Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences have retracted a paper in Nanoscale about an experimental computer chip after they were unable to recreate their published results.
“We retract this article to avoid misleading readers and intend to undertake further tests to confirm our previous results,” they write in the notice.
The scientists are working on developing a chip that uses resistive random-access memory, which allows a huge amount of information to be stored in a tiny package and accessed quickly while using very little power. A number of companies are working on the technology, but none have successfully commercialized it.
Here’s the notice for “High uniformity and improved nonlinearity by embedding nanocrystals in selector-less resistive random access memory” (free, but requires login):
We, the named authors, hereby wholly retract this Nanoscale article. The article reports high uniformity and an improvement in nonlinearity by embedding nanocrystals in selector-less resistive random access memory. Upon repeating the experiments, we found that the results reported were not reproducible and the improvement upon reported values in the literature that we first observed was not distinguishable. After a detailed analysis of the RRAM (Resistive random access memory) using HRTEM, we have found that no switching layer was observed on the sides of the W electrode and that there was an unwanted WOx layer at the W/AlOx interface, both of which we are unable to account for. We retract this article to avoid misleading readers and intend to undertake further tests to confirm our previous results. We apologise for any inconvenience to Nanoscale and the readers.
Signed: Writam Banerjee, Nianduan Lu, Ling Li, Pengxiao Sun, Qi Liu, Hangbing Lv, Shibing Long and Ming Liu, 4th February 2015. Retraction endorsed by Fiona McKenzie, Executive Editor, Nanoscale
We heard a bit more from Fiona McKenzie:
The Retraction was published in accordance with our Correction and Retraction guidelines (please see our website for further information). The article was retracted at the authors request and the reasons for the retraction are explained in the retraction notice. Publication of this Retraction is in line with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines.
We’ve reached out to the corresponding author and will update if we hear back.
Hat tip Rolf Degen
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.