BREAKING! Now you can do "science" without any equipment. 5 corrections for Tharamani C. Nagaiah "At the time of the measurements, the XRD, FE-SEM and XPS facilities were not available at the authors’ institute." J. Mat Chem A. is ok with that excuse

Can you belive that this "study" was cited 580 times? .

Conspiracy theory or nice story for SciFi triller: first object was spaceship checking if Earth is habitable, second delivered deadly viruses (Covid was only first one) to terminate all humans and new object is about to bring Aliens invasion.

I wonder if XRD reflections were added or removed in one of these 2 patterns? Anyway it is not very smart place these two so close to each other. It makes it really easy to compare.

Simulteneously with retraction, the same authors published two corrections in NJC by RSC. What could possibly be wrong with these papers? Both papers are not yet on PubPeer.

Retraction for paper in Environmental Science: Nano by RSC. First comments on PP date back to August 2023. Only two years to retract this nonsense. Corresponding author Priyabrat Dash has 8 other papers on PP with similar issues.

How to detect that paper was never reviewed (Part II)? @SciReports, please stop thi mockery. XRD reflections with inverted intensity? Seriously? 🤣🤣🤣 .

@Robert_Palgrave I have a feeling that some of these deconvolutions are too similar. But. how can I check that? It reminds me of the old fairy tale about the naked king—only here, the spectra are invisible.

How to check that paper was never really reviewed? These authors published deconvolution components. of nothing. Literally, no spectra were shown. They did it consistently again, again and again. How could any reviewer miss it? @Robert_Palgrave

Prof. Eder C. Lima has impressive record (60+) at Pubpeer which just got a bit longer. Publishing the same XRD pattern for two different materials is trivial. How about SEM images recorded on the same day 14 years prior to publication of 2 (2024) papers? .

Read the story in Leonid's Schneider blog. Publication of the same XRD patterns and EDS spectra in different papers for different materials should be enough for retractions.

Sometimes it happens and fake papers get retracted. Like this one by P.M. Kouotou. He still has dozen of other papers which needs to be retracted. One only wonder why other co-authors and editors of several journals don't take it seriously. 1/2

Same authors and obvious issues with XPS and XRD. Cited 95 times. I have very low expectations that @ElsevierConnect Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering will retract this paper.

I thought I've seen it all. But nope, creative authors continue to surprize with new types of fakes. These guys removed noise on the top of XRD pattern , but bottom part of noise is still identical. @ACSPublications , please check it

Some authors are more creative than others. It is a lot faster to shift horizontally the same XRD pattern than to synthesize materials and to record real data. @RSCAdvances , please have a look.

Second paper by the same authors where they published the same figures is still not retracted. But what else could be expected from Ceramics International by @ElsevierConnect ?

Retraction by Journal of Hazardous Materials two years after my post at PP. Authors from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. First author M.B. Tahir has 14 papers on pubpeer with all kinds of fakes.

This correction shamelessly replcaces 5 (!) oanels with duplicated XRD and Raman spectra claiming that experiments were repeated. " The authors appreciate the support from the readers, editors and publisher." Wow!

These are two papers flagged back in 2019. Now high IF Journal of Materials Chemistry A @RoySocChem published correction for 2 figures for one of these papers and did noting at all for the second.

That is one of their replies: "The two graphs are in the same phase, and the corresponding characteristic peaks are the same, so the graphs are similar." Soon it will be commonly accepted If only major part of authors and editors agree.