Concerns Regarding “Polyoxometalate-Based MOF as a Highly Sensitive and Stable X-ray Detector for Imaging” (DOI: 10.1002/anie.202518832)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report gives a “questionable” rather than definitive finding of academic misconduct concerning the 2025 paper “Polyoxometalate-Based MOF as a Highly Sensitive and Stable X-ray Detector for Imaging” (DOI: 10.1002/anie.202518832). The principal concern is an apparently unsupported statement that a Cu–O2 distance of 2.85 Å is below the sum of the van der Waals radii of copper and oxygen, stated as 3.55 Å. Standard Bondi-type radii cited in the report are approximately 1.40 Å for copper and 1.52 Å for oxygen, totaling about 2.90–2.92 Å. This discrepancy requires correction or a source, but the report cannot establish whether it is a typographical error, misquotation, or deliberate fabrication. Additional rounded performance ratios—2.6, 46, and 22 times—were mathematically consistent with the reported values and therefore are not evidence of manipulation by themselves. No conclusion can be reached about image reuse, splicing, curve smoothness, or the originality of the X-ray image because only extracted text was available. The concerns justify requests for crystallographic data, original measurements, and unprocessed images, but do not constitute proof of academic fraud.

Verdict

Questionable / requires author clarification. The report identifies a materially inconsistent Cu–O van der Waals radius statement and raises broad numerical-pattern concerns. However, it provides no definitive evidence of data fabrication, image reuse, or deliberate academic misconduct. The overall conclusion is therefore uncertain rather than accusatory.

Key findings

Unsupported Cu–O radius sum: The paper states that a Cu–O2 distance of 2.85 Å is less than the sum of the van der Waals radii of copper and oxygen, given as 3.55 Å.
The report cites conventional approximate Bondi-type values of 1.40 Å for Cu and 1.52 Å for O, which sum to approximately 2.90 Å; it also gives a broader conventional total of approximately 2.92 Å. These values conflict with 3.55 Å.
This issue could indicate a calculation error, misquotation, or other textual mistake, but the available report does not establish intentional fabrication. The authors should identify the source of the 3.55 Å value and clarify whether 2.85 Å is intended to represent a bonding or nonbonding contact.
Several reported performance ratios are unusually regular but mathematically consistent:
3.1 / 1.2 = 2.583…, reported as “2.6 times”;
5.5 μGy s−1 / 120 nGy s−1 = 45.833…, reported as about “46 times”;
9832 / 440 = 22.34…, reported as about “22 times.”
Rounded ratios alone do not demonstrate reverse engineering or manipulation. Their regular presentation is, at most, a low-confidence stylistic concern.
Claims concerning the smoothness of SCLC or I–V curves, image duplication, splicing, or reuse of the screw in the X-ray image cannot be assessed from text extraction alone.

Evidence highlights

Reported Cu–O2 distance: 2.85 Å.
Reported Cu + O van der Waals radius sum: 3.55 Å.
Conventional approximate values cited in the report: Cu 1.40 Å, O 1.52 Å, totaling about 2.90 Å; broader conventional total approximately 2.92 Å.
Drift comparison: reported values 3.1 and 1.2 × 10^-18, yielding 2.583…, rounded to 2.6.
Detection-limit comparison: 5.5 μGy s−1 versus 120 nGy s−1, equal to 45.833…, rounded to 46.
Sensitivity comparison: 9832 versus 440, equal to 22.34…, rounded to 22.
The numerical evidence supports questioning the radius reference and requesting raw data, but it does not independently establish misconduct.

Notes

Confidence is moderate for the existence of a factual or bibliographic problem concerning the 3.55 Å value, because the report identifies a clear internal discrepancy and cites conventional values. Confidence is low regarding intentional fabrication because no underlying crystallographic file, original measurements, or complete reference context was examined.
The author should provide the crystallographic CIF, refinement data, and the literature source for the Cu–O van der Waals radius calculation.
The author should also provide raw instrument exports for Figure 2e, Figure 2f, and Figure 3f, as well as the unprocessed original image associated with Figure 4f.
Image-based checks require access to the original figures and supporting information at sufficient resolution. The report expressly states that such checks were not possible using only extracted text.
Any final determination of academic misconduct requires investigation by the journal, institution, or another qualified authority.