Integrity review: High Resistivity and Low Defect Covalent Organic Frameworks for Highly Stable and Low Dose X-Ray Detection (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2026, DOI: 10.1002/anie.4087507)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This review evaluates the paper by Ji, Chen, Chen, Chen, Fang and Wei on covalent organic framework (COF) X-ray detectors (DOI: 10.1002/anie.4087507). The original detection report contained no formal findings of misconduct, and textual cross-checking across abstract, results and conclusion shows internal consistency of key numbers: a best LoD of 39 nGy·s⁻¹ (COF366-Co), 65 nGy·s⁻¹ for COF366-Cu, sensitivities of 11784 μC·Gy⁻¹·cm⁻² (Cu) and 7953 μC·Gy⁻¹·cm⁻² (Co), activation energies of 1.05/1.04 eV, dark-current drift ~10⁻¹⁸ A·cm⁻²·V⁻¹·s⁻¹ and total dose 148 Gy. Verdict: no substantive misconduct identified from the available text. A supplementary image-overview flagged overly smooth curves in Figures 1e, 3e, 4d/4e and 4i, but visual impressions alone are insufficient to substantiate fabrication. Confidence is limited by the absence of raw data; independent verification of electrical measurement curves is recommended before any definitive judgement.

Verdict

No substantive misconduct identified. Based on the supplied text and image-overview summary, there are no formal findings of data fabrication, image manipulation, or textual inconsistency. The paper is provisionally considered clean, pending access to raw measurement data.

Key findings

The original detection report lists no concrete accusations of academic misconduct against this paper.
Textual cross-check between abstract, main text and conclusion is internally consistent for all reported headline figures.
A auxiliary visual-summary notes that several electrical-response curves appear unusually smooth and free of noise (Figures 1e, 3e, 4d, 4e, 4i), but these impressions are not formal findings and cannot, by themselves, substantiate fraud.

Evidence highlights

LoD: Abstract claims 39 nGy·s⁻¹ (best device). Main text reports COF366-Co LoD = 39 nGy·s⁻¹ and COF366-Cu LoD = 65 nGy·s⁻¹; conclusion repeats "39 and 65 nGy·s⁻¹ respectively." No contradiction.
Sensitivity: 11784 μC·Gy⁻¹·cm⁻² (Cu) and 7953 μC·Gy⁻¹·cm⁻² (Co) appear consistently across text.
Activation energies: 1.05 eV (Cu) / 1.04 eV (Co), consistent with stated resistivities.
Dark-current drift: ~10⁻¹⁸ A·cm⁻²·V⁻¹·s⁻¹, consistent in abstract and body.
Cumulative dose: 148 Gy, consistent across narrative.
DOI: 10.1002/anie.4087507 (as supplied).

Notes

The unusually smooth I–V / response curves flagged in Figures 1e, 3e, 4d/4e and 4i warrant optional follow-up: correspondents Qianrong Fang and Haotong Wei could be asked for raw measurement files for independent verification.
This report assesses only textual consistency and stated visual impressions; it neither certifies scientific correctness nor constitutes a final misconduct judgement.
Limitations: no raw data, no statistical re-analysis, no peer-review access. Any escalation must rely on primary data and author response.