Data Integrity Analysis Report: 'CFD Simulation of a bubble column evaporator' (Cappelli, Glennon & Donnellan, 2022)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: Suspected serious data fabrication (red). An independent review of the published paper identified multiple internal inconsistencies that violate basic thermodynamics and the authors' own governing equations. The bulk-liquid temperature reportedly collapsed from an initial 323.13 K to 221-222 K in Section 5.1, well below the freezing point of methanol (179 K) and inconsistent with prior sections. Table 3 lists an experimental evaporation rate (3.61E-5 kg/s) that exceeds the explicitly stated thermodynamic maximum (3.58E-5 kg/s) at 53.5 °C. Table 6 percent changes in Section 4.4 do not match the underlying numbers. Table 5 shows a 50% rise in gas flow yielding an 86% rise in evaporation rate, contradicting the linear proportionality given in the authors' Eq (35). These cross-source contradictions strongly suggest fabricated or arbitrarily entered numerical data. Image-level reuse could not be assessed from text alone. AI-assisted review; final determination requires institutional investigation.

Verdict

🔴 Suspected serious data fabrication. Multiple physical and arithmetic contradictions across tables, text, and the authors' own equation indicate probable fabrication or severe negligence in numerical reporting.

Key findings

Bulk liquid temperature drops from an initial 323.13 K to 221-222 K (Section 5.1), violating the freezing-point constraint of methanol (179 K) and contradicting prior sections, where temperatures only fall to ~321 K.
Table 3 reports an experimental evaporation rate of 3.61×10⁻⁵ kg/s at 53.5 °C, exceeding the stated thermodynamic maximum of 3.58×10⁻⁵ kg/s for the same condition.
Section 4.4 percentage changes (3%, 10%, 13%, 62%) do not match Table 6 values; recomputed values are 9.0%, 16.6%, 20.1%, 72.2% versus the 2.34 kg/s control.
Table 5 shows a 50% gas-flow increase (1 → 1.5 L/min) raising evaporation rate from 2.68×10⁻⁵ to 4.99×10⁻⁵ kg/s (+86%), inconsistent with the linear proportionality in the authors' Eq (35) ($dm_{max}/dt = \rho Q Y/(1-p^*/p)$) and with the cooling-induced reduction of Y described in §4.3.1.
Image-level reuse/duplication cannot be assessed (text-only review).

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.122296
Section 5.1 bulk-liquid temperatures: 221 K (3 g/s), 222 K (6 g/s), 321.4 K (15 g/s), against initial 323.13 K (Table 2).
Table 3 (53.5 °C): Experimental 3.61×10⁻⁵ kg/s vs Predicted Thermodynamic Maximum 3.58×10⁻⁵ kg/s.
Section 4.4 text vs Table 6: stated +3/+10/+13/+62% computed +9.0/+16.6/+20.1/+72.2%.
Table 5: 1 L/min → 2.68×10⁻⁵ kg/s; 1.5 L/min → 4.99×10⁻⁵ kg/s (+86%) vs linear-proportionality prediction of +50%.
Equation (35): $dm_{max}/dt = \frac{\rho Q Y}{1 - p^*/p}$ implies linear scaling in Q at fixed Y.

Notes

Analysis is AI-assisted and text-only; final adjudication requires institutional review and raw-data audit.
Recommended follow-ups: request original CFD input/output files and experimental logs from the authors; post technical concerns on PubPeer; notify the journal editorial office of the internal mathematical contradictions.