Geng Report: Concerns Regarding Data Smoothness and Reference Anomaly in 'Flexible Organic Radical Cocrystal With 94% Photothermal Conversion Efficiency' (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2026)

Verdict

🟡 Questionable — Two confirmed concerns regarding data presentation and reference accuracy. Neither finding alone proves misconduct, but together they warrant author clarification and editorial follow-up.

Key findings

• Figure 2i nanoindentation load–displacement curves show suspiciously high overlap across multiple trials, inconsistent with typical surface-defect-driven variance.
• Figure 4c photothermal cycling shows five cycles reaching an identical ~127 °C equilibrium with no thermal drift, despite environmental factors that normally introduce noise.
• The paper itself reports Young's modulus as 3.991 ± 0.246 GPa, implicitly acknowledging natural measurement variance that the plotted curves do not visually reflect.
• Reference 8 cites a JACS paper as "Journal of the American Chemical Society 3 (2025) 2766–2775," an impossible volume number for a journal that was already past volume 140 by the early 2020s.

Evidence highlights

• Figure 2i (Load–displacement curves): Multiple loading–unloading traces overlap closely in maximum load, curve shape, and recovery path; the authors describe the material's mechanical response but do not show trial-to-trial spread.
• Figure 4c (Photothermal cycling): Five heating–cooling cycles reach the same equilibrium temperature (~127 °C) with consistent slopes; the text states "maximum equilibrium temperature and heating rate remained largely consistent."
• Young's modulus reported in text: 3.991 ± 0.246 GPa — the ±0.246 GPa spread is not visually mirrored in the curves.
• Reference 8: "Z. Wang, et al., Mechanical Twisting-induced Enhancement... in a Flexible Molecular Crystal, Journal of the American Chemical Society 3 (2025): 2766–2775." Volume "3" is inconsistent with JACS's actual numbering (approximately vol. 145 in 2023).
• DOI: 10.1002/anie.1702104 (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2026).

Notes

• Concerns are limited to data presentation in two figures and one citation; no image duplication, plagiarism, or figure manipulation was identified in this report.
• The "textbook-perfect" appearance of the curves could in principle result from selective display of best trials; raw nanoindentation and photothermal cycling data are needed to confirm.
• The JACS volume-number error is highly indicative of an AI-generated or manually fabricated reference and should be cross-checked against Web of Science, Scopus, or the JACS website.
• Both findings are flagged as confirmed within the report's own review process but still require institutional verification.
• Recommended actions: request raw experimental data from the corresponding author; independently verify Reference 8 and audit all other citations; consider posting concerns on PubPeer.
• This report is AI-assisted and intended for academic discussion; final determination of misconduct requires a formal institutional investigation.