Fraud detection report: "Preparation of intrinsic black polyimide and the effect of its structure on properties" (DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-9731.2025.08.011)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: Highly suspicious. This 2025 paper in 功能材料 (Journal of Functional Materials) by 郭昊 et al. contains multiple severe scientific and editorial errors that collectively undermine confidence in its data integrity. The most critical issue is in the XRD analysis (Section 2.2 and Table 2), where the X-ray wavelength is recorded as 1.53–1.54 nm rather than the correct 1.54 Å (0.154 nm), inflating the calculated interchain distance d by a factor of ten (4.84 nm instead of the physically reasonable ~0.484 nm). Table 1 (PAA formulation) shows the ODA mass in the reference sample (2.1816 g) copied from the PMDA value (2.1812 g), violating equimolar stoichiometry. The abstract/conclusion claim that PhBi incorporation increases transmittance, while Section 2.2 states the opposite, despite the numbers (29.18% vs. 9.47%) supporting the abstract. Several figures (FTIR, TGA, tensile) appear unusually smooth, though image-based evidence is inconclusive. Confidence is high for text/data errors; lower for image manipulation claims.

Verdict

Highly suspicious. The paper contains elementary unit, stoichiometric, and logical errors that strongly suggest careless fabrication or non-self-consistent composition. Quantitative data treatment errors are independently confirmed; image-based concerns remain suggestive but unproven.

Key findings

XRD calculation error (critical): Wavelength λ written as 1.53 nm in text and 1.54 nm in Table 2; correct Cu Kα wavelength is 1.54 Å (0.154 nm). This error propagates to give d ≈ 4.84 nm, which is physically impossible for polyimide chain spacing. The correct value, using 2θ = 18.36°, is d ≈ 0.484 nm (4.84 Å), confirming the authors simply mislabeled Å as nm.
Stoichiometric copy-paste error in Table 1: For PI-Bi-DiDo-0, PMDA = 2.1812 g (0.01 mol) but ODA is listed as 2.1816 g rather than the required 2.0024 g (0.01 mol). The ODA mass appears to be copied from the PMDA mass.
Contradictory transmittance claims: Abstract/conclusion state PhBi incorporation raises transmittance (29.18% vs. 9.47% for 15%-doped sample), while Section 2.2 states transmittance decreases. Numerical evidence supports the abstract.
Internal wavelength inconsistency: λ = 1.53 nm (text) vs. λ = 1.54 nm (Table 2), indicating copy-paste oversight.
Suspiciously smooth characterization figures (unconfirmed): FTIR (Fig. 3), TGA (Fig. 6), and tensile curves (Fig. 8) display unnatural baseline uniformity and lack experimental scatter, raising concerns about background-subtraction/smoothing or non-original data. Evidence is suggestive but not conclusive from text alone.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-9731.2025.08.011
Journal: 功能材料 (Journal of Functional Materials), 2025
Reported d-spacings in Table 2: 4.84 → 4.61 nm across compositions (should be ~0.484 → 0.461 nm).
2θ used in calculation: 18.36°.
PMDA MW = 218.12 g/mol; ODA MW = 200.24 g/mol; required equimolar ODA for 2.1812 g PMDA = 2.0024 g, not 2.1816 g.
Transmittance values cited: reference 61.81%, 15%-doped 9.47%, PhBi variant 29.18%.

Notes

The text-based errors (unit mistake, stoichiometry contradiction, reversed qualitative claim) are independently verifiable and severe enough to indicate that the manuscript was not carefully proofread or that the data were not genuinely computed. The image-smoothness concerns are flagged as auxiliary and require access to raw TGA/FTIR/XRD files for confirmation. Recommended actions include requesting original data from the authors, posting on PubPeer, and notifying the editorial office. This automated assessment is for academic discussion only and does not constitute a formal finding of misconduct.