Geng Integrity Report: Satellite observations of gravity wave momentum flux in the MLT (DOI: 10.5194/amt-15-7071-2022)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: ✅ Cleared — a legitimate atmospheric simulation/feasibility study with only a minor, non-core reference duplication issue. Chen et al. (2022), published in Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, present a modelling and observation-feasibility analysis of gravity wave momentum flux in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere using HIAMCM and orbital forward simulation. No signs of image manipulation, fabricated data, statistical irregularities, or methodological inconsistency were detected. The single flagged issue is that the reference list (pp. 7098–7099) contains two entries (Harvey et al., 2022a and 2022b) that are in fact the same paper (identical authors, identical DOI 10.1029/2022JD037063; only the word order 'polar winter' vs 'winter polar' differs), yet cited as distinct works in the main text (e.g., p. 7073). This is most plausibly a bibliographic software (EndNote/Zotero/Mendeley) duplication error, not misconduct. Confidence is high given the technical coherence of the derivations and noise model; the only limitation is the absence of pixel-level image checks, which are not applicable to this purely computational work.

Verdict

✅ Cleared. The paper is a substantive computational and feasibility analysis in atmospheric physics. The only issue identified is a non-core bibliographic duplication error (one reference split into 2022a and 2022b).

Key findings

A single reference (Harvey et al., e2022JD037063, DOI 10.1029/2022JD037063) appears twice in the reference list (pp. 7098–7099) under labels 2022a and 2022b; the only visible difference is the word order 'polar winter' versus 'winter polar' in the title.
Despite being one paper, it is cited in the main text (e.g., p. 7073) as if it were two independent sources: '(Harvey et al., 2022b)' and '(Harvey et al., 2022a)'.
Severity: 🟡 Low. Most plausibly a bibliographic management software (EndNote/Zotero/Mendeley) duplication artefact, not deliberate misconduct.
No image reuse, data fabrication, image splicing, suspicious statistics, anomalous output, or methodological inconsistencies were detected.
Photochemical reaction parameters in Appendix Table A1 cite classical kinetic literature (e.g., Sander et al., 2011; Bucholtz et al., 1986); formulas are internally consistent.
Submission-to-publication timeline (August 2022 submission; 8 December 2022 publication) is reasonable.

Evidence highlights

Two near-identical reference entries, same DOI 10.1029/2022JD037063, same authors, same year.
In-text citations on p. 7073 distinguish 'Harvey et al., 2022b' from 'Harvey et al., 2022a', treating one paper as two.
Core numerical work (HIAMCM model, orbital forward simulation, Poisson/Gaussian shot-noise model) is internally coherent and limitations (e.g., the 100 km observation filter for short horizontal-wavelength waves) are openly discussed.
Figures 14–16 use the convention 'Same as for Fig. 13/14/15…' to display momentum flux at 75/85/95 km; this is a standard compact presentation in atmospheric science multi-panel figures and not a manipulation concern.

Notes

Pixel-level image analysis was not performed because the paper contains no biomedical images (Western blots, microscopy, flow cytometry, etc.); such checks are not applicable to a computational atmospheric study.
The duplication does not affect any scientific result or conclusion; it is an editorial/reference-list hygiene issue only.
Optional, low-priority action: notify the corresponding author (Peter Preusse) so they can deduplicate the bibliography in their reference manager.
No basis to contact the journal editor or post on PubPeer.