Ten Ways to Fool the Masses When Presenting Battery Research**

Abstract

As scientists within the field of battery research we may often find it quite difficult to match and trust the promises given in press releases and high-profile papers. Even though there are real breakthroughs, where the results indeed are as impressive as they are marketed to be, we may as often find the reporting of "revolutionary" results to omit critical aspects of the methods and materials used. The absolute majority of researchers do not actively pursue to present their science in any untrue fashion, but poor (ethical) judgement could affect anyone working long hours in a gloomy lab at dusk and at the same time feel being pressed for publications and citations. Here, we outline ten ways to make your results appear more attractive and groundbreaking than they actually are, especially to laypeople that might not appreciate the full range of difficulties associated with battery research. Consider it a light-hearted entry with respect to scientific quality in methodology and dissemination, that might assist you in looking for nebulous reporting practices in your own and your peers' work, but please do not consider it a guide, but a humorous contrast to the real publishing guidelines recently launched. [2][3][4] 1. Always compare your results against the state-of-the-art from 2010

Single step synthesis of W-modified LiNiO2 using an ammonium tungstate flux

“…For long-term cycling data, several identical cells were prepared, and their average capacity is reported with error bars. 71 Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was measured using a VMP3 multichannel potentiostat (BioLogic) over a frequency range of 100 mHz to 1 MHz with a voltage amplitude of 7 mV.…”

Optimization of Electrode and Cell Design for Ultrafast-Charging Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on Molybdenum Niobium Oxide Anodes

“…However, they used extremely thin electrodes with a mass loading of only 1.0 mg cm –2 , while the weight ratio of conductive carbon black (25 wt %) in both the anode and cathode electrodes was significantly higher than typically used in commercial battery electrodes, which can lead to misleading results. 35 Furthermore, only coin cells assembled in a glovebox under argon were tested, and no information was given either on the volume of electrolyte used or on the porosity of their electrodes. Finally, compared to the literature on similar materials, a low minimum voltage cutoff of 0.8 V was used, which increases the experimental capacity but is typically a disadvantage in full-cell applications.…”

“…These properties were retained in an MNO/LiMn 2 O 4 full-coin cell. However, they used extremely thin electrodes with a mass loading of only 1.0 mg cm –2 , while the weight ratio of conductive carbon black (25 wt %) in both the anode and cathode electrodes was significantly higher than typically used in commercial battery electrodes, which can lead to misleading results . Furthermore, only coin cells assembled in a glovebox under argon were tested, and no information was given either on the volume of electrolyte used or on the porosity of their electrodes.…”

A non-academic perspective on the future of lithium-based batteries

“…This leads to a high risk of over-extrapolation, exacerbated by a lack of reproduced or even reproducible studies. Criticism of this situation is often kept within the community but has recently been spotlighted by various commentary and editorial articles [22][23][24] .…”