Print your Own

I noticed this the other day! Surely it can’t be real or is it someone patent busting? It’s all about printing your own compounds with a 3D printer. “In drug discovery, de novo compounds are usually difficult to synthesise  purify and suffer low yields. Thus, DrugPrinter, a novel protocol for ‘printing’ any compound instantly instead of using a time-consuming, low yield synthesis and without requiring purification and separation of byproduct, is proposed”.

It goes on “Thus, if DrugPrinter can one day become a reality it will be a huge step forward in drug discovery. The operator needs only to sit down in front of a computer and draw the structure of compound which is then inputted into the computer, and the system will automatically search cloud computing for suitable reaction conditions between bond and bond“.

The reactor is based on a traditional Chinese egg-cake oven! It will use optical tweezers on a robotic arm to grab atoms: here is the first clue optical!! I thought the wavelength of light was to long to resolve individual atoms?

Anyway I’ll leave you all to judge for yourselves, the paper is open access, by the way, something strange for Science Direct. Is this the Chinese equivalent of an April Fools joke?

Edit: I noticed that Chemjobber also spotted this paper, given to him by a colleague.

Edit: this link should provide access to the manuscript:

Please everyone read this by SepSpain who has taken the time and effort to do a few calculations. Thanks very much.    drugprinter

38,496 total views, 1 views today

Prof. dangerdackel (199 Posts)

48 thoughts on “Print your Own

  1. I am the author of this paper. I think it time to stop this discussion so I decide to withdraw this accepted paper to avoid be insult any more. I wish our team can really construct a prototype of this technique even only a little progress. I had got tenure for more than five year and I really do not need this kind of non-constructive discussion. Please end of this discussion since I had email to the editor to ask withdraw this paper. BTW, this paper had been reviewed by three reviewers and revised for third version and revised by two editor. So I had revised it more than six version and check all the references. So please do not insult drug discovery today’ judgment. Just blame on me. I wish I can publish again five years latter with a solid evidence and experiment. Thank you all. You guy are really hurt me very badly.

    1. LOL, interesting because there has been no discussion here until now.
      I let my readers make up their own minds.

  2. yap. i know. But your blog is the ranking one in the google search. It is hard not to reply you first. 🙁
    I wish I can give you all the comments from reviewers and editors almost 70 question! (I don’t know all the reviewers comment and reply whether should be confidential) including how fast to make 350 kD molecular and i calculate how fast it will be. anyway it not important right now. I just want to live peaceful.

    1. If you wish this to be taken seriously perhaps you should consider making the reviewer’s comments public!

    2. Reviewer comments are not confidential. Of course their identity is protected by the editors, and they can make confidential comments to the editors only, but the comments addressed to the author are not confidential.

  3. is this legal to open the reviewers comment and my reply including two editors’ comments? Should I need their agreement? i had submit three version and every version made a very huge revision. actually, in the first, it is just a project and just a concept two years ago. and I decide to publish it. i know this idea is very crazy. but who know? maybe i am on the right way! i major in chemist from BS MS and PhD. However, i also work in world ‘s second largest semiconductor for few years. so i know how to do etching . I just post some comment but without any name on it. i think it would help to clarify all the issue. I just post some major problem and delete most of not important question.

    vi) What do you envisage doing with the synthesized compound? If for screening, how many molecules would you need?

    Ans: For a computer-aided drug designer (CADDer), I am suffering in lack of the de novo compound for biological test for almost 20 years. Even the top organic synthesis expert cannot afford our requirement for synthesizing almost thousands of similar compound in the same time. Beside, these kind of experiment will be time-consuming and low yield if the reaction step is more than 8. Thus, this kind of 3D molecular-level printer will be the best solution for fabricate numerous different compounds in a very sort time. As I had mentioned in the article, this kind of printer in not suitable for fabricate a large amount of same compound. It design for the CADDer to obtain thousands of similar de novo compounds in a very sort time.

    General Points
    1) As you can see, there were a number of very relevant and constructive points raised by the referees, all of which need to be addressed, by way of an annotated letter addressing each point individually. If you could use “track changes” in the amended text, it makes it easier for me to assess that the points have been addressed.
    Response: Okay. I will use the word “track changes”.
    Editorial Points
    1) Your abstract is far too long; it needs to be reduced to 120 words or fewer.

    Response: Okay. I had reduced the Abstract to 105 words.

    2) Please remove the graphical abstract from the text and submit it as a separate file.

    Response: Okay.

