On 2017 Jun 05, Boris Barbour commented:

https://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v11/n7/nmat3337/metrics

As of 5th June:

181-196 citations

22k+ page views

Altmetric score of 49, ranked 98th percentile.

Clearly a very important paper with a broad audience.

On 2017 Jun 04, Boris Barbour commented:

Readers and users of this article may be interested in the following preprint:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09509

I reproduce the abstract here:

Recent work using plasmonic nanosensors in a clinically relevant detection assay reports extreme sensitivity based upon a mechanism termed inverse sensitivity, whereby reduction of substrate concentration increases reaction rate, even at the single-molecule limit. This near-homœopathic mechanism contradicts the law of mass action. The assay involves deposition of silver atoms upon gold nanostars, changing their absorption spectrum. Multiple additional aspects of the assay appear to be incompatible with settled chemical knowledge, in particular the detection of tiny numbers of silver atoms on a background of the classic ‘silver mirror reaction’. Finally, it is estimated here that the reported spectral changes require some 2.5 × 10E11 times more silver atoms than are likely to be produced. It is suggested that alternative explanations must be sought for the original observations.

The analysis summarises comments I made on the relevant PubPeer thread (as Peer 2)

https://pubpeer.com/publications/3E8208F0654769A44C22D4E78DA2B8

Attempting to correct the literature has in this case been an exercise in complete frustration. Despite Nature (group) proclaiming their desire to embrace criticism and help disseminate corrections of the literature:

http://blog.pubpeer.com/?p=214

three of their journals in relevant subject matters, including Nature Materials, certainly did not "gladly help disseminate" the manuscript. Three other journals also rejected it, including PLoS One (because the MS contained no new data). At only one journal were scientific reviews obtained and then only one referee read the MS in any detail; (s)he agreed with the majority of my arguments.

The editors at Nature Materials have been aware of the issues for 3.5 years at least. The authors were probably made aware of the issues at the time of the discussion on PubPeer and were informed directly about 18 months ago. Nobody has provided any scientific response to the points raised in the preprint.

Post-publication peer review and the ArXiv would appear to be the ONLY ways to warn readers that the result of this paper are apparently impossible.

On 2017 Jun 04, Boris Barbour commented:

Readers and users of this article may be interested in the following preprint:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09509

I reproduce the abstract here:

Recent work using plasmonic nanosensors in a clinically relevant detection assay reports extreme sensitivity based upon a mechanism termed inverse sensitivity, whereby reduction of substrate concentration increases reaction rate, even at the single-molecule limit. This near-homœopathic mechanism contradicts the law of mass action. The assay involves deposition of silver atoms upon gold nanostars, changing their absorption spectrum. Multiple additional aspects of the assay appear to be incompatible with settled chemical knowledge, in particular the detection of tiny numbers of silver atoms on a background of the classic ‘silver mirror reaction’. Finally, it is estimated here that the reported spectral changes require some 2.5 × 10E11 times more silver atoms than are likely to be produced. It is suggested that alternative explanations must be sought for the original observations.

The analysis summarises comments I made on the relevant PubPeer thread (as Peer 2)

https://pubpeer.com/publications/3E8208F0654769A44C22D4E78DA2B8

Attempting to correct the literature has in this case been an exercise in complete frustration. Despite Nature (group) proclaiming their desire to embrace criticism and help disseminate corrections of the literature:

http://blog.pubpeer.com/?p=214

three of their journals in relevant subject matters, including Nature Materials, certainly did not "gladly help disseminate" the manuscript. Three other journals also rejected it, including PLoS One (because the MS contained no new data). At only one journal were scientific reviews obtained and then only one referee read the MS in any detail; (s)he agreed with the majority of my arguments.

The editors at Nature Materials have been aware of the issues for 3.5 years at least. The authors were probably made aware of the issues at the time of the discussion on PubPeer and were informed directly about 18 months ago. Nobody has provided any scientific response to the points raised in the preprint.

Post-publication peer review and the ArXiv would appear to be the ONLY ways to warn readers that the result of this paper are apparently impossible.