Corruption is Everywhere > Would you believe even in science and the journal Nature?

 

Will string of science scandals ruin century-old journal Nature’s reputation in China?

Chinese academic watchdogs and online detectives are exposing growing numbers of problematic papers in Nature journals

South China Morning Post

Chao Kongin Beijing

Published: 6:00pm, 22 May 2026

For decades, publishing a paper in Nature was regarded as the ultimate academic achievement in China – a fast track to promotions, research grants, hospital appointments and elite national talent programmes.

But a growing wave of academic fraud allegations could be turning that prestige into a liability.

Over the past two months, Chinese social media platforms have been flooded with accusations targeting papers published in Nature and its subsidiaries, including Nature Cancer, Nature Cell Biology and Nature Nanotechnology. Several of the accused authors are prominent professors, deans, “national talent” scholars and scientists with top state honours.

On Chinese social platforms, a once-unthinkable phrase has become increasingly common: “Even Nature cannot be trusted any more.”

The South China Morning Post has contacted Springer Nature about the allegations and its operations in Greater China.

The accusations have rapidly escalated from isolated claims into a broader challenge to the credibility of elite scientific journals themselves.

At the centre of the storm is claims by whistle-blower and science blogger, “Student Geng”, a former biomedical PhD student who dropped out of Beihang University without completing his doctorate and started creating video content online. He has since amassed around 1.8 million followers on social media.

Geng dissected scientific research papers frame by frame – examining western blot images, microscopy figures, supplementary data sets and statistical patterns that he claims reveal manipulation.

His videos often resemble public peer-review sessions conducted online. And there are some typical examples of Springer Nature’s academic scandals.

China-Singapore team’s nanovaccine suppresses cancer recurrence and spread in animal tests

In early April, top cancer researcher Professor Wang Ping, the former dean of Tongji University’s School of Life Sciences and Technology, was accused of irregularities in two papers published in Nature.

After facing disciplinary action, he was fired from his position this month, demoted by two ranks and issued a 24-month ban on promotions, funding and awards.

On April 25, Nankai University faced allegations over suspicious statistical patterns in a paper published in Nature Cancer, following claims made by Geng in a video posted on social media.

On May 6, a joint research team from Fudan University and Guangzhou Medical University also came under scrutiny over abnormal source data in a Nature paper.

Days later, on May 12, Shanghai University was accused of possibly fabricated numerical patterns in a paper published in Nature Nanotechnology.

Since the allegations were raised online, institutions including Nankai University, Fudan University and Shanghai University have announced their own investigations. The SCMP has reached out to the universities for comment.

As of May 17, Geng claimed to have another solid piece of evidence of fabrication in research papers published in Nature or its sister journals by four scholars holding prestigious state funding.

For many Chinese researchers, the anger directed at Nature is not only about potential fraud, but also about what publication in the journal represents within China’s academic system.

A Nature paper can determine whether a scientist receives millions of yuan in funding, secures tenure, qualifies for national talent schemes or earns promotions at a leading hospital.

Tongji University in Shanghai has taken disciplinary action against a top cancer researcher. Photo: Handout

Consequently, questionable papers are increasingly viewed not merely as cases of scientific misconduct, but as evidence of unfair resource allocation in an intensely competitive system.

The reputational stakes are particularly high because China has become one of Nature’s largest markets.

Nature and its parent company maintain extensive commercial ties across the country through academic conferences, publishing partnerships, training programmes, data services and collaborations with Chinese universities and research institutes.

A collapse in trust would therefore threaten not only prestige but also influence and business interests.

For example, one renowned multidisciplinary journal, Nature Communications, recently became a focus of controversy after the Chinese Academy of Sciences adjusted reimbursement policies related to publication fees. The journal has long charged high article processing fees, prompting criticism from some Chinese scholars who describe certain top-tier open-access journals as “predatory publishing”.

For now, many of the allegations remain under investigation, and several accused researchers have not publicly responded.

But the deeper impact may already be visible.

For British publication Springer Nature, the greater danger may not be a handful of retractions, but the erosion of the authority and prestige it spent more than a century building.

Springer Nature in China did not answer phone calls, and no response was received to emailed questions before publication.