懂行的来看看，评判一下。全文见附件

如果真的是错误，该属于什么性质的？

个人觉得，做学问，最不该的是夸大数据。这样会害人的，让人重复不出那么好的结果来，就会有研究生被老板开。

所以，做学问也要厚道，不要吹牛不上税。



发信人: miwumiwu (miwu), 信区: Chemistry
标 题: This JACS paper is wrong
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Feb 4 20:05:40 2008)

This JACS paper is totally wrong in the solar cell characterization part,
and the results are misleading. Shall I report it?

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/article.cgi/jacsat/2008/130/i04/pdf/ja0777741.pdf

Sign, it was from China.....

＝＝＝

发信人: miwumiwu (miwu), 信区: Chemistry
标 题: Re: This JACS paper is wrong
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Feb 4 23:44:58 2008)

The paper is definitely wrong. The author used 3 electrode method to measure
the I-V curve, which should, actually, be measured in REAL solar cell setup
. The Voc is vs Ag/AgCl, not vs counter electrode. It is rediculously high,
as solar cell people would say. If this is ok, we can just use another
reference electrode with more negative potential than Ag/AgCl, then we can
get a even higher Voc. Right?

The reported efficiency is so high that it is unbelievable (almost triple
the better reported results). I am not saying the author forged the data, it
was because he used the wrong Voc and fill factor. If the efficiency is
true, it shoulde go to Nature Materials, if not S/N.
The reviewers also suck.
＝＝＝＝

发信人: miwumiwu (miwu), 信区: Chemistry
标 题: Re: This JACS paper is wrong
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Feb 4 23:53:48 2008)

I confirmed with my boss, and my friends. My guess is that their real
effeciency is slightly above 1% if not below (definitely below 2%, which is
limited by the technique).
My advisor is not so interesting in being the bad guy, but I am just not so
comfortable with such a huge mistake there in JACS....Should I send an email
to the editor about that?
Thanks


＝＝＝

发信人: noahwwt (nono), 信区: Chemistry
标 题: Re: This JACS paper is wrong
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Feb 5 01:28:03 2008)

From what you mentioned, I would like to say you should confirm the mistake
with one authority at least before your actions. What you are doing is
indeed a good deed of a real scientist. I support you to open the mistake.
Alternatively, you may contact the research group in person to ask them to
correct it provided they were careless. After all, it is from Chinese group
(I am sorry to say that). We do need fight for academic fraud but it could
be better let such people by themselves to figure out the problem before the
case becomes even worse.

＝＝＝

Is there any new progress about this news?

I am very angry with "After all, it is from Chinese group ". Why chinese always do it like this ?

what are you doing?

I don't know why there are so many FZZ. I have been in universities for many years and know a lot of mistakes from my boss's group and other groups. (I mean in USA) None of these bosses really care about these mistakes,only considering it is a process of learning the truth. Do not always judge others, otherwise you will be judged. The most important thing is do your own research carefully. If you want to say somebody is wrong, you must try to repeat very thing they have done.

这样的事情见多了
尤其当下的一切以文章挂帅的前提下

I am not clear about this area,

I think that is the true attitude to  the scientific research. The paper should not be the most inportant thing.

I agree with you!

不懂材料，有进一步的消息么