It is inappropriate to call this matter academic fraud. The key is whether the definition and understanding of academic papers are consistent and whether there are differences. There seems to be no national standard definition at present. If you look at these small papers carefully, they contain the author's new academic viewpoints, raise new questions, have evidence to discuss, cite references, are academic, and are published in famous academic journals. It is not an exaggeration to call it an academic paper. Einstein once said: "Asking a question is often more important than solving a problem, because solving a problem may only be a mathematical or experimental skill, and asking new questions requires creative imagination, which marks the real progress of science." It is also remarkable that such a small paper can find and raise new questions, and it should not be judged simply by the length. In addition, most people can't publish any articles in the main journals of nature and science, and they have been strictly screened, so the employment rate is very low. The editors of Nature and Science are not ordinary people, and the articles favored by several editors must have their new ideas and highlights. Moreover, when Nature looked it up, it really regarded such a small paper as an "article" under the communication column, including doi number and "article measurement". It seems that nature treats such articles and research papers equally and has no intention of dismissing them.

Moreover, in some years, such articles were indeed included in the statistical results of scientific papers in China. At the national level, it is recognized as a scientific and technological paper. Why not call it a paper?

Moreover, this may be a conspiracy. At the same time, he provided Fang and Liu Gang, a researcher at China Academy of Social Sciences, with pre-prepared libel materials, so that Fang and Liu Gang could send similar things. Fang and Liu Gang also accused each other of copying their posts. Fang also admitted on his Weibo that someone did tip him off. This incident seems to be using celebrities as excuses, using news media to report out of context, using public opinion to exert pressure and stigma, and using readers' ignorance of details to aggravate public indignation, thus attacking individuals and universities. Anyone with a discerning eye will see through the mystery and mystery. Academic problems should have been judged by academic colleagues and academic committees, and should not be judged and attacked by public opinion.