Geng Academic Integrity Report: Significant NDR and perfect spin-filtering effect based on phosphorus doped sawtooth penta-SiC2 nanoribbon

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates 'Significant NDR and perfect spin-filtering effect based on phosphorus doped sawtooth penta-SiC2 nanoribbon: a first-principles study' by Kai Chen and Xue-Feng Wang, published in Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics in 2025 (DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/ae1040). Overall verdict: SUSPICIOUS (yellow). Two presentation-level issues were confirmed: Figure 3 caption contains duplicated '(e)' labels ('P@C5, (e) P@C6'), and Figure 4 caption has inconsistent casing and missing labels for P@Si2 and P@Si3. A logical inconsistency exists between text and figures: P@C4 and P@C2 are absent from the transport-property figures (Figures 5 and 6) yet P@C4 appears in Table 5 without explanation. Conversely, internal numerical consistency checks support authenticity: the magnetic energy differences in Table 1 reconcile with total energies (P@C2 example gives 0.0879 eV vs reported 88.0 meV, consistent with 4-decimal truncation), and PVR ratios in Table 5 reflect realistic arithmetic. Methodology and timeline are standard. Confidence is moderate; findings reflect sloppy drafting rather than systematic fabrication.

Verdict

🟡 Suspicious (Suspected minor misconduct / sloppiness, not systematic fabrication)

The paper presents internally consistent computational physics results consistent with genuine first-principles NEGF calculations using ATK. However, multiple editorial errors in figure captions and a clear figure–text inconsistency regarding doping configurations (P@C2 and P@C4) undermine confidence in the authors' proofreading rigor. No evidence of data fabrication was identified.

Key findings

Figure caption errors (confirmed): Figure 3 caption duplicates the label '(e)' twice ('P@C5, (e) P@C6, and (g) P@Si3'). Figure 4 caption mixes uppercase '(C)' with lowercase '(d)' and omits labels entirely before 'P@Si2 (NM), P@Si3 (NM)'.
Figure–text inconsistency (confirmed): Figures 5 and 6 display transport properties for P@C1, P@C3, P@C5, P@C6, P@Si2, P@Si3 but exclude P@C4 and P@C2. P@C4 nevertheless appears in Table 5 (PVR data) without explanation, and P@C2 is omitted from all transport-property data despite being dynamically stable.
Internal numerical self-consistency (supports authenticity): Table 1 magnetic energy differences reconcile with reported total energies; for P@C2, the AFM–FM energy gap of 0.1758 eV divided by N_MA = 2 yields 0.0879 eV, matching the reported 88.0 meV (consistent with 4-decimal truncation).
Realistic arithmetic in derived quantities: Table 5 PVR for P@C6, computed as I_P / I_V = 16.65 / (1.74 × 10⁻⁷) = 9.569 × 10⁷, is reported as 9.57 × 10⁷, showing realistic rounding rather than suspiciously 'clean' values.
Methodology and timeline are credible: ATK + NEGF, PBE functional, FHI98PP pseudopotential, 75 Hartree mesh cutoff, and a July 2025 → October 2025 publication timeline are all consistent with standard practice in the field.

Evidence highlights

| Check | Result | Detail | |---|---|---| | Figure 3 caption | ❌ Error | Duplicate '(e)' labels | | Figure 4 caption | ❌ Error | Case mismatch; missing labels before P@Si2 and P@Si3 | | Figure 5/6 vs Table 5 | ❌ Inconsistency | P@C4 absent from figures but present in Table 5 | | P@C2 transport data | ❌ Missing | No figure or table entry despite claimed systematic comparison | | Table 1 energy arithmetic | ✅ Authentic | Truncation-consistent | | Table 5 PVR arithmetic | ✅ Authentic | Realistic precision | | Methods / software | ✅ Standard | ATK + NEGF, PBE, FHI98PP | | Publication timeline | ✅ Plausible | 2025-07 received → 2025-10 published |

Notes

The issues identified are presentation-level, not data-fabrication-level. They most plausibly reflect rushed proofreading rather than intentional misconduct.
DOI 10.1088/1361-6463/ae1040 is recorded correctly in this report.
The reviewer flagged thermal fluctuation considerations (k_B T ≈ 25.8 meV) as appropriately discussed, suggesting scientific care despite editorial sloppiness.
Recommended action: a courteous PubPeer comment to the authors highlighting the caption typos and P@C4/P@C2 omission, so the issues may be addressed in a corrigendum. No journal-level misconduct referral is currently warranted.