Integrity Review Report: "Modelling heat and mass transfer in solar evaporation systems" (Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 2021)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: Cleared (no integrity issues detected). This 2021 paper by R. Fillet, V. Nicolas, V. Fierro, and A. Celzard in the International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.121852) presents a COMSOL-based thermal/fluid simulation of tannin-foam solar evaporation systems and was reviewed across six fraud-indicative dimensions. No red flags were triggered. The image-reuse dimension could not be assessed at pixel level because only text (extracted captions) was available; however, logical consistency between figures and their described parameters (light intensity, relative humidity, cone geometry N) shows no obvious mismatch. Experimental vs. simulated evaporation rates show realistic engineering scatter (errors of roughly 1.9%–7.3%), not the suspiciously perfect fit typical of fabricated data. No biological images exist that could be spliced. Statistics: not applicable, since the work is deterministic PDE modeling. Publication timeline (submitted 17 May 2021; revised 19 July; accepted 11 August) is reasonable. Methods are rigorous, including mesh-independence verification (2569, 2873, 5553 cells; 2873 chosen) and standard physical properties. Limitations: absence of pixel-level image analysis constrains certainty.

Verdict

Cleared. No actionable evidence of academic fraud was identified across the six detection dimensions examined. The paper appears to be a legitimate computational heat-transfer study.

Key findings

No image reuse detected at the logical/textual level; figure captions align with distinct simulation parameter sets (varying irradiance, humidity, cone parameter N).
Experimental versus simulated evaporation rates exhibit realistic engineering deviation (≈1.9%–7.3%), inconsistent with fabricated or over-fitted data.
No image-splicing risk: the work contains no Western blots, gels, or micrographs.
No statistical anomalies: the study is deterministic CFD modeling, not hypothesis-driven biostatistics.
Publication timeline (submitted 17 May 2021; revised 19 July 2021; accepted 11 August 2021) is consistent with normal peer review for a quality engineering journal.
Methods are rigorous: governing PDEs, Nusselt/Reynolds correlations, mesh-independence test (2569, 2873, 5553 cells; 2873 selected), and standard thermophysical properties of water are all reported.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.121852
Journal: International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 181 (2021) 121852
Validation data (non-insulated configuration): experimental evaporation rates 0.51, 0.70, 1.01 vs. simulated 0.48, 0.74, 1.03; errors −5.8%, +5.7%, +1.9%.
Validation data (insulated configuration): experimental 0.56, 0.82, 1.19 vs. simulated 0.54, 0.88, 1.25; errors −3.5%, +7.3%, +5%.
Mesh-independence study: 2569, 2873, 5553 cells evaluated; 2873 selected.
Software: COMSOL Multiphysics 5.6; material system: tannin-based foams.
Submission–acceptance window: ≈3 months (17 May 2021 → 11 August 2021).

Notes

Limits of this review: only text-level inspection (figure captions and extracted data) was possible; no pixel-level image-forensic analysis was performed. A residual possibility of undetected image manipulation therefore cannot be fully excluded, though the paper type (CFD of solar evaporation) makes such manipulation unlikely.
The discrepancy noted in Section 2.2.3 between stated ambient relative humidity (≈60%) and the parameter swept in simulations (10%–90%) deserves author clarification but is not an integrity issue per se.
No follow-up action (PubPeer post, institutional report, or raw-data request) is recommended on present evidence.