Integrity review of "SH-SSQ as a modifier for superior mechanical properties and improved plasticity of 3D printed PLA" (Sztorch et al., Sci. Rep., 2025)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report assesses a 2025 Scientific Reports paper that claims SH-SSQ improves the mechanical properties of 3D printed PLA. The review reaches a verdict of highly suspicious, driven by multiple substantive inconsistencies rather than a single isolated mistake. First, a basic arithmetic mismatch is documented: the abstract and results state a 56% maximum increase in elongation at break relative to neat PLA (3.45%), but the authors' own reported maximum value of 5% corresponds to only ~44.9%, an error reproducible by elementary calculation. Second, a "phantom" 0.1 wt% concentration appears in tensile and XRD discussions although the methods section only prepared 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, and 5.0 wt% samples, indicating either fabricated data or careless copy-paste. Third, the text description of Table 4 attributes a crystallinity of 84.9 ± 0.3% to the 1.5% sample, while Table 4 itself assigns 84.9% to 2.5% and 77.5% to 1.5%, a systematic misreading of the authors' own data. Fourth, the materials section states a PLA tensile modulus of 500 GPa, roughly two orders of magnitude above realistic PLA values (~3–3.5 GPa). Limitations of confidence include that the XRD standard deviation concern remains inconclusive and that no raw diffraction traces or stress–strain curves were independently verified. Overall, the accumulation of verifiable quantitative and methodological errors indicates very poor scholarly rigor.

Verdict

🟠 Highly suspicious. Multiple reproducible quantitative and methodological errors strongly suggest careless authorship, possible data fabrication, or both. An institutional investigation and editorial review of the raw data are warranted.

Key findings

Arithmetic error on elongation at break (Finding 1): The 56% maximum increase claim does not match the authors' own numbers (3.45% baseline vs. 5% reported maximum ≈ 44.9% actual increase).
Phantom 0.1 wt% concentration (Finding 2): The tensile and XRD discussions reference a 0.1 wt% SSQ-SH sample (e.g., crystallinity = 70.3%) that was never prepared per the methods section.
Systematic misreading of Table 4 (Finding 2): The text assigns 84.9 ± 0.3% crystallinity to the 1.5% sample, but Table 4 assigns 84.9% to 2.5% and 77.5% to 1.5%.
Implausible PLA tensile modulus (Finding 3): Materials section lists 500 GPa, roughly 140× higher than realistic PLA (~3–3.5 GPa) and exceeding steel (~200 GPa).
Suspiciously uniform XRD standard deviations (Finding 4): Six samples yield SDs confined to 0.2–0.4, unusually narrow for XRD crystallinity measurements; flagged as inconclusive.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-86365-5
Elongation at break: reported baseline 3.45%; reported maximum 5%; claimed increase 56%; arithmetic check yields 3.45 × 1.56 = 5.382% vs. reported 5% (≈ 44.9%).
Prepared concentrations per Materials/Methods: 0.25%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.5%, 5.0%.
Crystallinity values in Table 4 (Page 10): 70.3 ± 0.2, 71.7 ± 0.3, 75.2 ± 0.2, 77.5 ± 0.4, 84.9 ± 0.3, 91.4 ± 0.4.
Text vs. Table 4 mismatch: text attributes 84.9 ± 0.3% to 1.5% SSQ-SH; Table 4 attributes 84.9% to 2.5% and 77.5% to 1.5%.
Reported PLA tensile modulus: 500 GPa (cited as Ingeo 2003D); realistic PLA ≈ 3–3.5 GPa.

Notes

The XRD standard-deviation pattern is flagged but marked inconclusive; it requires the original diffraction data and sample replicates to evaluate properly.
The phantom 0.1 wt% concentration and the Table 4 misattribution could originate from drafting/transcription errors, but their consistent appearance across multiple sections suggests deeper quality-control failures.
The PLA modulus error may stem from copying a datasheet value intended for a different property or material; however, its magnitude (two orders of magnitude) makes it a serious, independently verifiable anomaly.
Recommended actions include requesting raw XRD diffractograms and tensile curves from the authors, posting on PubPeer, and notifying the journal editorial office.
This AI-assisted assessment is preliminary; final determination of misconduct requires an institutional or publisher investigation.