Integrity Screening Report: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons with a Boron-Doped Zigzag/Armchair Topology (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2025)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This automated integrity screening report evaluates the 2025 Angewandte Chemie paper (DOI: 10.1002/anie.202500110) by Tian, Fan, Li, Zhang, Li, Zhuang, Wang, and Dou on boron-doped polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emitters. The overall verdict is SUSPECT, but only at a low concern level. Three anomalies were flagged: (1) unusually smooth absorption and fluorescence spectra in Figure 4 lacking typical experimental noise or baseline drift; (2) overly idealized EQE-luminance curves in Figure 7c lacking roll-off; (3) low-resolution 1H NMR spectrum in Figure 2 that cannot be cleanly assessed. In all three cases, the screening lacked original image pixel data to confirm manipulation, and the paper provides no textual disclosure of smoothing or data filtering procedures. No high-confidence finding of fabrication, falsification, or image duplication is established. Follow-up inspection of raw data, supplementary information, and original spectra is recommended before any formal misconduct determination.

Verdict

🟡 Suspect (low concern). Visual anomalies are flagged but not corroborated by textual evidence or pixel-level analysis. No definitive misconduct identified.

Key findings

Figure 4 absorption (black) and fluorescence (red) spectra of compounds 1, 2, and 3 in toluene display unusually flat baselines and smooth long-wavelength tails, with no visible random noise or drift typical of spectrometer output.
Figure 7c EQE–luminance curves for OLED devices based on compounds 2 and 3 appear nearly rectangular, with rapid rise, flat plateau, and negligible efficiency roll-off at high luminance, which is atypical for OLED characterization.
Figure 2 1H NMR spectrum of compound 1 in C6D6 at 298 K is described as low-resolution, preventing verification of peak shape, baseline integrity, or potential splicing.
In all three cases the authors provide only captions and no methods-level commentary on data smoothing, filtering, or selection criteria.

Evidence highlights

Figure 4 caption: "Absorption (black) and fluorescence (red) spectra of 1, 2 and 3 in toluene. Inset are the photographs for their solutions under UV-light." — no smoothing methodology disclosed.
Figure 7 caption: "a) OLED device structure… b,c) Electroluminescence spectra and EQE versus luminance curves of the devices based on 2 and 3." — no discussion of efficiency roll-off or data processing.
Figure 2 caption: "1H NMR spectrum of 1 in C6D6 at 298 K." — no acquisition parameters or processing details provided in the available text.
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202500110 — paper metadata used for cross-referencing; no retraction notice identified at time of screening.

Notes

The screening was conducted from the manuscript text and a visual summary only; raw pixel data, supplementary information, and deposited raw spectra (.csv, .asc, .fid) were not available for re-analysis.
All three anomalies are rated ⚠️ *insufficient evidence*; anomaly 3 (NMR) is additionally rated ⚪ *indeterminate*.
Findings are limited to suspected post-acquisition data processing (over-smoothing, selective display) and do not constitute evidence of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
Authors and journal have not been contacted as part of this automated screening.
Recommended follow-up: (1) request raw spectroscopic files from the corresponding author; (2) compare Figure 7c with independent OLED test reports to assess plausibility of roll-off behaviour; (3) obtain high-resolution NMR spectra from the Supporting Information for peak-shape verification.