Undergraduate's Impressive Resume Sparks Controversy: Father's Influence or Genuine Achievement?

Liu's name appears as a co-inventor on 14 patents filed between 2016 and 2023, with the earliest application dating back to 2016, when Liu was still in middle school. Furthermore, Liu is not the primary inventor on any of these patents, with his father, Liu, and other professors from the university's chemical engineering department listed as the primary inventors. A similar pattern emerges when examining Liu's SCI papers, where he is not the primary author, and his father's name frequently appears in the author list.

The controversy surrounding Liu's achievements has prompted an investigation by Chongqing University, with the school stating that it has established a special task force to look into the matter. The university has assured that if any irregularities are found, they will be handled in accordance with relevant regulations. As the investigation unfolds, many are left wondering whether Liu's impressive resume is a genuine reflection of his abilities or if it is a result of his father's influence and position within the university.

According to information available on China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Google Scholar, Liu has been listed as a co-inventor on 14 patents from November 8, 2016, to June 2, 2023. Notably, Liu was not the primary inventor for any of these patents, with 12 of them listing Liu Xuanhua, a professor and vice dean of the graduate school at Chongqing University, as the primary author. An examination of Liu's publication history reveals that they were not the first author on any of the 13 papers attributed to them on Google Scholar, instead often appearing as the third or fourth author. Moreover, 11 of these papers included Liu Xuanhua in their author lists.

The public has begun to scrutinize Liu's credentials, with many questioning the authenticity of his accomplishments. Netizens have discovered several red flags, including the fact that Liu's earliest patent application dates back to 2016, when he was still in middle school, sparking concerns about the legitimacy of his claims. Furthermore, an examination of the 14 papers reveals that Liu is not the first author on any of them, and in several instances, the same co-authors appear repeatedly, leading many to wonder about their relationship with Liu.

The investigation into Liu's credentials has significant implications for the academic community, as it raises questions about the fairness and integrity of the education system. If it is found that Liu's achievements are not entirely his own, it could undermine the trust and respect that the public has in academic research and the institutions that support it. Therefore, it is essential that the investigation is thorough and transparent, and that the truth is revealed in a timely manner.

Staff members at Chongqing University's School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering have stated that the school is aware of the situation and relevant departments are handling the matter. The public eagerly awaits the disclosure of the investigation results, hoping to uncover the truth and uphold academic integrity. This incident has also sparked discussions about educational fairness and the academic evaluation system, with many calling for a thorough investigation and resolution to maintain the purity and fairness of academic pursuits.

The revelation that a undergraduate student has published 14 SCI papers and holds multiple invention patents has raised eyebrows, particularly given the suspicious timeline of patent applications and the fact that Liu was only in middle school at the time of the earliest application. The involvement of professors as primary inventors on these patents, with Liu listed as a co-inventor, has led many to suspect "academic resource monopolization." Furthermore, the fact that Liu is not the first author on any of the 14 SCI papers, but rather a co-author with professors, has fueled concerns about the authenticity of these achievements.

The university's response has been deemed inadequate, with officials only stating that they have "recorded the situation and reported it," leaving the public skeptical. The incident has highlighted the flaws in the academic system, where the emphasis on publication quantity can lead to unethical practices. Netizens are demanding a thorough investigation, and experts are calling for a reform of the academic evaluation system to prevent similar cases in the future. Ultimately, the goal is to restore the integrity of academic research and ensure that genuine talent is recognized and nurtured.