Integrity Assessment Report: Estimating the Temperature Distribution of Pouch-Type Li-Ion Batteries Based on a Distributed-Parameter Electrothermal Coupling Model (DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2026.3690860)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: cleared (text-level). The examined manuscript, authored by Jiale Xie, Mingyu Song, Zongyang Song, Zhongbao Wei, and Zhekang Dong and published in IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, was reviewed using the 'Geng six-style' text-based checks. Internal numerical consistency is satisfactory: Table I values obey the RMSE > MAE and MaxError > RMSE inequalities for T1, T5, and T8, with no suspicious last-digit clustering. The timeline is coherent: submitted 2025-10-26, revised 2026-03-27, accepted 2026-04-28, and 2026-dated references are plausibly citations added during revision. Methodology sections are internally consistent regarding thermocouple count, discretization (3x3 grid), and reporting of representative points. Because only extracted text was provided, pixel-level image forensics (duplication, splicing, cloning) could not be performed. Confidence is moderate for text-based fraud indicators and low for image-based indicators. No further action is recommended based on available evidence.

Verdict

Cleared at the text-level. No indicators of data fabrication, timeline anomalies, or methodological inconsistency were detected. Pixel-level image forensics could not be performed because only text and formulas were available.

Key findings

Numerical self-consistency holds: for T1, T5, T8 the reported RMSE exceeds the MAE (e.g., T1: 0.2267 > 0.1502), and the maximum absolute error exceeds the RMSE, as mathematically expected.
Last-digit distribution of reported error values does not show abnormal concentration on 0 or 5, consistent with genuine computation rather than fabricated numbers.
The authors candidly disclose small deviations at 2C discharge and attribute them to SEI regrowth or lithium dendrite formation, which is more consistent with authentic experimental work than with fabricated data.
Timeline is coherent: submitted 2025-10-26, revised 2026-03-27, accepted 2026-04-28; a half-year review cycle is plausible for IEEE TIE.
2026-dated references (e.g., Refs. [5] and [15] in J. Power Sources vol. 663, 2026) are explainable as citations added during the March 2026 major revision.
Experimental setup is internally consistent: 8 T-type thermocouples on the cell surface, with T1, T5, T8 used as representative validation points; a 3x3 discretization grid and a per-step simulation time under 20 ms are reported consistently.

Evidence highlights

Table I (Section IV.B): MAE(T1)=0.23, MAE(T5)=0.11, MAE(T8)=0.16; corresponding RMSE values strictly larger than MAE and MaxError strictly larger than RMSE.
Reported error ranges show granularity consistent with real measurement rather than rounded or invented values.
Reference list contains 2026 entries that align with the revision date, not the original submission date.
Methods (Section II) and validation (Section IV) descriptions are mutually consistent regarding sensor count, grid layout, and selected observation points.

Notes

Limitation: this assessment is confined to text, formulas, and reported numeric tables. No image-level inspection (e.g., detection of splicing, cloning, rotation, or reuse of thermal images or plots) was possible.
Confidence is high for absence of text-based fraud indicators and moderate overall; conclusions about image manipulation are explicitly deferred pending raw figure access.
DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2026.3690860 preserved exactly as provided.
No contact with authors, no PubPeer post, and no restriction on citation is recommended on the basis of current evidence.