The paper exhibits several critical issues that warrant serious scrutiny. Figures such as XRD patterns and impedance spectra display unnaturally smooth trends while key methodological details, including instrument calibration and error analyses, are conspicuously absent. Performance metrics in Table 1 misquote reference data, exaggerating the material’s advantages, and comparisons with other studies cherry-pick less competitive benchmarks, undermining the credibility of claimed improvements. The lack of error bars and statistical replicates further weakens the findings, raising doubts about the reproducibility of results like NH₃ conversion rates and power density enhancements. Misaligned citations, such as overstated claims on Mo-doping benefits, and unsubstantiated interpretations, like the ambiguous assignment of a peak at 27° as a Kβ signal, contribute to the impression of selective data representation. Without raw data or detailed experimental protocols, the study fails transparency and reproducibility standards.
