93 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
# Materials Evidence Chain
|
|
|
|
Use this file to audit whether the manuscript's claims are supported by the
|
|
provided characterization, controls, mechanism tests, and performance data.
|
|
|
|
## Claim-evidence checks
|
|
|
|
### Structure and composition
|
|
|
|
Typical claims:
|
|
|
|
- successful synthesis
|
|
- phase purity
|
|
- morphology control
|
|
- nanoscale architecture
|
|
- interface formation
|
|
- defect engineering
|
|
- oxidation state or coordination change
|
|
- dopant incorporation
|
|
|
|
Common evidence:
|
|
|
|
- XRD, SAED, Raman, FTIR, XPS, EDS, ICP, elemental mapping
|
|
- SEM, TEM, AFM, BET, contact angle, zeta potential
|
|
- thermal analysis, mechanical testing, spectroscopy
|
|
|
|
Risk flags:
|
|
|
|
- morphology shown without composition confirmation
|
|
- XPS peak fitting overinterpreted
|
|
- single image used as proof of uniformity
|
|
- no control sample for dopant/interface effects
|
|
|
|
### Properties
|
|
|
|
Typical claims:
|
|
|
|
- improved conductivity, charge transfer, ion transport, surface activity,
|
|
toughness, stretchability, adhesion, wettability, optical response, or
|
|
dielectric/piezoelectric/triboelectric behavior
|
|
|
|
Common evidence:
|
|
|
|
- EIS, I-V, Hall, four-probe, CV, GCD, LSV, Tafel, ECSA, PL/TRPL, UV-vis,
|
|
DMA, tensile tests, fatigue, bending/cycling tests
|
|
|
|
Risk flags:
|
|
|
|
- property improvement is reported but not linked to structure
|
|
- only one sample or no error bars
|
|
- no stability or repeatability for device claims
|
|
|
|
### Mechanism
|
|
|
|
Mechanism claims require a chain:
|
|
|
|
1. The material has the proposed structural/chemical feature.
|
|
2. That feature changes a relevant property.
|
|
3. The property change explains the performance trend.
|
|
4. Controls or perturbations reduce alternative explanations.
|
|
|
|
Acceptable wording:
|
|
|
|
- Direct evidence: `demonstrates`, `confirms`, `establishes`
|
|
- Indirect but coherent evidence: `indicates`, `suggests`, `is consistent with`
|
|
- Hypothesis: `may arise from`, `could be associated with`
|
|
|
|
### Performance and benchmarking
|
|
|
|
Check:
|
|
|
|
- benchmark metric and units are clear
|
|
- operating condition is stated
|
|
- control material/device is fair
|
|
- literature comparison uses comparable conditions
|
|
- stability, cycling, bending, humidity, temperature, pH, voltage window, or
|
|
rate/current density are relevant to the application
|
|
- sample size, error bars, and statistics appear when the claim depends on
|
|
reproducibility
|
|
|
|
Risk flags:
|
|
|
|
- `record-high` or `superior` without a controlled literature table
|
|
- application claim based only on lab conditions
|
|
- durability mentioned without cycle count or test conditions
|
|
|
|
## Output template
|
|
|
|
Use this compact map:
|
|
|
|
`Claim: ... | Evidence: Fig. xxx / data xxx | Status: supported / partial /
|
|
needs evidence | Fix: ...`
|