Journal Quality Report on "Ceramics International"
Recently, the 5GH Team analyzed the all 127 articles published on Volume 51 Issue 6 of the journal "Ceramics International", an Elsevier title, and found 14 of them (about 11%) have questionable data, spectra, and/or images, including reused spectra/images, as well as abnormal data/noise patterns. Although these cases were not all resulted from misconducts, the high percentage of the problematic articles suggests that this journal does not maintain high quality editorial and peer review process. Based on these results, the 5GH Team assigns the Journal Quality Index [1] for "Ceramics International" to be E.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.128
Abnormal XRD pattern is observed on Figure 1 of this article. The peak around 28 degree of the gray line is unusual sharp, as marked with a red arrow.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.129
Error bars with identical length are observed within several figures, such as Figure 4, Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.131
The SEM-EDX images on the Figure 2 of this article are inconsistent to the figure caption. The figure caption stated that "SEM-EDS of 7RNO ceramics" are shown on the Figure 2 (e) to (o), however, Figure 2 (e) is the same image of Figure 2 (a), taken from the 6RNO ceramic.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.143
Error bars in the Figure 4 of this articles have identical length.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.149
Unusual data pattern is observed on the Table 6 of this article. All the three samples with Tc of 100.0, g/L Cat of 0.35 mg/L, and O3 of 1000.00 mg/h have same experimantal outcome (degradation) of 97.66%. This is unusual, because experimental outcomes from samples with same parameters usually have slight differences.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.150
In this article, the Figure 6 (c) and (d) are too similar to each other, howerer, the figure caption stated they were from two different samples. Besides, the Figure 7 (c) and (d) are too similar to each other, and the figure caption also stated they were from different samples, too.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.173
Error bars with identical length are observed within several figures, such as Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 8.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.189
Abnormal noise patterns are observed in the Figure 2 (d) of this article. The noise in these lines more closely resembles wave-like patterns generated through a template mechanism, rather than random outcomes.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.206
Unusual data pattern is observed on the Table 1 of this article. The samples annealed for different time have same lattice parameters, which is unusual in real experiments.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.211
The SEM equipment used on the study is misidentified on this article, which stated “the prepared precursor’s powder of zinc oxide, tin oxide, and zinc stannate ceramic bodies calcined at 1100 ◦ C were examined under a Philips XL 30 SEM microscope (Philips, Netherlands) and an accelerating voltage of 30 kV”, however, the SEM images shown the Figure 3 were taken with a Tescan device.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.222
In this article, Figure 4 shows unexpected oscillations in the interpolated lines—a phenomenon atypical of standard impedance measurements.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.230
The “200 cycles” panel and the “300 cycles” panel of the Figure 7 are too similar to each other.
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.232
The purple line and the blue line in the Figure 3 of this article are too similar to each other. These two lines have some identical noise patterns (marked with red arrows).
10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.12.251
The grey line and the purple line in the Figure 6 of this article are too similar to each other, with nearly same noise patterns, except for some minor differences around the peaks about 43 degree. What is more, the article states that “SEM (QUANTA 450 FEI, Co., Hillsboro, OR, United States) testing was carried out for microcosmic observation and elemental analysis”, however, the SEM images shown in Figure 10 were taked with a Tescan equipment.
Reference