Engineering topics
Major, George H.
Publications and source records attributed to Major, George H..
Insufficient reporting of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy instrumental and peak fitting parameters (metadata) in the scientific literature
This study was motivated by earlier observations. It is a systematic examination of the adequacy of reporting of information (metadata) necessary to understand x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) data collection and data analysis in the scientific literature. The information for this study was obtained from papers published in three high-quality journals over a six-month period in 2019 and throughout 2021. Each paper was evaluated to determine whether the authors had reported (percentages of the papers properly providing the information are given in parentheses) the spectrometer (66%), fitting software (15%), x-ray source (40%), pass energy (10%), spot size (5%), synthetic peak shapes in fits (10%), backgrounds in fits (10%), whether the XPS data are shown in the main body of the paper or in the supporting information (or both), and whether fitted or unfitted spectra were shown (80% of published spectra are fit). The Shirley background is the most widely used background in XPS peak fitting. The Al Kα source is the most widely used x-ray source for XPS data collection. CASAXPS is the most widely used fitting program for XPS data analysis. Further, there is good agreement between the results gathered during the two years of our survey. There are some hints the situation may be improving. This study also provides a list of the information/parameters that should be reported when XPS is performed.
Assessment of the frequency and nature of erroneous x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analyses in the scientific literature
Here, this study was undertaken to understand the extent and nature of problems in x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) data reported in the literature. It first presents an assessment of the XPS data in three high-quality journals over a six-month period. This analysis of 409 publications showing XPS spectra provides insight into how XPS is being used, identifies the common mistakes or errors in XPS analysis, and reveals which elements are most commonly analyzed. More than 65% of the 409 papers showed fitting of XP spectra. An ad hoc group (herein identified as “the committee”) of experienced XPS analysts reviewed these spectra and found that peak fitting was a common source of significant errors. The papers were ranked based on the perceived seriousness of the errors, which ranged from minor to major. Major errors, which, in the opinion of the ad hoc committee, can render the interpretation of the data meaningless, occurred when fitting protocols ignored underlying physics and chemistry or contained major errors in the analysis. Consistent with other materials analysis data, ca. 30% of the XPS data or analysis was identified as having major errors. Out of the publications with fitted spectra, ca. 40% had major errors. The most common elements analyzed by XPS in the papers sampled and researched at an online database, include carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and titanium. A scrutiny of the papers showing carbon and oxygen XPS spectra revealed the classes of materials being studied and the extent of problems in these analyses. As might be expected, C 1s and O 1s analyses are most often performed on sp2-type materials and inorganic oxides, respectively. These findings have helped focus a series of XPS guides and tutorials that deal with common analysis issues. The extent of problematic data is larger than the authors had expected. Quantification of the problem, examination of some of the common problem areas, and the development of targeted guides and tutorials may provide both the motivation and resources that enable the community to improve the overall quality and reliability of XPS analysis reported in the literature.
Proliferation of Faulty Materials Data Analysis in the Literature
As a group of subject matter experts in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), we write this letter to raise awareness of the epidemic of poor and incorrect materials data analysis in the Literature. This is a chronic and growing problem with very undesirable consequences. This issue may contribute to what has been identified as a “reproducibility crisis”1,2 that was the subject of a recent U.S. National Academies study. We are using XPS as one example of what we observe to be a systemic issue.