First of all, it is obvious that the author did not take the initiative to withdraw the manuscript, but the editor did. Although the tone of the retraction statement sounds like the author's voluntary retraction, this article was withdrawn by the editor, and this writing is just a format (if you don't believe me, check other journals, it is all written like this). The interview of Withdrawal Observation also shows that Xing Lida and others will not withdraw the manuscript).

Xing Lida is really a big shot. Naturally, he is always ready to go and withdraw. It is so calm and graceful. And the comments of the following fans are quite speechless. Some people actually say that they are great. Why does it sound like it's an honor to be retracted?

So what kind of articles will be retracted?

First of all, periodicals will not withdraw manuscripts frequently, because it will reduce their reputation. Journals usually publish errata to correct minor errors that do not involve fraud. If it is an academic debate, peer review opinions can be published for discussion. Only when the mistakes are serious enough to make people question the validity of the research will the paper be withdrawn. Usually, the withdrawn articles have the following two characteristics:

1. There is obvious evidence that the research results are unreliable.

2. There are also academic ethics issues, such as falsification of papers and encroachment on other people's academic achievements.

It can be seen that withdrawing manuscripts is actually a very serious matter. Previous studies have shown that withdrawing manuscripts will have a very obvious negative impact on the author's career development.

Does Xing Lida's article conform to the above two points?

First of all, the research results are unreliable. After re-rendering, the apical foramen, pterygoid teeth, palatal teeth and lateral teeth can be clearly seen, but the square yoke bone and preorbital foramen can not be found. Even without phylogenetic analysis, this combination of characteristics is enough to show that the eye-toothed bird belongs to the scale dragon, not the main dragon (including dinosaurs and birds) In fact, the author also pointed out that this specimen has many characteristics of lizards, but their operation is puzzling. In the phylogenetic analysis, they used a database containing only Mesozoic birds.

Apart from the serious mistakes in the research results, is this article false? What needs to be emphasized here is that in paleontology research, fossil fraud is the most typical means of fraud, but it is not the only means. If we knew in advance that it was a lizard, or even that there was a skeleton specimen behind its head, the nature of this article would be far more than an academic mistake. In fact, this article was submitted in September last year, accepted by 5438+ 10 and published in March, but Xing Lida and others already knew that there was a more complete specimen at the amber conference in Bangkok last June 165438+ 10, and this specimen was a lizard, not a bird (there is evidence, the editor of Nature The authors can take the initiative to withdraw the manuscript to prevent the spread of wrong knowledge, but they don't do that, but insist on using the wrong research methods to confirm the wrong conclusions. I don't know what the motive is.