    3) I still think that you need to give some estimates of the following:
    a. How long would it take to make a single compound of (for example) 350Da

    Response: I can give you a concept of how fast the hydrogen bond generated and disappear. Please check my web site have great amount of video of molecular dynamics simulation. For example, please check this one
    or press “play” for the video. This video is one of our paper published on 2011. The hydrogen bond is generated and broken in only less than 1 nano second. The total simulation time is 20 Nano second. This kind of DrugPrinter can react only in less 1 Nano second at once for all of the covalent bond. So the molecular weight is not the critical factor of how fast it will be. The key point is how to search so many bond-bond reaction condition and make the mode for the reaction of each bond. According to the reviewer’s comment, I will not put this paragraph in the manuscript and just answer your question here.

    b. Assuming a molecule of 350Da, how long would it take to make 1pmole of compound? You would need to make about this amount of compound for a standard in vitro test as a rule of thumb.

    Response: thanks for your great question. I would like to thanks all the questions from you and Steve. It always made me rethinking the feasibility. From the aforementioned video, we know made a compound maybe only need less than 1 Nano second. However, if we want to make 1 pmole of this compound. For example, 1 pmole of a 350 molecular weight de novo compound need 350 g x 10^-12. I estimate roughly (6×10^23) x (10^ -12)x (10^-9)/60sx60min=1.66 pmole/min. If we use many set of these tiny reactor in the same time. It can reach Mass Production kilogram of product per minute. So I don’t think the difficulty is the speed of production but in how to separate the product from the tiny mode.
    I will add a paragraph of the mode can be removed easily just like etching procedure of semiconductor devices.
    I think the major time is not in the reaction. Some major bottle neck that our team is still try to figure out including the mode is reusable or not. How to speed up the process in remove the mode and pick up the molecule. I think if we use the mode can be direct etching by photolithographic process or chemical solvent. It would be speed up the whole process.

    c. What would drive a reduction in synthesis time from 5 years from now and 20 years (would you use massively parallel synthesis methods for example)?

    Response: Thanks for your very sharp question. Frankly speaking, this question is too HARD for me to answer it. I afraid I will give you the wrong answer because we are fix our procedure almost every week. The massively parallel synthesis methods will be also consider in our protocol. I am sorry I cannot answer your great question for now. But I bet after this paper published, someone will answer your big question. The fabrication revolution will come.

    d. Could you give some estimates of how costly the synthesis of a single compound would be?

    Response: It is another sharp question that our team and project referee ask us all the time. I must emphasize the cost will be higher than the traditional way in the first stage before this technology is popularized. The cost maybe very expansive. That is why I say in the very short time, I don’t think this machine can be afforded by normal people but must be development by big pharmaceutical company. I think who own the technology of DrugPrinter will be the leading pharmaceutical company in the future.

    5) The reviewers make very helpful points and I hope that you will be able to address them all.

    Response: I will. All the three reviewers’ comments are all very important.

    7) I think this article will be a massively important one and I hope that between us we can produce a quality paper. Thank you for thinking of Drug Discovery Today to publish your work.
    Response: Thank you again for giving me the change to publish this cutting-age work.

    8) I have nothing to add in addition to the comments of the reviewers.
    Response: Thank you and all the reviewers again.

    2 Since the big data will be employ in this technology, the authors should clarify which part need the big data, only in chemical reaction condition?

    Response: Thank for your advice. We had add the application of big data in the end of this manuscript and highlight in red and blue.

    3 In part a, how can we let the bulk material become only an atom and fly to the specific position?

    Response: For now, our experiment is using plasma is cheaper. But I am not pretty sure if we use laser, the effect maybe better. The specific pipeline can only allow single atom fly into the specific position.

    4 The part b and c seems not difficult in modern technology. How to operate the part d, the reactor made by many tiny reactors?
    Response: Some major bottle neck that our team is still try to figure out including the mode is reusable or not. How to speed up the process in remove the mode and pick up the molecule. I think if we use the mode can be direct etching by photolithographic process or chemical solvent. It would be speed up the whole process.

    5 I totally agree the author mention about the APP is not work out in the future because of the law and morality. However, I know a very famous team in European is doing the APP of chemputer. If the drugprinter is only can be applied in factory. It seems not so great as the authors mentioned (the authors claim the drugprinter will be a another revolution of industry)

    Response: I disagree with you for this point. I think within five year, this mechanic definitely is very expensive! However, the car is also very expensive for the first stage, but now almost everyone can afford it.

