Several articles authored by different researchers and published in various journals have used a seemingly identical SEM image for completely different materials, including CuO, Al2O3, magnetite, and SiC nanoparticles:
1. Saien and Gorji have used this SEM image for magnetite nanoparticles:
– Saien, J., & Gorji, A. M. (2017). Simultaneous adsorption of CTAB surfactant and magnetite nanoparticles on the interfacial tension of n-hexane–water. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 242, 1027-1034.
2. Ghahdarijani et al. have used this same image for CuO nanoparticles:
– Ghahdarijani, A. M., Hormozi, F., & Asl, A. H. (2016). Application of nano-fluids to heat transfer enhancement in double-walled reactor. Journal of Chemical Engineering Process Technology, 7, 1-8.
3. Ghasemi et al. have used it for Al2O3 nanoparticles:
– Ghasemi, N., Aghayari, R., & Maddah, H. (2018). Optimizing the parameters of heat transmission in a small heat exchanger with spiral tapes cut as triangles and aluminum oxide nanofluid using central composite design method. Heat and Mass Transfer, 54, 2113-2130.
4. Karimi et al. have used the image for SiC nanoparticles:
– Karimi, S., Heyhat, M. M., Isfahani, A. H. M., & Hosseinian, A. (2020). Experimental investigation of convective heat transfer and pressure drop of SiC/water nanofluid in a shell and tube heat exchanger. Heat and Mass Transfer, 56(8), 2325-2331.
5. Sadeghi et al. have used it for CuO nanoparticles:
– Sadeghi, S., Mousavi-Sabet, H., Hedayati, A., Zargari, A., Multisanti, C. R., & Faggio, C. (2024). Copper-oxide nanoparticles effects on goldfish (Carassius auratus): Lethal toxicity, haematological, and biochemical effects. Veterinary Research Communications, 48, 1611–1620.
This issue requires clarification from the authors of all these articles to understand how the same SEM image has been used for completely different materials. It raises concerns about the authenticity and validity of the data presented in these studies.
To resolve this matter constructively, the authors of all five articles are encouraged to cooperate and engage in an open dialogue to provide an explanation for this overlap and ensure scientific integrity.
Four days have passed since my initial comment highlighting the use of the same SEM image across multiple studies, purportedly representing different materials such as CuO, Al2O3, magnetite, and SiC nanoparticles, as outlined below.
This raises serious concerns about the validity of the data presented in these studies. I strongly urge the authors of these articles to engage constructively on this forum to clarify how this overlap occurred and to discuss potential resolutions. Promptly addressing this issue is crucial for preserving the integrity of the research and benefiting the scientific community as a whole.
Cooperative engagement could uncover solutions that mitigate potential damage and ensure the record is corrected effectively. However, if no response is received within the next few days, I will have no choice but to escalate the matter to the respective publishers and journal editors for further investigation.
I remain hopeful that the authors will respond and collaborate to resolve this issue transparently and constructively.