Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Always a good time to play "hey, this picture looks funny."

Credit: F.X. Coudert
Let's play the game of nanoparticles… Ag vs ZnO, two different syntheses, two different papers in @ELSchemistry journals. pic.twitter.com/btZFHuOCMy

9 comments:

  1. It's one thing to falsify data, but I would wager it's a little worse when a publisher turns a blind eye to evidence like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ElSevier is barely a legitimate publisher. I don't even bother looking at their articles any more, there's little to no rigor involved in getting an article published there or their editorial "review"

      Delete
    2. It's becoming such a mixed bag that I don't know what to trust anymore. I still read (and cite) the Journal of Organometallic Chemistry, Coordination Chemistry Reviews, and Polyhedron, but I really don't trust anything in Elsevier's materials science journals.

      Delete
  2. What about Cell Press (Elsevier Imprint)? I guess they get a lot of retractions too...

    ReplyDelete
  3. The nanoparticle field is especially polluted one, don't blame just Evilsevier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When your characterization consists of "I took a picture of these nanoparticles", it leaves a fairly low barrier to data manipulation.

      Delete
  4. CJ,

    OT but the medicinal food thing has already been done...

    http://www.theonion.com/article/taco-bell-launches-new-morning-after-burrito-918

    http://www.theonion.com/article/new-prescription-only-sandwich-extra-delicious-1170

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not just Elsevier. Remember the nanochopsticks paper? Amazing the bad photoshop job got through, and then the editor went on a blog and said that no one is allowed to comment on the paper until their investigation is finished.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have done my share of TEM of crystalline nanoparticles. Diffraction contrast is extremely sensitive to small tilts. I just find it difficult to believe that the particles that look identical will occur in a single field. I have two questions that the publisher should answer: 1) did any of the reviewers have any experience in TEM of nanoparticles? 2) Given the (for now) appearance of misconduct, did they request copies of the ORIGINAL images and analyze for digital manipulation? Without that type of due diligence, I would discount papers published in that journal.

    ReplyDelete