Field emission: Applying the “magic emitter” validity test to a recent paper, and related research-literature integrity issues

This work concerns field electron emission (FE) from large-area emitters. It corrects literature weaknesses in analyzing experimental current–voltage data and related emitter characterization. A recent paper in Applied Surface Science exemplifies these difficulties: (1) for many modern emitters, traditional data-analysis methodologies, such as the Fowler–Nordheim plot developed in 1929, yield spurious results; (2) confusion occurs between the concepts of local and macroscopic (or “emitter average”) current density; (3) data analysis uses 1920s-style emission equations that were proved seriously incorrect (by a factor typically of order 100) in the 1950s. These weaknesses can combine to yield large undetected discrepancies between theory and experiment in published papers (a factor of 1016 in the example under discussion). The present work shows how a recently introduced validity test—the “magic emitter” test—can sometimes be used, at the immediate-presubmission or review stage, to help uncover scientific problems. In literature concerning large-area FE over the last 15 years or so, there seem many papers (perhaps hundreds) with some or all of the weaknesses discussed: very many authors and reviewers in this community, and many editors, seem to have been “hoaxed” by what sociologists of science call a “pathological literature.” The scientific integrity of this research area, and the related peer review processes, appear significantly damaged, and attempts to correct this by normal procedures have had limited effect. There seems a growing case for independent “official” wider investigation into research integrity issues of this general kind, and maybe, for a later regulatory action.