Short notes on Open Access, Peer review & (insane) publications
This is insane!
As a long term peer reviewer I read all articles (not only under review) very carefully. From relatively wide observation the only half of the submitted papers might be accepted for further publication. Not counting in this half the articles which need some (more or less) modifications. Indeed, there are almost half of the articles which went through my hands have a very low quality. These include repeating/copying someone else's research, very poor understanding of the obtained results, not willingness, even to try to explain the obtained results, but just referring to previously published articles (from other researchers) (which means their result is not unique).
Since I do not connect with the publishers other than by e-mail as a reviewer or author, I do not know how busy are Journals is to feel the issues.
However, I understand that the publishers have to earn some money from what they are doing. Good it or not (very much) for the progress is a big question.
Therefore, there is a new option for publication (in some Journals) your article as an "open access".
Recently I found one.
The Role of Carbonate and Sulfite Additives in Propylene Carbonate-Based Electrolytes on the Formation of SEI Layers at Graphitic Li-Ion Battery Anodes in Journal of the Electrochemical Society [doi: 10.1149/2.0931409jes, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2014 volume 161, issue 9, A1415-A1421]
Where a "density functional theory (DFT) was used to investigate the effect of electrolyte additives on SEI formation at graphitic anodes".
In the "Introduction" authors giving some short overview on different electrolyte solvents (such as EC and PC) behavior with graphite at cycling. Indeed, "PC is less suitable for a graphitic anode due to its tendency to co-intercalate into graphite during the first charge process". And it does not happen (almost) with EC. The later part is less logical, but just a collection of some references on the SEI enhancement by some additives.
And here we go.
Although, article`s title emphasized that the study is abut PC based electrolyte, but authors continue to refer to EC based electrolyte. Such as "Aurbach et al.54 proposed the two-electron reduction mechanism of EC based on the component analysis of SEI films as shown in Fig. 1". However, referred article is about PC based electrolyte ("Identification of Surface Films Formed on Lithium in Propylene Carbonate Solutions").
The interesting is that on Fig. 1 the substance refereed as EC is far not EC (or PC) at all.
in the article ethylene carbonate is presented as with caption
As a long term peer reviewer I read all articles (not only under review) very carefully. From relatively wide observation the only half of the submitted papers might be accepted for further publication. Not counting in this half the articles which need some (more or less) modifications. Indeed, there are almost half of the articles which went through my hands have a very low quality. These include repeating/copying someone else's research, very poor understanding of the obtained results, not willingness, even to try to explain the obtained results, but just referring to previously published articles (from other researchers) (which means their result is not unique).
Since I do not connect with the publishers other than by e-mail as a reviewer or author, I do not know how busy are Journals is to feel the issues.
However, I understand that the publishers have to earn some money from what they are doing. Good it or not (very much) for the progress is a big question.
Therefore, there is a new option for publication (in some Journals) your article as an "open access".
Recently I found one.
The Role of Carbonate and Sulfite Additives in Propylene Carbonate-Based Electrolytes on the Formation of SEI Layers at Graphitic Li-Ion Battery Anodes in Journal of the Electrochemical Society [doi: 10.1149/2.0931409jes, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2014 volume 161, issue 9, A1415-A1421]
Where a "density functional theory (DFT) was used to investigate the effect of electrolyte additives on SEI formation at graphitic anodes".
In the "Introduction" authors giving some short overview on different electrolyte solvents (such as EC and PC) behavior with graphite at cycling. Indeed, "PC is less suitable for a graphitic anode due to its tendency to co-intercalate into graphite during the first charge process". And it does not happen (almost) with EC. The later part is less logical, but just a collection of some references on the SEI enhancement by some additives.
And here we go.
Although, article`s title emphasized that the study is abut PC based electrolyte, but authors continue to refer to EC based electrolyte. Such as "Aurbach et al.54 proposed the two-electron reduction mechanism of EC based on the component analysis of SEI films as shown in Fig. 1". However, referred article is about PC based electrolyte ("Identification of Surface Films Formed on Lithium in Propylene Carbonate Solutions").
The interesting is that on Fig. 1 the substance refereed as EC is far not EC (or PC) at all.
in the article ethylene carbonate is presented as with caption
"Figure 1.
If you are not familiar with carbonates here is a link to Wikipedia (or you may google)
Ethylene carbonate by WP
Next: "Computational Details"
Again, the authors insisted they are doing calculations to optimize PC based electrolyte with different additives. However, in the next chapter they show again so call "EC" substance on which base they use all calculations!!!!
"The first electron reduction energy (E1 = E11 + E12) and the second electron reduction energy (E2) for PC and additives are calculated according to the reduction schemes in Fig. 2 using EC as an example".
Fig. 2: The first electron reduction energy (E1 = E11 + E12) and the second electron reduction energy (E2) for EC
Even, if we ignore that so call "EC" is not EC. The question is how and why they (authors) may just use EC reduction instead of PC????? The molecular structure is such a difference!!!
Here is PC
The rest of the article`s discussion and calculations and conclusions are under a very big doubt.
It seems the authors are not very familiar with what they are studying, however, probably they know how to use a computer and some software.
On the other hand, what about reviewers, editors??
Or because this is an "open access" article???
From here
Schematic diagram of two electron reduction mechanism of ethylene carbonate to linear carbonates."
If you are not familiar with carbonates here is a link to Wikipedia (or you may google)
Ethylene carbonate by WP
Next: "Computational Details"
Again, the authors insisted they are doing calculations to optimize PC based electrolyte with different additives. However, in the next chapter they show again so call "EC" substance on which base they use all calculations!!!!
"The first electron reduction energy (E1 = E11 + E12) and the second electron reduction energy (E2) for PC and additives are calculated according to the reduction schemes in Fig. 2 using EC as an example".
Fig. 2: The first electron reduction energy (E1 = E11 + E12) and the second electron reduction energy (E2) for EC
Here is PC
It seems the authors are not very familiar with what they are studying, however, probably they know how to use a computer and some software.
On the other hand, what about reviewers, editors??
Or because this is an "open access" article???
Peer review of our journals is one of the things we are most proud of here at The Electrochemical Society. Even as we move to Open Access for our publications, our peer review process is going to remain as rigorous as ever. Amazing the lengths people will go to beat the system though.
Comments