For the first time, Chinese scholars have withdrawn the Nature cover article to draw attention to it

the last time Nature withdrew his cover paper took a full eight years, and this time it took only five months.
July 22nd, at 11 p.m., the Nature cover paper "The Burmese Cretaceous Hummingbird-sized Dinosaur", which had caused an academic sensation and was co-authored by Chinese and American scientists, was officially withdrawn. The "smallest dinosaur" is a lizard!
article has been controversial since it was published on March 12. First published only 24 hours later, a number of academic colleagues in China jointly published a questioning article. Immediately after, some international counterparts have pointed out the shortcomings of their specimen analysis.
, five months later, the author's team issued a withdrawal statement.
when he published the paper, the withdrawal of the manuscript when the low-key plain. In Response to such an academic phenomenon, In June this year, Nature also sent a message pointing out the lack of transparency in the withdrawal statement.
is no small matter, should be treated as seriously as the publication of the paper withdrawal! To this end, the reporter reviewed the paper controversial event process and focus issues. What exactly is the answer behind the seemingly simple "withdrawal statement"? What did you avoid?
: on March 12, 2020,
, an associate professor at the China University of Geoscology (Beijing) and Jingmai K. O'Connor, a foreign researcher at the
Institute of Paleontology, published a Nature cover paper, "The Smallest Dinosaur in Amber in Burma";
On March 13, 2020, Chinese scholars published a questioning article on "The Smallest Dinosaur ever in Amber",
perhaps the largest oolong in history, pointing out that the specimen in the study should be a lizard rather than a dinosaur/bird;
May 23, 2020, nature's editor notified the authors of the challenge paper that the original paper might have a problem, but that it was not appropriate to publish the challenge paper on
; Nature editor added "Change History" entry under the original paper, said that the article is under investigation, after the settlement will
"take appropriate editorial action
the authors' team withdrew this article "in order to prevent incorrect
(classification) information from being kept in the literature," the authors said in a statement from Nature. Although Oculudentavis khaungraae's description is still accurate, a new, unresolved specimen raises doubts about the original system development location of the specimen (HPG-15-3). In
, the first author of the paper, Yan Lida, gave Chinese the withdrawal of the draft notes have further explanation.
reporters found that the key to the withdrawal was "the research progress of a new specimen found by the author's team to preserve a more complete specimen of the same origin." The team realized that the skull of the new specimen was very similar to that of HPG-15-3, but that the back of the skull was typical of the scaly dragon and should be classified as a scaly dragon. This suggests that HPG-15-3 is likely to also belong to the dragon class, unlike the original conclusion.
the authors were able to negotiate with Nature to clarify that the specimen in amber was not a "minimal dinosaur/bird" but a dragon/lizard, reflecting a spirit of scientific responsibility that deserves recognition.
but there are a number of loopholes in this withdrawal note.
the original domestic and foreign experts on the thesis's research conclusions are not based on the new specimens, they only based on the original specimen CT scan data, put forward the author's misjudgment.
meanwhile, Oliver Rauhut, a palaeontologist at the University of Munich in Germany who studied the evolution of dinosaurs and early birds, and Per Erik Ahlberg, a professor in the Department of Biology at the Royal Swedish University of
and Uppsala University, were interviewed separately by the Chinese Science Journal.
Oliver Rauhut:
Has been able to identify anatomy from the original paper, and there is enough evidence to support that the amber fossil is a scaly dragon (represented by the living wedge-toothed lizards and lizards). It is problematic to explain the large number of lizard-like features of the fossil by miniaturization, for example, why (miniaturization) causes its fangs to disappear? I don't know of any bird that's ever been in this situation, I don't know of any birds that's like this, which explains that this skull isn't a bird at all, much more directly.
the main problem with this paper is that the author basically preconscionally believes that the specimen is a bird and analyzes it on this premise (which is not necessarily intentional).
Erik Ahlberg:
is wrong to assume that "eye-toothed birds" are the smallest dinosaurs.
I disagree with the author of the communication that the back of the skull is needed to prove that the "eye-toothed bird" does not belong to the dry flock of birds. The opposite is true: the evidence in the paper strongly proves that it belongs to a scaly species, so much so that a skull with an obvious bird character is needed to prove that the "eye-toothed bird" is a bird.
, the most important thing is the disappearing front pores and the extra side teeth, which are typical of scaly organisms and cannot be explained by poor preservation. All dinosaurs and birds, without exception, had front pores and grooved teeth. explanation of the reasons for the withdrawal is the most critical part of each withdrawal statement.
study, the analysis of the original specimen and the progress of the study of the new specimen are two independent factors. The former relates to the study of its own design and demonstration of whether there are major defects, while the latter is only an accident.
the withdrawal statement referred only to the latter and did not give a positive explanation of the critical analysis and argumentation of the original specimen, which was difficult to be convincing.
most insoptively, as early as the evening of March 19th, the author of the paper told Caixin, "She agrees with the challenger's conclusion that it's more likely to be a lizard than a bird." Although she said at the time that "the only conclusive evidence for her came from 'a new specimen with a back skull', indicating that it was indeed a lizard, not a bird".
Based on time clues published in Caixin' report, the team saw the new specimen after it was confirmed to have been received on January 22, 2020, and obtained important CT scan data for the new specimen before and after the paper was published on March 12, and concluded that CT data on its cranial bones supported the species' assumption that it was a lizard.
the problem is that on June 14, 2020, the author of the original paper sent a reply to the challenge paper on the preprinted platform, still insisting that the "eye-toothed bird" is a bird!
