ArticleScientific reports2020
On the reliability of highly magnified micrographs for structural analysis in materials science.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Domain-specific simulated data enhances knife-mark noise suppression in microscopy images of materials.Microscopy (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Improved cell growth on additively manufactured Ti64 substrates with varying porosity and nanofibrous coating.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Nanofibers are a matter of perspective: effects of methodology and subjectivity on diameter measurements.Nanoscale advances · 2023Article
- Electrospinning of Magnetite-Polyacrylonitrile Composites for the Production of Oxygen Reduction Reaction Catalysts.Polymers · 2023Article
- Homogeneity of Needleless Electrospun Nanofiber Mats.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Electrospun Magnetic Nanofiber Mats for Magnetic Hyperthermia in Cancer Treatment Applications-Technology, Mechanism, and Materials.Polymers · 2023Review
- Magnetic 3D-Printed Composites-Production and Applications.Polymers · 2022Review
- Comparative Study of Metal Substrates for Improved Carbonization of Electrospun PAN Nanofibers.Polymers · 2022Article
- Electrospinning Nanofiber Mats with Magnetite Nanoparticles Using Various Needle-Based Techniques.Polymers · 2022Article
- Magnetic Carbon Nanofiber Mats for Prospective Single Photon Avalanche Diode (SPAD) Sensing Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Metallic Supports Accelerate Carbonization and Improve Morphological Stability of Polyacrylonitrile Nanofibers during Heat Treatment.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Highly magnified micrographs are part of the majority of publications in materials science and related fields. They are often the basis for discussions and far-reaching conclusions on the nature of the specimen. In many cases, reviewers demand and researchers deliver only the bare minimum of micrographs to substantiate the research hypothesis at hand. In this work, we use heterogeneous poly(acrylonitrile) nanofiber nonwovens with embedded nanoparticles to demonstrate how an insufficient or biased micrograph selection may lead to erroneous conclusions. Different micrographs taken by transmission electron microscopy and helium ion microscopy with sometimes contradictory implications were analyzed and used as a basis for micromagnetic simulations. With this, we try to raise awareness for the possible consequences of cherry-picking for the reliability of scientific literature.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.