English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We recall a recent PhD defense for a candidate who had undertaken some interesting work on a novel processing route for a class of functional materials. The candidate compared the figure of merit for his new material to that of a similar material that he had processed by conventional methods. The new process resulted in a value approximately half that of the conventional route, but the candidate still concluded that his new material exhibited excellent properties. When asked why he had written that statement, having clearly demonstrated the new route produced inferior properties to conventional materials, he was somewhat perplexed. He eventually explained that the new route may have energy saving advantages, albeit unquantified, and therefore, he could make that claim. Was he justified in making that claim? In our opinion, the answer is no. Certainly, one should signpost the link to potential applications, but without undertaking a more detailed cost–benefit analysis, accounting for production costs and energy savings and the trade-off against materials performance, the claim of ‘‘excellent properties’’ is unjustified. Clearly, the student was not in a position to undertake that analysis, but it does not excuse the misrepresentation. However, the examiners did not press the matter and he successfully completed the examination. If he had made purely scientific conclusions that were both incorrect and unsubstantiated, he may have had a much more difficult time graduating. But why did he do it? It was evident from his bafflement that the student was following the example set in countless papers published by career scientists. In an academic world in which job appointments, promotions and pay-rises are

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Balancing hyperbole and impact in research communications related to lead-free piezoelectric materials