go on...

that's a lot. good one.

How can it be personal attacks. It is simple logic. I give you a simple example -> The research conducted in certain countries usually is based on industry needs of the country. In China, for example, the have demand in the technology of space exploration and High-speed rail. So you'll see a lot of research being churned out speedily by a number of local researchers due to the immediate demand in the country. You've touched about ball bearing tech, for example, and this is an example of recent research article for that which could be beneficial in the HSR areas. When those people in the same country citing each other, we can't simply claim they're doing it as a matter of convenience. It could be an indicator that the subject itself is the top priority in the country.

Another point to consider -> If the journal where the article have been written is in the Scopus index, there's even low probability for the work to be of low value, no matter who has been citing them.

Of course that the general idea, but there's still room to debate.

what exactly am I violating?

Man... that's based on Scopus index. Do you even know what you're talking about.

Whats the need to involve Fox News into this? We are dealing with science and technology matters. At least I expect something more academic in nature.

Anyway, is this not good enough source for. you? SJR - International Science Ranking

Can you share some examples of fake science developed by China?

They rule out the play store.

The Python steering committee bans Tim Peters, a Python core developer, for 3 months. In an unrelated discussion, someone proposed a new election system for the steering committee. Then the creator of Python insinuated through a comment in the post suggesting why not we ask for an opinion from an expert that he knows, but we need to wait a bit as he's been banned. OP claims this comment has been removed, but may be it's been reinstated as it's still there last time I check.

edited: some grammar typos, and edit some words for clearer context.

that's interesting POV.

The post is still there.

Bill Gates during the early years, yes. But now, I thought he's turned 180°.