Abnormal Data in 10.3390/su11185003
UPDATE 2024.03.12
After an investigation, in which authors provided original data and a screen recording video, 5GH team have confidence that the abnormal error bars, and the inconsistence between Figure 5 and Figure 6 were caused by unintentional mistakes.
Authors' screen recording video demonstrated the abnormal error bars were caused by mistake when authors were operating the software WPS Office. The authors did not mean to create the error bars, but applied the option by mistake. And the software WPS Office allowed the authors to create the error bars without the error data. Therefore, false error bars were created unintentionally.
The original data provided by the authors, and the discussion between Dr. Wu (president of the 5GH Foundation) and Dr Dai (the corresponding author of the article) suggest incorrect analysis on the data, rather than manipulation.
On behalf of the authors, Dr. Dai stated her team would recalculate the results and post a correction to the article.
To obtain the screen recording video and the original data, please contact Dr. Dai.
We find some abnormal data in the article [1] published by Li et. al.:
(1) The error bars in Figure 4 have same length.
(2) The error bars of the “Rainy” curve (blue) of Figure 5 have same length.
(3) The error bars of the “Sunny” curve (yellow) of Figure 5 have same length.
(4) The error bars in Figure 6 have same length.
(5) Data from Figure 5 and Figure 6 is inconsistent. Authors investigated the e-bike usage between May and July (92 days) in 2018, and claimed that 30 days among this period were rainy. Take the data of Hour 18 as an example. From Figure 5, it was shown that about 520 e-bike usages in a sunny day, and about 290 e-bike usages in a rainy day, the estimated average usage should be less than 450 usages [(520*62+290*30)/92]. However, from Figure 6, the average number was about 490. The data for other Hour showed inconsistent between Figure 5 and Figure 6, too.
Based on these findings, the data and the conclusion in Li’s paper [1] is not reliable, and we ask the publisher and the journal for a further investigation on the paper.
Reference
