who have touted Fang in Science and Nature
Both Ms. Hao Xin and Mr. Jia Hepeng have been kicked out of their profession.

Admittedly, there are indeed some “Fang-lovers” among western journalists. In 2010, Nature published its Asian-Pacific correspondent David Cyranoski’s report, Brawl in Beijing, touting Fang as a fraud fighter[60]. However, according to my detailed analyses, the report was based exclusively and completely on the stories told by Fang-lovers, that’s why I call it “a fraudulent and malicious news report.[61] Mr. David Cyranoski has not responded to my criticism yet, and I bet he never will.

Do you think Fang will ever tell you these facts?

Actually, there are a lot more facts Fang doesn’t want you to know. He’ll never tell you that he is the biggest plagiarist in human history, and he is the most fraudulent person on the earth. Also, he’ll never tell you the reason why he has not been put in jail for his various and numerous crimes, such as illegal money collecting, money laundering, falsifying court documents, scolding judges, disobeying the court orders, organizing mob riots, infringing intellectual property rights, and cyber-terrorist practicing. However, it doesn’t matter whether Fang wants or not, because Chinese people have already known the facts, and that’s exactly why Fang was voted “The No. 2 Human Scum in China” last year, second only to Mr. Bo Xilai, the disgraced CCP Party Chief of Chongqing[62].

Human Scum, Second to One
The screenshot of a NextTV news report, showing that Fang had been voted the Human Scum No. 2 in China.

6. A Subconscious Confession

A few hours after issuing the statement laden with lies, Fang officially identified Mr. Jeffrey Beall as the first ever “foreign Fang-hater.” Here is the abstract of Fang’s identification report, Second Exposure of the Weird Librarian at an American University:

“Finally there is a foreign Fang-hater. Who is he? He is Jeffrey Beall the librarian at the University of Colorado.”[63]

And here is the first paragraph of the report:

“Fang-haters are like those telemarketing crooks, they adopt the strategy of extensive cultivation, [hoping that] by sending more emails they would eventually fool someone. The strategy didn’t work very well before. They reported to dozens of foreign publishers, saying that I had ‘plagiarized’ their figures. However, only one publisher questioned me, and expressed their understanding of my explanation. They reported to dozens of foreign authors, saying that I had ‘plagiarized’ their articles, and at last only Root-Bernstein believed them (Fang-haters spread rumor that he was my advisor, the fact is, I don’t know him at all.) However, Root-Bernstein is hardly a Fang-hater, he only has his own weird definition of ‘plagiarism,’ and wanted to teach me a lesson.”[64]

Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein publicly denounced Fang’s plagiarism in 2011, which was reported widely in China, and finally cost Fang’s column in China Youth Daily. Also, for that reason only, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein was accused by Fang of practicing pseudoscience[65]. So, if he is not a Fang-hater, how come Mr. Beall is a Fang-hater? Here is Fang’s second paragraph:

“This time, Yi Ming (Ge Xin) sent a letter to hundreds of foreign scholars slandering MDPI publishing company, and he finally fooled Jeffrey Beall the librarian at the University of Colorado, who accepted their allegations totally, and put MDPI on the black list of fraudulent journal publishers, which let Fang-haters cheers for the great victory. Based on the communications between me and him, he can indeed be classified as a ‘hater,’ [because of] not only his ignorance, but also his problems of integrity (read ‘A Weird Librarian at an American University’ for detail).”[66]

In other words, Mr. Beall’s crime is the damage he had caused to MDPI’s reputation, which is more severe than the crime committed by Dr. Root-Bernstein, which was mere damage to Fang’s personal reputation. Namely, according to Fang, MDPI’s reputation is more important than Fang’s own reputation. Yet Fang claims that “I am not a friend of Dr. Shu-Kun Lin. ……I have never received a stipend from Dr. Shu-Kun Lin.” Apparently, “the most popular and successful science writer in China” thinks everyone else in this world is stupider than him.

Congratulations, Mr. Beall, You Have Won!

Nowadays in China, it is kind of honor to be identified as a Fang-hater, just like being labelled as a Satan-hater indicates that you possess hatred against evil. So, why did Fang label Mr. Beall as a Fang-hater? The reason is simple: not only did Mr. Beall see through the trick of Fang and Lin’s Photo War, he also pointed out the nature of their relationship. Therefore, Fang’s only option was to issue an empty statement, which even his followers won’t believe. In other words, Mr. Beall’s two punches hit Fang’s Gate of Death, which essentially made Fang powerless. Therefore, by labelling Mr. Beall as a Fang-hater, he could “legitimately” ignore all the punches from Mr. Beall.

More specifically, by labelling Mr. Beall as a Fang-hater, Fang indicated that he was going to adopt “the last strategy of all the imposters when their frauds are brought to light”: play dumb, remain silent, and pretend nothing has happened.

【Please download the PDF file for the notes.】

被编辑3次。最后被亦明编辑于07/05/2014 04:47PM。
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) (3950 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) (4081 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.