Lol at l/osers in this entire thread. The paper was NOT formally accept when the controversy broke out, and yet they made it through the process. This means that the authors have adequately addressed the subsequent requests and concerns from the editor following the controversy, and we can fully trust their results now.
This doesn't change the fact that Shuo Chen is a proven cheater due to his frauds in other papers, but Yiming is good.Hi Yiming. Friendly reminder that the canal reopened in 1827.
Not a problem. This doesn't change the fact that the initial, unexpected shock occurred in 1826. Even though the canal reopened in 1827, what year would you have chosen as the treatment year?
The paper said that the closure was a continuous process that started in 1826, and progressed gradually since then.
If this is not lying, I don't know what is.