    6 Before the big data is abused, the author should address more detain about why it need “big data” technology.

    Response: This technology indeed need big data technology. Because all of the different bond-bond chemical reaction need to be search in a very short time and need clod-computing for user for upload their requirements.

    8 This manuscript seems had been reviewed two times. In the final section, opinion, the author should not paste the answer of the reviewer’s comment on it. It seems very weird.

    Response: Thanks for your suggestion. I had remove it and replace the other paragraph.

    1. Thank you for posting some of the 70 questions, could you supply the rest please?
      Some of your answers do not make much sense to me, but I am just an organic chemist. But, the preparation of compound libraries containing lots of individual compounds has been examined by big Pharma and almost totally rejected as the way to go. So what is the difference between the Drugputer and those libraries?
      Can you also comment on the “optical tweezers” I do not see their ability to pick up a single atom. What do you mean by optical?

    2. Hi YC,

      In your answer to the reviewers your calculation looks a little off. Assuming your 10^-9 is 1 nanosecond then the units for that calculation are:

      ((molecules/mole) * moles * s )/ (s * min) which comes out as molecules/min and the numbers come as 0.166.

      A picomole of substance is 6×10^11 molecules and at a nanosecond (1×10^-9 s) each that is 600 s = 10 minutes so 0.1 pmol/min.

      A pmol of a 350 Da molecule is 350 pg, which is far too little to actually characterise or screen. You may screen at pM concentrations but you still need to be able to weigh the compound to start with. Realistically you’re going to need a microgram at least. Which is going to take ~3000 times longer to make, 30000 minutes or 20 days give or take a day. If you need a milligram you are now looking at 57 years. To make a kg then it’s 57 million years.

      You could use parallelisation to accelerate synthesis but to reach your kg/min you’d need ~3×10^13 parallel reactors. Assuming they are 1 cm^3 (a massive underestimate) in volume that’s 30 billion litres, or 1/10th of the amount of crude oil moved by tankers annually.

        1. Hi Seb,
          No offense. I just discuss with my colleague. we find seems i am right. Can you tell me the detail how you calculate?

          and i had mention in the manuscript, this tech is not for fabricate large amount compound. it only design for us (CADD) to test the bioassay.

          if i am wrong. please teach me again. thank you

          1. Hi Seb,
            Thanks for your comment and wonderfully clear analysis of the time and amounts required.
            I took the liberty of posting your PDF with full acknowledgement for your work.

  4. All i want is peaceful living for the rest of my life. I can retired safely within 5 years. So please do not insult me. Since i had withdraw this paper and i will not publish paper anymore. this feeling is too bad!

  5. this is too damn hard that i ca not stand anymore. i just use some imagination to picture how 20 years later it will be. However, it seems everybody don’t like my idea.
    I had take several dispression drug. i wish I had a drugprinter right here just beside me. PRINT more depression drug for me….:( but maybe only few molecular!
    I had withdraw the paper and send the URL of all the comment to editor. I just got the editor email. he respect my decision and accepted my withdraw. Now everybody can relax right now. Me too :“`you are happy now. So leave me along, i need time to recovery my heart.

    1. Hi YC everyone can have imagination but to publish something you need some concrete results. here you published a so-called revolutionary technology you should have known it will raise public attention and a lot of questions will be asked. i don’t think this is an insult of any kind. no one is going against your idea but your claims/findings are against everything we’ve learned in chem101. you started all this discussion and you can’t simply hope by withdrawing this article would stop it. at the end of the it’s your reputation that you putted on the line when you decided to go forward publish this imagination.

      1. I know. Thanks! i had take threee stinox right now. But I still can not sleep. It 4:34 AM right now. I still have a meeting on 8:00 AM. I am just feel painful and helpless. it seems no one realize what I mean. I had working on this project for more than almost two years. but now it seems it indeed the feasibility is in trouble! how can I face to the fund provider. Ge… I can not alive till the sky turn bright. I used to have strong confident that by editor and reviewer ‘s courage that this tech is very interesting and important, so i decide to pay 3500 USD for OPEN ACCESS. however, now I rather it is only a nightmare and I can forget when i wake up.

        1. I think you should address the scientific issues that have been raised in various places. Crying in the soup will not help.
          I would appreciate it if you kept your posts here on a scientific basis.
          So what exactly do you mean when you referred to “optical tweezers”?

        2. @ YC – i’m very disappointed. as a professor who is five years away from retirement you seemed to be very fragile for criticisms.

