Summary of the Case

1 The Information About My Manuscript

My manuscript The Weak Correlation Experimental Designs (In Chinese) was submitted in March 5, 2006 by e-mail into Editorial Department of Journal of Mathematics in Practice and Theory,

The initial review lasted 19 months, On October 6, 2007, the notice of "Repair and Acceptance" was received for me.

On December 2, 2007, I submitted the revised draft, then there was another 7 months of silence.

On June 24, 2008, the notice of queuing to print after paying the page fee was received for me, which was published in Feb. 2009, [Mathematics in Practice and Theory, Vol.39, No. 3, 99-107, (2009) (In Chinese)], referred to as He(2009).

The publishing process was three years, extremely rare for this Journal.

2 C.D.Lin & Boxin Tang was suspected of stealing and preemptive publication

Who delayed the review process of my manuscript? Of course it will not be an unrelated reviewer, it must be a stakeholder. So far, only one research team has been discovered, their methods and results are the same as mine.

If it were not for malicious delay by the reviewers, my manuscript should be published in February 2008 (Volume 38, Issue 3). On January 30th, Chunfang Devon Lin and Boxin Tang of Simon Fraser University in Canada uploaded a paper to the world-renowned statistical journal Biometrika. The paper published a set of OLHD and NOLH as the main theme. At that time, Lin was rushing to write her doctoral thesis, and she couldn't wait to publish these results. The construction method and results were the same as He (2009) , with the typical characteristics of stealing and preemptive publication. For details, please refer to "C1 A Paper Purely for Illegal registration" in Appendix C.

Three months later, she hurriedly read out her doctoral thesis, and on June 20, 2008, the doctoral thesis approval letter issued by the SFU was obtained. It was Friday in the Canadian time zone. On June 24th (Monday) in the China time zone, my editor was relieved and sent me a message, queuing to print after paying the page fee. After receiving the PhD thesis approval letter, Dr. Lin was ecstatic and notified my editor to release my manuscript. She thought she was secret, but revealed the secret.

After investigation, the originality and system design in my manuscript were stolen, and almost all the innovative elements appear systematically in the doctoral thesis, including the definition of basic concepts, theorems of existence, optimization criteria, exchange algorithms, the definition of stacking operations, and the stacking principle of orthogonal matrices. Only those who have read my manuscript carefully can be so consistent. So I have to suspect that Boxin Tang is the reviewer of my manuscript, and Tang's PhD student C.D.Lin is the acting reviewer. I sent emails to the editorial department of the journal I submitted for 5 times, and twice emailed to its editor-in-chief Lin Qun for verification, but did not reply, indicating that they did not deny that this is true.

3. C.D.Lin & Boxin Tang has many behaviors contrary to academic ethics

Three papers were separated from the doctoral thesis, and published in world-renowned journals separately, that all contain elements of theft.

• Biometrika, Volume 96, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 243–247(Lin(2009)).

• Biometrika, Volume 96, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 51–65 ( Bingham(2009)),

• The Annals of Statistics 2010, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1460–1477（Lin(2010)）

Frequent errors and chaotic logic in these papers indicate that they lack basic knowledge preparation and mature thinking about the subject. Some common plagiarism and cheating techniques can be seen here. Such as,

Imitation;

Fabricate their own statements to replace the original text;

They omit, lie, fake, and deceive readers, if can't make up their own words;

Cheating during the review process: find celebrities to endorse; recommend friends and collaborators to review the manuscript; some behaviors are bribery and transactional in nature.

Their performance was wonderful and vivid. For example:

Lin (2009) is a typical paper who steals and preemptive publication during the reviewer.

Lin’s doctoral thesis (Lin2008) has many obvious mistakes. In order to grab the right to publish first, some should be revised but she did not revise before the review, and the doctoral supervisor should carefully review it, but he did not carefully review and guide her writing. The three supervisors are all collaborators on the same subject, and they review themselves.

Lin (2010) is a subset of this doctoral thesis, with many serious mistakes. For example, the three theorems are unqualified from the point of view of basic mathematics. Theorem 1 does not prove; The necessary part of Theorem 2 comes from stealing, and the fabricated proof process seriously leaves the specification; Theorem 3 is not a theorem, but a corollary of theorem 1. Theorem 1 is incorrect, and theorem 3 is naturally also incorrect. The proof they claim is not a proof at all. There was obvious cheating in the review process of this paper, Boxin Tang is both the author and the associate editor of AOS. A so-called anonymous editor is Rahul Mukerjee who helped Lin (2009) cheat, and he is also an associate editor of AOS. The two so-called anonymous reviewers are not anonymous, but friends and collaborators of Boxin Tang, One of them was Chinese professor Ai Mingyao, the other was Chinese professor Liu Minqian, and the actual reviewer was Ai Mingyao's graduate student He Yuanzhen (she had just graduated from university for two years at the time of review). After the paper was published, Liu M.Q. immediately went to B. Tang as a visiting scholar for one month, and He Y.Z went to B. Tang for postdoctoral research for one year. This is a reward and is of bribery and transactional nature. He Y.Z. did not seriously perform the review duties, which caused the article to be published with serious errors. The parties concerned did not deny it.