Nature investigation finds academies tied to Michael Chu misled leading researchers with fabricated websites and paid titles

The report describes the EAE, NAAI and a set of similarly named societies as a circular credentialing network that cites and republishes one another's announcements, promotes shared events and funnels researchers from one society to another. Earlier concerns about these bodies were scattered and anecdotal; this investigation presents them as one connected constellation and notes that scholars who accepted an invitation from one society were often elected to its sister academies weeks later. Based on Nature's investigation of dozens of similar societies, comparison of archived website versions, and direct enquiries to named researchers; the report does not give a total number of misled scholars.

The societies' websites contain plagiarism and manipulated imagery: an EAE post supporting Ukraine is said to have been copied directly from the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine website, and its Google Maps location image is described as a doctored version of the University of Gothenburg's main building. The report moves 'fabrication' from vague impression to checkable material, including archived pages, the absence of any EAE-matching entity in Sweden's public organisation database, and an address pointing to a virtual mailbox. Evidence comes from archived-page comparison, public records checks and image comparison; Chu said he was 'completely unaware' of the doctored images and characterised them as 'legacy web assets'.

Prominent scholars were listed as members or leaders without their knowledge or consent: Hirschberg found her name already at the top of the EAE leadership masthead, and two University of Michigan scientists listed as rotating section chairpeople said they had never heard of the academy. The report shows such listings were not isolated slips but were compounded by more than 30 university press releases celebrating faculty achievements at these organisations, lending an appearance of institutional endorsement. Based on the individuals' statements to Nature, correspondence reviewed by Nature, and congratulatory announcements published by universities including Columbia; Chu attributed some listings to 'an unauthorized or unverified upload' during website maintenance.

The organisations also sell academic standing: the NAAI website lists US$30 annual student affiliate dues, a US$600 full-member initiation fee, a US$10,000 virtual PhD programme and a US$2,000 virtual postdoc programme, promising a 'verifiable digital membership card' and certificates shareable on LinkedIn. The report places honour and payment side by side, describing a model that recruits well-known scholars with unsolicited fee-free honours while monetising others through paid programmes. Prices come from the NAAI website; the report says it identified no one who admitted paying for such titles, so the scale of payment remains unclear.

The report is aimed at researchers who must judge whether an honour is genuine, at university faculty and honorifics staff, and at policy researchers studying research evaluation. It offers an operational verification path: check whether an organisation appears in official registries, confirm whether claimed partner institutions acknowledge the relationship, compare archived website versions and images, and contact listed scholars directly. Its conclusions apply to research environments where titles function as evaluation metrics, particularly the Chinese context the report notes places heavy weight on honorary titles.

The report states plainly that it is unclear how many scholars paid for these honours, and whether holders were actively deceived; whether third-party consultancy services are affiliated with the academies is also undetermined. Chu denies or narrows several allegations, and his account diverges from the report's findings, leaving readers to weigh the two. In addition, this evidence bundle contains only the report text with no attached papers, so the organisations' scholarly output cannot be cross-checked against peer-reviewed literature.