Chinese the withdrawal notes explain that they "validated HPG-15-3 in a larger matrix of systemic developmental characteristics, and the results still support that HPG-15-3 belongs to birds among dinosaurs."
that the team had ignored the fact that the findings were seriously inconsistent with the results of their new CT scan analysis of the specimen.
the release of the preprint, after repeated peer examination, it was found that there were a series of errors in the coding of anatomical information in the matrix analysis. After correcting the errors in the anatomical information, the same matrix was used, and the result was that the eye-toothed "birds" were located in the scaly species of the scaly species, i.e. lizards, snakes, and dragons, far from the main dragon dinosaurs and birds.
, academic disputes are a normal process in science. Even if the draft is withdrawn, researchers are usually praised rather than humiliated if they treat it with rigour.
, however, the authors have not been able to face up to the "obvious" errors observed in the anatomical analysis of the original specimens, which have been repeatedly pointed out by domestic and foreign counterparts. cover article of one of the top journals was widely questioned, and the failure of the peer-reviewed "control mechanism" was pointed out at the time of the incident.
Rauhut:
this event is a good example of the ability of science to self-correct - the scientific community may have noticed and corrected the wrong interpretation - and that's how science works.
But what worries me more than this is that there are no authors involved, and no reviewers and editors of Nature find these "differences", which raises questions about the strictness of academic "control".
this reminds us of how quality control is carried out in some high-impact journals and what papers can be published in these journals.
Erik Ahlberg: "The
review process for this manuscript has failed. The purpose of peer review is to detect such errors prior to release. The reviewer should carefully read the manuscript and cross-examine it like a defence lawyer in court in an attempt to identify any weaknesses. Reviewers play an extremely important role.
, it was clear that no reviewer had found a very serious problem with the manuscript, or that someone had found it but had been ignored. That's why things are now.
published a stunning story that produced striking results that clearly went beyond established norms on how scientific research was conducted and published. While it is easy to point the finger of blame at authors and/or journals in this context, we should also remember that some of the structural aspects of the existing scientific career path seem to be designed (albeit unintentionally) to push people in that direction. news of the withdrawal was confirmed, the first author of the paper, Yan Lida, was contacted by the China Science Daily. In Chinese the draft, he declined to be interviewed and said he would contact the author if there were any more questions.
, he said in an interview with Caixin that his main job was to "initiate research, provide amber specimens, and communicate with working groups." "This article is based on the author of the newsletter, who wrote the entire manuscript, and I have written some of them." Caixin reporter in this regard to the author of the communication, its reply, "Yu Lida wrote the amber source, amber weight and size of this information." As
a young paleontologist and a popular science student, Zhai Lida has published several high-level journal papers in recent years. On his profile, in addition to this one, there are five representative papers, all of which are first authors (some of which are also correspondents).
The reporter read the paper found that these articles in the narrative of the author's contribution, The contribution of Lida basically around the specimen provided, project designers, leaders, some including manuscript writing.
is involved here, the scientific community's concern about co-authors. The reason why the author's order is so important is basically related to the evaluation of scientific research.
Last year, during the
period, a number of representatives of the scientific and technological community
pointed out to the media that China's current scientific research results of the "three to three do not recognize" phenomenon: only the first author, only the first author unit, only the author of communications;
on the question of how co-authors can be sorted more in line with scientific norms, Oliver Rauhut told China Science:
In Germany, our main funding agency, DFG, has established rules and guidelines for good research practices. If the first author provides only specimens, but does not participate in actual studies, nor does he participate in the interpretation of results, then he cannot be the first author according to my understanding. In general, in palaeontology, the first author should be the author who does most of the work and plays the greatest role in presenting the most important results and the explanation of the paper.
In practice, it depends on different countries and teams, for example, they can make the person who mainly provides the material or leads the working group the first author, which is sometimes, but can be disdenting.
I've heard of situations where someone is asking to be the first author to give other peers the opportunity to study specimens, and that person has no other contribution - which is, of course, immoral academic behavior. However, I'm not familiar with the details of the current event, so I'm not sure if that's the case here.
Per Erik Ahlberg replied:
In the field of biological research, multi-person participation in projects is common, and the head of the research team (who conceived the project and received funding and recruited the team) may not have done much practical work, which is why it is important to distinguish between the first and last authors. Because the first author is the one who does most of the actual work, or at least the most important practical work;
in palaeontology, conventions are not so mature, and there is still a tendency to simply sort by author, so the first is the most important and the last is the least important. Personally, I prefer biological practice because it allows you to distinguish between "two importances" and give appropriate recognition to each.
in recent years, there has been increasing interest in co-authors in the scientific community, who have done virtually nothing but fund the project, but can still write their names on paper.
now, many journals, including Nature, require clear statements about the author's contribution to prevent such abuse. Of course, there was a difference of opinion as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable conduct in that area.
I personally believe that project leaders should at least review the paper's data to ensure that they understand and support the conclusions presented. In my paper, I'm the last author, and I'm always as hands-on as I can with real-world analysis, and I often generate some data myself.
the case of the "eye-toothed bird", if the first author really has the ability to perform morphological analysis of the skull, he should play a more active role in the study than he actually did. the "smallest dinosaur" event has settled, and as Per Erik Ahlberg points out, the scholars involved in the review showed how the scientific debate should go. <br