An example of scientific fraud

Scientific dishonesty in Journal editing : 

Scientific dishonesty in Journal editing Or, what can stop fraudsters (from the University of Nottingham, for example) when journal editors support them? www.talenco.info

Slide 2: 

The editor of Separation Purification Technology received in 2008 a complaint by me on plagiarism and scientific dishonesty against academics at the Universities of Nottingham and Oxford. It included a complaint against being cited at all as having a secondary role in their „work“. The editor rejected my complaints on a number of grounds: that the work had original aspects that my claims on plagiarism were untrue that the work had been found worthy by examining referees regarding my wish not to me mentioned as being a bit player in the work, he ignored it.

Slide 3: 

This is the paper, let‘s see about refereeing....

Slide 4: 

The formula of aluminum sulphate is, obviously Al2(SO4)3

Slide 5: 

Phenol is an extremely weak acid, but this does not make it a base

Slide 6: 

Which ones??? Such lack of detail in a scientific paper is unbelievable....

Slide 7: 

And that all in one page....

Slide 8: 

Refereed paper? I think not....

Slide 9: 

Before the authors published this paper, they attended a conference in Brazil, where they presented a poster..... www.talenco.info

Slide 10: 

Apparently, nothing wrong. Research has been going on at Nottingham since 1998 and past 2004 (end year of the GR/R 44393/01 Grant, cf www.epsrc.ac.uk)

Slide 11: 

Few problems, though....

Slide 12: 

Opss! Wrong co-author, and the work is Spanish

Slide 13: 

Oops again! Wrong year (the paper has been postdated a mere seven years) and a co-author is missing! The work is also fastidiously Spanish... ?

Slide 14: 

Right, well done you, except.....

Slide 15: 

Fast rewind to 1996, 4th World Surfactant Conference, Barcelona, Spain... Am I beginning to be annoying with all that Spain, Spain, Spain...? Then you qualify to be an academic at the University of Nottingham! www.talenco.info

Slide 16: 

The affiliations are not very British, are they?

Slide 17: 

Abstract page of the paper.... Let us have a look at some results, shan‘t we?

Slide 18: 

The red markings on the bottom left indicate that pollutant removal beyond 98% had been achieved in 1996 by Spanish scientists, with a far more toxic chemical (2,4-D is a pesticide)

Slide 19: 

From 300 to 4.5 surely must be a better proof of concept....

Slide 20: 

But we have to be understanding with British academics.... In case somebody wonders, Paton is a surname both in UK and Spain, and the particular Paton in this story is Spanish.... I mean, surely they are doing my coworkers and me an honour by taking credit for our work.... www.talenco.info

Slide 21: 

But it gets even better.... On the next level, the work is nonsense Beyond that, it is just a fraud! Cool, isn‘t it? www.talenco.info

Slide 22: 

Ops! Sorry, before I forget.... The figures are lifted from....

Slide 23: 

THAT‘S RIGHT! A Spanish research paper.

Slide 24: 

Professor A.B. De Haan, University of Eindhoven and editor of Separation Puritication Technology does not think that there is plagiarism, or that my complaint about unauthorised use of my figures should be heeded. Now, let‘s go forth into nonsense.... You have seen already that the authors can remove 78% of 50 ppm of phenol in two steps...... Let us have a look at the literature and find out what can be done in one step......

Slide 25: 

Figure 5 of this paper from 2003 shows that, by hollow fibre extraction, you could remove +90% of a 3000 ppm phenol solution.....

Slide 26: 

Yet Prof. de Haan claims that the reviewers found that 78% of 50 ppm is proof of technological breakthrough....

Slide 27: 

The absolutely bestest part is that the authors of the „Notxford“ ;-P paper claim that hollow fiber extraction is required subsequently to their separation.... Sorry, but it is just me, or the way they describe the whole process, their separation technique is redundant and hollow fiber separation should be THE separation process.... Who reviewed this paper and decided it made any sense....?

Slide 28: 

By the way, they never produced any work on stripping by hollow fibre... That is a plain lie said by careful wording. CYANEX 923 has proven effective as extractant by other researchers ON ITS OWN www.talenco.info

Slide 29: 

And this is not to say that the technique has no potential... www.talenco.info

Slide 30: 

Before they published their work....

Slide 31: 

Which is at least bringing it down from 1000 ppm to 300 ppm....

Slide 32: 

Or, to show how far the research could have gone if they had been working at all after 2004 (or before, they actually never worked on the subject) .... The figure on the left indicates that from 0.127M phenol (12 g per litre) you can drop to about 0.07 (6.6 g per litre) in one step....more impressive than 40 miligrams in two steps, isn‘t it?