          1. I am ok right now. after take stilnox, I always fragile and show the true emotion. sorry about that.

  6. YC, I do feel bad that many of us who made jokes about this did so in a way that included you as a person rather than just focusing on the ideas, and I apologize about that.

    However, the reason this has received so much attention is that you are proposing a system that would completely revolutionize how most of us do our everyday work, but the way you have described it appears to contradict the fundamental rules of chemistry as we learned them. It is great to imagine things, and I understand that this journal does not require experimental data, but a lot of the things you said don’t make sense to most synthetic chemists. Is there is any data to back any of this up, or even a reasonable conceptual framework to help us believe that it really is feasible?

    The major questions I had were: (1) How does the actual chemistry work? I’ve never seen a reaction where naked carbon atoms and naked hydrogen atoms were selectively combined by being positioned next to each other to make a specified compound. (2) How would the molds be constructed and what would they be made out of? (3) How do you actually position single atoms in a mold with this sort of precision? (4) If you are making things one molecule at a time with this sort of machine, can you achieve a rate that is actually useful? Above, you say one nanosecond each, but what is that based on? Is there a known manmade machine that works like this and which approaches that kind of turnover?

    And maybe the fault is on me that I’m just not very widely read (and I’ll certainly admit that), so if there are answers to these questions, just tell us what they are. The whole tone of the paper is completely speculative.

    1. Dear Z,

      You ask a very excellent question. As I had mention in this manuscript, I am suffer from the synthesis chemist can not provide enough de novo compound for us to do the bioassay. So more than five years ago, I am keeping thinking is there possible have some other way to instead of synthesis work but just like number of tiny reactor linking together to “made” any compound or material which we want. I am not trying to fool everyone, actually, this manuscript submit to DDT and editor like it novelty and feel interesting. “Dear Dr. Chen,

      I think your article is very intriguing, but I want to make sure that it makes an appropriate impact.”
      And ask me so many question including all your question mention above.
      I try to answer your question and if i am wrong please teach me.
      1 normally, How to made a CH4 from C + 2H2 ->CH4 it should be have some sub-reaction and rate determine step. However, it maybe not use the same way to made this happen in the tiny reactor. Maybe we should let C- and H+ with charge.

      2 this tech is patten right now. I will tell you if all thing is done.

      3 as I had mention in the manuscript, four way can make the atom to the specific position.

      4 you hit the core question. i am pretty sure the bond-bond interaction can be done in less than nanosecond. i just use the molecular dynamics simulation to estimate. I also hope some expert in this board can tell me. please don’t just call me trash or garbage, Chinese fool day this kind of joke. It is really let me feel very bad and don’t wanna answer all the question.

      1. looks like we are finally back to the science discussion. so here’s my 2 cents

        1. i’m not sure if methane (CH4) was made by C + 2H2 but i know naked carbon carries 4 negative charges is extremely reactive. in fact i dont’ even know if such species exists.
        2. in your manuscript you mentioned the technology required cloud data searching for appropriate chemical reaction to join bonds. does this means your drug-printer also use literature know chemical reactions? to my best knowledge i don’t know if there any chemical reactions that are act on atomic level.

        i have a lot more to ask but i think these two are good start.

        btw can you elaborate more on the concept of optical tweezers??

  7. Dear SK,
    I am happy finally this board has a good start of science discussion instead of childish or arrogant racism.
    Let’s go back to science discussion and try never let it become bully humor.

    1 first, you can imagine it need huge energy to take all of the C atom to become a C4+. It will almost take all of four surrounding electronic. So my idea is we must have thousand of different kind of situation here. For example, if we want to made CH4, then we need C+ and H+. therefore, there is one of condition. however, it have more than thousands kind this situation. Why? take this. If we need CH2, and then what happen? It change to C2+ and H+. If we need CH3-CH2-CH2=CH2. And then the first C atom need C+. However, this kind of C+ is different with C+ from CH4. The de novo compound almost more than thousands kind of situation. All I can answer is just stop here. Otherwise i bet there will a new paper from our public discussion especially we still working on this huge different kind reaction database.

    2 No. the literature is far not enough! As i had mention above, ordinary compounds such as CH4. We really not care about this. Because we do not need such a expensive equipment to do this cheap CH4. The complicated compound can be calculated by software to simulate. However, as I had mention in this paper, this is a Interdisciplinary technology. We do need chemist to validate the synthesis condition including pressure, temperature, with or without catalysis. It definitely not easy! So our strategy right now is just to synthesis two huge molecular instead of atom.

