Geng Review Report: Anti‐Scattering Perovskite Scintillator Arrays for High‐Resolution Computed Tomography Imaging (Adv. Mater., 2025)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates 'Anti‐Scattering Perovskite Scintillator Arrays for High‐Resolution Computed Tomography Imaging' (DOI: 10.1002/adma.202417248) by Song et al., published in Advanced Materials in 2025. The overall verdict is 'Questionable, but most likely mere careless writing and copy‐editing errors' (🟡). No substantive research fraud was identified. Key issues found: (1) Equation (1) describing X‐ray photon detection includes the variable ρ (material density) in its textual explanation, but ρ does not appear in the formula itself, indicating a leftover from copy‐paste editing; (2) The main text claims that modulation transfer function (MTF) analysis of 3D reconstructed images is shown in Figure 3h, but the actual MTF curves of reconstructed tooth slices are in Figure 4h (Figure 3h shows 2D X‐ray images). Both issues are classified as low‐severity editorial mistakes. As a corroborating positive note, the reported Canon EOS 2000D pixel size (4.5 μm) matches the calculated value from the camera's specifications (22.3 mm × 14.9 mm sensor divided by 4928 pixels ≈ 4.525 μm), supporting the authenticity of the experimental setup. Confidence is moderate; limitations include inability to perform pixel‐level image analysis. Recommended action: notify corresponding author for an erratum; no public exposure needed.

Verdict

🟡 Questionable — most likely careless writing/copy‐editing errors rather than research fraud. No substantive academic misconduct was identified.

Key findings

Inconsistency between formula and variable description (Equation (1)): The text introduces ρ (material density) as a parameter, but ρ does not appear in the equation $N = N_0 \times (1 - e^{-\mu l}) \times e^{-kl}$. This is consistent with an incomplete copy‐paste edit.
Figure cross‐reference mismatch: The text states MTF evaluation of 3D reconstructed images is shown in Figure 3h, but Figure 3h actually displays 2D X‐ray images of a scintillator array and monolithic film. The MTF curves of reconstructed tooth slices are in Figure 4h.
Authenticity‐supporting detail: The reported Canon EOS 2000D pixel pitch (4.5 μm × 4.5 μm) is consistent with calculated values from sensor dimensions (22.3 mm × 14.9 mm / ~4928 pixels ≈ 4.525 μm). The authors also describe downsampling images to 160 μm pixels to mimic scintillator‐array coupling conditions, lending credibility to the experimental workflow.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.1002/adma.202417248
Equation (1): $N = N_0 \times (1 - e^{-\mu l}) \times e^{-kl}$ — variable ρ mentioned in text but absent in equation.
Figure 3h caption: 'X‐ray images of the scintillator array and monolithic film' (2D, not 3D MTF).
Figure 4h caption: 'Modulation transfer function (MTF) curves of the reconstructed tooth slices' (true location of MTF curves).
Canon EOS 2000D pixel size calculation: (22.3 mm × 1000) / 4928 pixels ≈ 4.525 μm → consistent with reported 4.5 μm.
Downsampling to 160 μm pixels performed via MATLAB to simulate real pixel sizes.

Notes

All flagged issues are low‐severity (🟡) editorial/transcription errors; none constitute data fabrication or image manipulation.
Pixel‐level image reuse or splicing analysis could not be performed because only text extraction was available as input.
Recommended action: contact the corresponding author to request an erratum correcting the equation description and figure citation; no need for PubPeer public posting or journal editorial escalation at this stage.
Uncertainty remains moderate: confidence in verdict is reasonable based on textual evidence, but final determination of academic misconduct requires official institutional investigation.