Integrity concerns regarding selective data reporting in 'The Potential Use of Epoxy-POSS as a Reactive Hybrid Compatibilizers for PLA/PBAT Blends: Effect of PBAT Molecular Weight and POSS Type' (Polym. Eng. Sci., 2019, DOI: 10.1002/pen.25295)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: Questionable (🟡). This report flags two internally consistent issues in the article by Kilic, Can, Kodal, and Ozkoc (DOI: 10.1002/pen.25295). First, the study introduces three epoxy-functional POSS variants (MoEpPOSS, TriEpPOSS, MuEpPOSS). Mechanical, DMA, rheological, and DSC data are reported for all three, but Table 5 and Figures 12–13 silently omit MoEpPOSS from the SEM morphology and dispersed-phase particle-size analysis. Second, the Methods state that DSC cooling extended from 200 °C to −60 °C, a range that fully encompasses PBAT's reported Tg of −33.0 °C and −30.0 °C (Table 3), yet Table 4 leaves the Tg_PBAT column blank for every blend. The authors justify the DMA omission on temperature-range limits, but this rationale does not transfer to DSC. Both omissions coincide with results that would not support the proposed compatibilization narrative. No image-level (pixel/noise/lane-plagiarism) checks could be performed because raw figures were unavailable. Findings are limited to text and table discrepancies; institutional confirmation is required.

Verdict

Questionable (🟡) — Two substantial inconsistencies in data reporting were identified. Neither constitutes definitive misconduct on its own, but together they suggest selective presentation of results. Image-manipulation analysis was not possible.

Key findings

Selective omission of MoEpPOSS from SEM analysis. Three epoxy-functional POSS compatibilizers (MoEpPOSS, TriEpPOSS, MuEpPOSS) were evaluated throughout the study. However, the SEM morphology section and Table 5 (dispersed-phase particle size) report only PLA/PBAT, PLA/PBAT/TriEpPOSS, and PLA/PBAT/MuEpPOSS. MoEpPOSS, a key comparative sample, is absent.
Inconsistent DSC reporting of Tg_PBAT. The Methods specify a DSC cooling program of 200 °C to −60 °C. Table 3 lists PBAT-1 Tg = −33.0 °C and PBAT-2 Tg = −30.0 °C, well within the tested range. Table 4 nonetheless leaves the Tg_PBAT column blank (long dashes —) for every blend. The author's DMA-range justification does not apply to the DSC experiment.
Image analysis not performed. Original high-resolution figures were not supplied, so reuse, splicing, splicing artifacts, and noise-pattern checks could not be executed.

Evidence highlights

Table 5 caption and contents list only TriEpPOSS and MuEpPOSS variants; Figure 13 caption likewise limits itself to these two, although MoEpPOSS appears in all preceding tables and rheology/DMA sections.
Methods (DSC paragraph): "cooled from 200 °C to −60 °C."
Table 3: PBAT-1 Tg −33.0 °C; PBAT-2 Tg −30.0 °C.
Table 4: Tg_PBAT column shows "—" for all blend compositions, contradicting the cooling range stated in Methods.
DOI: 10.1002/pen.25295 — preserved for traceability.

Notes

Confidence is moderate-to-high for the textual and tabulated inconsistencies because they are directly verifiable from the supplied PDF; confidence regarding intent (selective reporting vs. ordinary oversight) is lower.
The image-analysis block ("耿同学六式") could not be applied; readers should not interpret this absence as exoneration of figure integrity.
Recommended actions: request raw SEM micrographs of MoEpPOSS-containing blends and the full DSC cooling traces from the corresponding author; consider posting a structured PubPeer comment; encourage the authors to publish the missing supplementary material.