Reproducibility and Post-Publication Criticism: A Crisis in Electrocatalysis?

Understanding an electrocatalytic system requires electrochemistry, surface science, material science, in-situ spectroscopy, in-situ microscopy, theoretical calculations, kinetic modeling, and more. Additional to this multidisciplinarity, basic parameters of electrocatalysis are still challenging to determine, such as the number of active sites, the (electrochemical active) surface area, the intrinsic activity, the in-situ chemical nature of the catalyst's surface, and the identity of the active site. As a young postdoc with five years of experience in electrocatalytic water splitting, I have encountered and learned from a body of literature that is, in part, contradictory, oversimplified, false, methodologically flawed, and non-reproducible. All colleagues and supervisors I have met shared this critical view and such critical opinions have also been expressed in conference presentations and publications. 1,2 In light of the first paragraph's points, such literature issues might not be a surprise: an expert in electrochemistry might miss a crucial point of material science and vice versa. A community response has been best practice papers, which summarize fundamental guidelines and call for their adoption. 3–7 However, this approach has not proven sufficient, possibly due to the sheer number of publications and the wide range of applied methods. In this talk, we will present results from an ongoing reproducibility study. In this study, three different electrode fabrication procedures were performed in various labs worldwide, and measured electrocatalytic parameters are compared. We will then discuss a potential solution to improve the electrocatalysis literature: increased post-publication criticism. This criticism can be in the form of comment articles directly linked to the article, as offered by most journals but rarely published. In this regard, I have attended conferences where plenary speakers have pointed out fundamental misinterpretations of reports with hundreds or thousands of citations. However, they had not written a comment on the report, leaving students to encounter and potentially believe the unchallenged false conclusions. Currently, comments might be perceived as too negative in electrocatalysis and thus can upset potential referees. We propose that changing this perception is necessary to improve the quality of electrocatalysis literature and research, because the very core of science is respectful and constructive public debate and criticism. References: Akbashev, A. R. Electrocatalysis Goes Nuts. ACS Catal. 12 , 4296–4301 (2022). Wang, L., Sofer, Z. &amp; Pumera, M. Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect? ACS Nano 14 , 21–25 (2020). Anantharaj, S., Noda, S., Driess, M. &amp; Menezes, P. W. The Pitfalls of Using Potentiodynamic Polarization Curves for Tafel Analysis in Electrocatalytic Water Splitting. ACS Energy Lett. 6 , 1607–1611 (2021). Niu, S., Li, S., Du, Y., Han, X. &amp; Xu, P. How to Reliably Report the Overpotential of an Electrocatalyst. ACS Energy Lett. 5 , 1083–1087 (2020). Shao-Horn, Y. et al. Recommended Practices and Benchmark Activity for Hydrogen and Oxygen Electrocatalysis in Water Splitting and Fuel Cells. Adv. Mater. 1806296 , 1806296 (2019). Kibsgaard, J., Nørskov, J. K. &amp; Chorkendorff, I. The Difficulty of Proving Electrochemical Ammonia Synthesis. ACS Energy Lett. 4 , 2986–2988 (2019). Stevens, M. B. et al. Measurement Techniques for the Study of Thin Film Heterogeneous Water Oxidation Electrocatalysts. Chem. Mater. 29 , 120–140 (2017).