Slide 33: 

So, no way the paper was properly reviewed, and no way anybody could consider that what they did was taking the technique anywhere near commercial explotation.... www.talenco.info

Slide 34: 

So, no way the paper was properly reviewed, and no way anybody could consider that what they did was taking the technique anywhere near potential explotation.... Let‘s go to show it is a fraud on top of everything, shan‘t we? www.talenco.info

Slide 36: 

Initial concentration of alum is 0.015M and of surfactant is 0.02M

Slide 37: 

Final concentrations of aluminium (Al3+) 0.0004M and of surfactant 0.0005M

Slide 38: 

......... www.talenco.info

Slide 39: 

......... ............... www.talenco.info

Slide 40: 

......... ............... Sorry, is it just me or..... www.talenco.info

Slide 41: 

......... ............... Sorry, is it just me or..... If you start with 0.015M Alum you have actually 0.03M of Al3+ ions..... And therefore at the end (after flocculation and filtration) if you have 0.0004M of Al3+..... You have consumed 0.0296M Al3+..... www.talenco.info

Slide 42: 

......... ............... And similarly..... If you start with 0.02M surfactant And at the end (after flocculation and filtration) you have 0.0005M of surfactant.... You have consumed 0.0195M of surfactant.... www.talenco.info

Slide 43: 

Together with 0.0296M Al3+ which is trivalent cation....(i.e. you have 0.0888M e+ or 0.0888Me) You have consumed 0.0195M of a surfactant that is a monovalent anion....(i.e. you have 0.0195M e- or -0.0195 M e) How can you create a floc, which is electrically neutral when.... Which added together..... 0.0888Me - 0.0195Me = 0.0693 Me) Does not yield zero???

Slide 44: 

The answer is simple..... By faking the result! www.talenco.info

Slide 45: 

The answer is simple..... By faking the result..... All available literature shows that in flocculation of anionic surfactant SDS with Al3+ at most the ration Al3+/SDS is around 0.35 www.talenco.info

Slide 46: 

The answer is simple..... By faking the result..... All available literature shows that in flocculation of anionic surfactant SDS with Al3+ at most the ration Al3+/SDS is 0.33 For example.....

Slide 47: 

If you have consumed 0.02M of SDS and the ratio Al/SDS is 0.33, you can at best have consumed 0.0066M Al3+.... www.talenco.info

Slide 48: 

If you have consumed 0.02M of SDS and the ratio Al/SDS is 0.33, you can at best have consumed 0.0066M Al3+.... And if you had in principle 0.03M Al3+ (remember, it‘s 0.015M of Alum...)

Slide 49: 

If you have consumed 0.02M of SDS and the ratio Al/SDS is 0.33, you can at best have consumed 0.0066M Al3+.... And if you had in principle 0.03M Al3+ (remember, it‘s 0.015M of Alum...) Then you are left with 0.0234M Al3+ or 630 ppm of Al3+ in your wastewater...

Slide 50: 

If you have consumed 0.02M of SDS and the ratio Al/SDS is 0.33, you can at best have consumed 0.0066M Al3+.... And if you had in principle 0.03M Al3+ (remember, it‘s 0.015M of Alum...) Then you are left with 0.0234M Al3+ or 630 ppm of Al3+ in your wastewater... As a trade off to remove less than 40 ppm of phenol and still have more than 10 in solution????

Slide 51: 

This is from the final report for a EPSRC grant, available from me (contact through my website) www.talenco.info

Slide 52: 

The authors tried to publish the same paper a few years before in another journal, whose editor was not acquainted to any of them...... Where is the Brazilian co-author? www.talenco.info

Slide 53: 

Unlike the editor for Separation Purification Technology (by the way, notice that the previous attempt was in Separation SCIENCE and Technology)...... Where is the Brazilian co-author? Nowhere in 2005.....

Slide 54: 

In review on 2005, and rejected, as it does not exist as a publication in Separation SCIENCE and Technology

Slide 55: 

So, summarising, if you know the right person in the right place you will be able to publish any piece of rubbish and claim as own the work of researchers from other countries. www.talenco.info

Slide 56: 

So, summarising, if you know the right person in the right place you will be able to publish any piece of rubbish and claim as own the work of researchers from other countries. www.talenco.info Even if it had been turned down elsewhere so summarily that you did not receive any comments on the most egregious blunders....

Slide 57: 

So, summarising, if you know the right person in the right place you will be able to publish any piece of rubbish and claim as own the work of researchers from other countries. www.talenco.info Even if it had been turned down elsewhere so summarily that you did not receive any comments on the most egregious blunders.... Which is saying a lot about the turning down of the manuscript....

Slide 58: 

Soon to come to your screen.... www.talenco.info

Slide 59: 

Soon to come to your screen.... How EPSRC allows British Universities to commit fraud in the presentation of their final reports.... www.talenco.info Courtesy of nacho2002b on YouTube