    Dear dangerdackel,
    Actually, i am not the expert of optical tweezers. However, one great HHMI is the top expert in this project. It can move molecular right now. it is easy to find these paper. However, to move a atom, seems just one in 2014.

    i must apologize again. in this paper, i am on purpose to use a strong and overstate tone to attract the reader ‘ eye. maybe i should use a humble word in the future.

    Beside, this paper is not a research paper. it is just a feature paper to claim what the future would be. Now it is withdraw now and approve by the editor. just like you say, even this paper is gone, just left the rest of discussion by all of you.

    it is so weird, this paper had been withdraw by me. but the discussion seems still hot. 🙂 it somehow like a kind of plos one. It also seems good thing to me for saving 3500 USD. 🙂

    1. Are you referring to a field ion microscope?
      If so this can indeed move individual atoms about but requires very special operating conditions such as very low temperature about 25K and very high vacuum. However the tip has a positive charge. It’s not my field but the link above may help to get a feel for what you are talking about.

  8. I wish 20 years latter, people can print compound from this idea . even it is just two huge molecular synthesis together (not atom level). after all, it is a good start to development a whole new concept different from traditional synthesis. i wish we can fabricate compound without pollution and byproduct. I know it is hard. but that why we should do research. if I have no pressure of tenure. For me, why do not try something crazy? that’s what i think. So I do not intend to piss off all the synthesis chemist. On the contrary, I do need all the chemist’s knowledge to build the synthesis database.

    1. Hi YC i’m getting a bit tired discussing about imagination/dreams/something 20 years from now so allow me to lay some facts to you.

      1. i think it’s safe to say everything/material in this world is made by chemicals (even the micro-reactors that were mentioned in your paper). when you generate something so reactive, regardless the number of charges you want to put on per atom, i can assure you it will react instantly. how can you expect it will just sit inside the reactors and wait till the next component to show up and react?
      2. since this drug-printer prints one molecule at a time that means you need reactors at molecular level. this is way beyond our current nano-/pico-scale technology. you claimed in your paper your team is about 5 years away from the first prototype this means you mush have some clues how you going to create these micro-reactors (i think micro- is still to big in size but you get my point). would be nice if you can share some thoughts here.
      3. my last question – with technology this revolutionary this is a nature/science grade paper. what is your reason behind only submitted to DDT?

      1. Hi Sk,

        I had rejected by science and nature in last year around Sep. one of them suggest to submit to her sister journal but in a review form. I do not want this concept be a review. I also had email the above information to the editor of DDT to let the editor of DTT to know it. why DDT? because I use to watch this journal. I know this is definitely not a research article neither review article. somehow just like a perspective. So i chose the feature of DDT.

        1. So you were rejected by Nature and Science. Pity.
          It would be nice if you could address yourself to SK’s other questions

  9. to answer all the questions is somehow difficult for me by language barrier. beside, i can not answer just like the reviewer’s comment.
    If I don’t know. I will say i don’t know. I say we will have a prototype because one PI had success to let two “molecular” synthesis. however, i know it far away atom-level.Because that is not my research, i think i should stop talking about this issue before he publish. Look at the figure of part a b c d again, you will aware how many expert including IT, chemist, physic, material science, and operator should be involve in it. As you know, nature and science reject within a week if they do not want it. however, they suggest a sister journal but a review. from all these discussion, i think it is right thing to withdraw this paper first before we can make it. at least, i seems find some idea from all the question that will be very interesting!

    1. YC this reply is like deja vu all over again – “i can not comment on this because of confidentiality, patent, or someone did this and that but because this is not my research so i don’t know. it also requires tremendous amount of human resources (professionals in every scientific field) and huge amount of cloud data (you were very very vague on that topic too)” so what exactly do you know?? you wrote a paper on this revolutionary technology and you can’t even answer simple fundamental questions??

      one last funny thing i found from your reply – how can you write a review on a future technology?

      1. Hi SK,
        i disagree with you this time. if you were me. and leading the project. what will you do? telling everyone the detail secret that still development not by me? even I know, it is not right thing to tell you on this open discussion board. who know someone is watching our conversation and steal his idea? beside, that part is not my expertise.DO you know why i pay 3500 USA to let this paper open access and let the other rest of three DDT paper without pay money? Can you feel all the technology i mention in this paper is not a novel one and without any pattern issue.

        for example, plos com take 1750 USD, scienctific report need 1350 USD, why i choice let this protocol open access? I exactly know it is impossible for only one team to do all the job within 5 years!!

