Forensic Review: 'Perovskite Lattice Contraction Enhanced Charge Carrier Transport for Highly-Sensitive X-Ray Detection' (Laser Photonics Reviews, 2025)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates a 2025 publication in Laser Photonics Reviews by Guo et al. (DOI: 10.1002/lpor.202501161) and assigns a verdict of 'highly suspicious.' Multiple concrete inconsistencies were identified. First, the DFT discussion in Section 2.3 states that the conduction band minimum is composed of 'Pb 6s and Br 4p' characters, yet the compound studied throughout is (MAFcH)PbI3, which contains iodine, not bromine—an evident copy-paste artifact. Second, a self-contradictory physical claim arises from the reported carrier lifetime (0.371 ns from TRPL) and the hole mobility-lifetime product (μτ = 6.7×10⁻⁵ cm²V⁻¹ at μ_h = 28.2 cm²V⁻¹s⁻¹): back-calculating gives τ ≈ 2.37×10⁻⁶ s (≈2370 ns), roughly 6400× the measured lifetime, rendering the data internally inconsistent. Third, an arithmetic error (3.3 ÷ 1.2 reported as ≈2.3) suggests careless fabrication. No error bars, sample sizes, or statistical descriptors are provided for key performance metrics. Image-based checks could not be performed.

Verdict

Highly suspicious. Multiple verifiable inconsistencies between text, chemistry, and physics suggest sloppy composition, possible data fabrication, or negligent figure assembly. Independent confirmation (raw DFT files, TRPL/TOF curves, replication of SNR calculations) is required before any final determination of misconduct.

Key findings

Elemental impossibility (Section 2.3): The compound is an iodide perovskite (PbI3), yet the text claims the CBM contains 'Br 4p' contributions. Bromine is not present in the stated composition, indicating a copy-paste error from a prior bromide manuscript.
Carrier lifetime paradox (Section 2.3): Reported TRPL τ = 0.371 ns and μτ = 6.7×10⁻⁵ cm²V⁻¹ at μ_h = 28.2 cm²V⁻¹s⁻¹ imply τ ≈ 2.37×10⁻⁶ s (≈2370 ns). This is ~6400× the measured value—an unphysical discrepancy that invalidates either the TRPL, the mobility, or the μτ derivation.
Arithmetic error (Section 2.4): SNR of 3.3 (heterojunction) divided by 1.2 (single crystal) equals 2.75, not the ≈2.3 stated in the manuscript.
Absent statistical reporting: No standard deviation, standard error, or sample size (N) is reported for sensitivity (1.7×10⁴ μC Gy_air⁻¹ cm⁻²), resistivity, mobility, dark current drift, or SNR measurements across Figures 3–4.
Image integrity unverified: Pixel-level analysis of Figures 1–4 was not possible from the available materials; crystal photographs, PXRD patterns, and any reused panels should be examined against prior literature.

Evidence highlights

Direct quote from Section 2.3: *"the CBM primarily consists of Pb 6s and Br 4p characters."* — incompatible with the (MAFcH)PbI3 composition.
τ_back = (6.7×10⁻⁵ cm²V⁻¹) / (28.2 cm²V⁻¹s⁻¹) = 2.376×10⁻⁶ s = 2376 ns versus measured 0.371 ns.
3.3 / 1.2 = 2.75, contradicting the manuscript's '≈2.3 times' claim.
Reported sensitivity 1.7×10⁴ μC Gy_air⁻¹ cm⁻² provided without error bars.
DOI: 10.1002/lpor.202501161

Notes

Confidence is high for the textual contradiction and arithmetic error, as both are verifiable directly from the published manuscript. Confidence in the lifetime paradox is high given numerical self-inconsistency, but reconciliation by an undisclosed measurement condition (e.g., different excitation regimes for TRPL vs. TOF) cannot be ruled out a priori. The absence of error statistics is not definitive misconduct but is atypical for state-of-the-art device performance claims. Pixel-level image forensics and a request for raw DFT/TOF/TRPL data from the corresponding author are recommended next steps. Limitations: this assessment is based solely on the text and numerical content provided; no raw datasets, high-resolution figures, or supplementary files were examined.