Dear All,
I have a suggestion and open query to all the electrochemistry researchers regarding a major flaw associated with Mott-Schottky analysis and presenting wrong data in numerous prestigious journals such as electrochimica acta, ACS applied materials interfaces, JPCC etc.
Indeed M-S is a great technique to obtain the electrical properties of electrodeposited films. Although Hall mobility measurement is more reliable, it can not be done for electrodeposited films due to the underneath conducting substrate. A M-S analysis under proper precautionary measures provides very reliable data. However, the wrong experimental approach has been found very common nowadays. It seems many reviewers and editors are also not concerned about publishing wrong results.
A few critical steps are often missing:
1. Unless finding the space charge region, how the experiment can be done. As this experiment is completely surface sensitive, choosing a wrong potential window will convert the surface material to other phase resulting in wrong data. Many of the articles are not showing this critical step. It is better to mention the potential range vs RHE. The flat band thus be mentioned against RHE.
2. A proper redox couple is mandatory to obtain reliable data.
3. The slope (1/C^2 vs E) should cover at least 200 mV for confirming the type of material. The data point also should be at least 6-8 per 100 mV range. Many of the articles presented the data in a flimsy manner.
4. Showing the data only in a single frequency is not probably correct. Presenting the plot at least at 3-4 different frequencies should not differ in their flat band potential.
5. Many articles have mentioned astonishingly carrier concentration in the range of 10^19 - 10^26 cm^-3 for semiconductors. Also, many think higher carrier concentration will lead to better device performance. All sorts of wrong correlations have been observed in many articles. In a few cases, the carrier concentration has no match with the capacitance. Some have mentioned that they got higher carrier concentration (which is better they think) due to the less defective material (claimed phase pure, hence higher carrier concentration, which leads to better device performance).
The usefulness of M-S analysis is promising in photoelectrochemistry or photovoltaics to show a proper band alignment for efficient charge transfer in a heterostructure.
Where do the wrong interpretation of data and publishing in journals leading to?
Yes, Dr. Braun.
Proper training for doing correct experiments is very important. How much smart a researcher/student be, the fundamental things should be clear.
The Mott-Schottky issue was very specifically raised.
Addition to the impedance spectroscopy, showing photoelectrochemical experiments without using a cocatalyst on the electrode, wrongly interpreting corrosion (without a protective coating on unstable semiconductors) as photocurrent and many other associated wrong interpretation are all over spreading.
The race of publishing paper (due to many factors) is significantly degrading the quality of work. Citing wrong papers are also partially catalyzing the ongoing wrong things.Researchers publishing reliable data and citing correct papers would be an effective solution.
The editorial board's proper review is mandatory along with the selection of reviewers.
However, there are some research groups, who are doing excellent jobs in their fields, hardly could find major mistakes.
Many thanks for your views.
Absolutely right what you said.
The real situation with the editors might be very different.
The editors get credit. Also, as a reviewer, downloading the journal can be availed for one or two months. However, almost all the prestigious institutes have the excess already. In that situation, they may accept only if they are free and interested in reviewing.
In any case, publishing an article containing wrong data should be stopped somehow. It is okay to publish an article containing less data, but not erroneous. Wrong data creates confusions, also may lead to misinterpretation in future by other researchers.
Best,
Chandan
Well said Chandan. Nicely you brought the case into the form. I agree with your point.The wrong data would pollute the entire research community. Really pathetic!!!
Thanks for sharing the paper and suggestion.
I am very careful in choosing references for any experiment nowadays. Not only the old papers, many qualitative papers are getting published even now. Some current papers are amazingly discussed using modern sophisticated instruments. We have to agree that it is easier to do an experiment and characterize today than 80s.
But, the main concern is regarding the numerous number of papers that are getting published with wrong experiments and explanation. I have a long list of such papers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Semiconductor