        It do need more any expert in any field to contribute their expertise in this funny stuff. I am just try to picture the future and propose a possible protocol. i had say very clearly again and again. but seems in vain. you must can understand if you are a professor, how serious to divulge my co-worker ‘s study. when i mean within 5 year, we will have a prototype, i mean at least in part of database,our database cooperate with a huge cloud-computing company now (already with MOU sign), this one I think i can do it. I am sorry in the paper I should state more clearly to avoid misunderstanding.
        I feel this discuss is not friendly again and seems all my fault. I will not spend the time on answer question anymore since it not a science discussion more like a Court interrogate. i should go back to lab and do what I do instead of telling the detail again and again. if this discussion last more than one year, then i think I will loss tenure. i must focus on study again. I feel terrible again. please do not just because I can not or i do not know answer your question and using impolite tone again. will you use this manner to other people? and i do care “chinese fool day”, if i say your paper is american fool day, what is your feeling? i will not come back again since this paper is withdraw by me. what should other you need me to do?

        1. I previously asked you to remain with the scientific questions and not ramble on about other matters such as the last post.
          Have you patented this idea? Because if you haven’t then it’s now too late to do so.
          Can you answer the points put by SebSpain?

        2. YC – you have every rights to believe what you are doing is worth doing and we, as the readers, also have rights to challenge you. you can’t expect us to buy everything you are selling. you as the lead and the only author of this paper should do your very best to defend your claims and convince us that this technology is worth investigating. this is never personal nor race. while Seb Spain is trying to prove the feasibility of your technology, i’m more interested in the chemical behaviour inside the machine. the chemistry you propose inside the printer is too unrealistic to me and the concept of how chemicals behave inside the reactor is against everything i’ve learned. i’m not saying you are wrong, i’m just saying i am not buying it. i tried to clarify them but you have been dodging my questions.

          p.s. i wouldn’t worry too much about someone stealing your idea about this whole drug printer technology. you didn’t leak anything useful yet. not in the paper and definitely not here.

          1. A couple of minor points. I also agree that the chemistry isn’t feasible nor is the production of a mold (see my original post The reason I focused on the feasibility of producing molecules one at a time is that it demonstrates the impracticality of any these methodologies in producing useful amounts of material.

            @dangerdackel, no problem sharing the PDF. Unless otherwise stated, if it’s on my website it’s either MIT or CC-BY-SA licensed.

  10. The language the paper author uses seems to me to be “fake” English – someone trying to sound like a native Chinese speaker writing in English, or possibly
    an attempt to fake an online translation from Chinese to English. There’s something wrong with it. Can’t be more specific, sorry – just a hunch. Will be interested to see if this turns out to be the case.

    1. That is a good point. I certainly found the english to be “funny”. However we will never know as the paper has been withdrawn by the author.
      Thanks for the comment.

  11. The World’s Greatest Traditional Chinese Scientist in Taiwan

    There is another great scientist in Taiwan.
    He published 38 papers on two of Hindawi(BioMed Research International and Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine) in half year.
    The key point is that both editors, Chung Y. Hsu & Fuu-Jen Tsai, are his bosses.


    London, UK (08 July 2014) – SAGE announces the retraction of 60 articles implicated in a peer review and citation ring at the Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC). The full extent of the peer review ring has been uncovered following a 14 month SAGE-led investigation, and centres on the strongly suspected misconduct of Peter Chen, formerly of National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan (NPUE) and possibly other authors at this institution.

    1. Thanks for the comment. I saw the retraction watch post but did not realise that it may tie in here as well. The whole thing about this publication ring is scandalous. But the “Journal of Vibration and Control”? Sounds like a publication for sex toys.

  12. YC claimed here he got a “tenure” position.
    Just like the title “I CANNOT believe this…..”
    Many people know that YC’s position of associated professor was withdrawn in 2012 du to his some academic cheating behavior.
    Now YC has no position in CMU( and ASIA-U(, how could he dare to claim he has tenure and will retire safely in 5 years.

    YC also claimed in Taiwan that he is an associated professor (even above) of Howard, MIT and Oxford University.
    Just again like the title “I CANNOT believe this…..”
    Nobody can prove that.

    YC, how about show your certificate document to prove your tenure and your position of associated professor in Howard, MIT and Oxford.

    Otherwise, we will take these words from you to the court!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.