Elsevier work paper on star cells that seems to steal a Nature journal

The similarities between recent papers in 2 completely different journals regarding energy were putting — therefore putting that variety of individuals have taken to Twitter and Facebook to let the planet understand them.

One paper, “Systematic investigation of the impact of operation conditions on the degradation behaviour of perovskite star cells,” was authored by a bunch of researchers in metropolis, Schweiz and appeared on January one, 2018 in Nature Energy. Its abstract reads:

Perovskite star cells have achieved power-conversion potency values approaching those of established electrical phenomenon technologies, creating the reliable assessment of their operational stability consequent essential step towards development. though studies more and more typically involve a style of stability characterization, they’re conducted in non-standardized ways that, that yields knowledge that area unit effectively unequalled. moreover, stability assessment of a completely unique material system with its own peculiarities would possibly need AN adjustment of common standards. Here, we have a tendency to investigate the results of various environmental factors and electrical load on the ageing behaviour of perovskite star cells. On this basis, we have a tendency to treat our perceived connection with the various ways that these area units presently aged. we have a tendency to conjointly demonstrate however the results of the experiments are distorted and the way to avoid the common pitfalls. we have a tendency to hope this work can initiate discussion on a way to age perovskite star cells and facilitate the event of accord stability measuring protocols.

The other paper appeared on-line in solar power Materials and star Cells on Gregorian calendar month seven, 2018 — once being submitted on March seven, 2018 by a gaggle of researchers in urban center, Pakistan. Titled “Ageing effects of perovskite star cells below totally different environmental factors and electrical load conditions,” its abstract reads:

Perovskite star cells have achieved power-conversion potency values approaching those of established electrical phenomenon technologies, creating the reliable assessment of their operational stability successive essential step towards exploitation. though studies more and more usually involve a style of stability characterization, they’re conducted in non-standardized ways that, that yields knowledge that square measure effectively nonpareil. moreover, stability assessment of a completely unique material system with its own peculiarities would possibly need associate adjustment of common standards. Here, we tend to investigate the results of various environmental factors and electrical load on the ageing behaviour of perovskite star cells. On this basis, we tend to inquire into our perceived connectedness of the various ways that these square measure presently aged. we tend to additionally demonstrate however the results of the experiments is distorted and the way to avoid the common pitfalls. we tend to hope this work can initiate discussion on a way to age perovskite star cells and facilitate the event of accord stability mensuration protocols.

Yes, those abstracts square measure identical, and therefore the pattern continues throughout the papers.

“More shocked even than angry”

Konrad Domanski, one among the corresponding authors of the character Energy paper, tells Retraction Watch he and his colleagues learned regarding the new paper some 2 months past. They contacted the editor of solar power Materials and star Cells, associate Elsevier journal, however “the case has been progressing extraordinarily slowly,” with the editor telling the cluster that it might take up to a year before there’s a resolution. Domanski tells Retraction Watch:

I was a lot of shocked even than angry that this type of issue will happen within the digital era and additionally in a very respectable journal. No ought to mention that my opinion of Elsevier as a business firm and of scientific business culture a lot of typically has suffered.

Elsevier tells North American nation that they’re wanting into the matter. (Domanski says that after the case “went viral” in the week, Elsevier assured him that they might treat it with the “highest urgency” which “we can update you with the end result as shortly as potential, which can not be long currently.”)

We’ve asked Zaeem Aslam, the corresponding author of the solar power Materials and star Cells paper, to clarify the similarities, and can update with something we tend to hear.

Update, 1230 UTC, 8/23/18: A reader detected that Aslam’s Gmail address on alternative papers was totally different — by one “1” — from the one listed on the solar power Materials and star Cells paper. we tend to emailed Aslam at the opposite email address, and he told North American nation the e-mail listed on the solar power Materials and star Cells paper isn’t his, which he has “nothing to try and do with this publication.”

Stay tuned.