Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33520238›Full record

ReviewIUCrJ2021

Distortions, deviations and alternative facts: reliability in crystallography.

William Clegg

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in IUCrJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

William CleggSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1643-5298
Newcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This feature article is derived from the author's presentation of the Lonsdale lecture at the BCA Spring Meeting in 2018. One of the research results for which Kathleen Lonsdale is best known was her 1929 demonstration that the benzene ring in crystalline hexa-methyl-benzene is planar and has essentially hexagonal symmetry, resolving decades of dispute among organic chemists. More recent crystallographic studies of hexa-methyl-benzene have shown that there are actually small deviations from planarity. Such deviations for aromatic compounds may be due to electronic, steric, and/or intermolecular factors. Some substituted benzene molecules display remarkably large deviations, both from a planar ring structure and from regular hexagonal angular geometry around the ring. Starting from this specific connection with Kathleen Lonsdale's research, a number of stories are recounted of structural distortions and deviations from expected results and explanations that have been suggested for them, across a wide range of chemical topics including macrocycles, metal clusters, unusual coordination geometry and isomerism. On the way we find genuine surprises and results that have led to new understanding, but also examples of poor experiments, misinterpretation of data, scientific bias and preconceived ideas, incompetence and even deliberate fraud. Some aspects of structure validation are discussed. While showcasing some interesting research in its own right, this account also serves an educational purpose.

Indexed as

scientific fraudstructural distortionsstructure interpretationstructure validation

Identifiers

PMID33520238
PMCPMC7793003
OpenAlexW3096845985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.