Incomplete and mismatching descriptors of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and SEM microscopes: a case study

The post-publication scrutiny of the literature occasionally reveals errors that have filtered past the scrutiny of peer reviewers and editors. Microscopes, as used in scanning electron microscopy (SEM), form an integral part of the evidence-based methodology of many biomedical studies. A 2025 preprint (DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/4wqcr) claimed that a body of literature in indexed and ranked journals may have published potentially incorrect microscopy (SEM)-based evidence, noting that in about 2400 cases, the model or maker of SEM microscopes, as indicated in the text (e.g., in the methodology section), do not match information indicated in the figures or micrographs. One possible explanation may be that those analyses and/or equipment may have been outsourced to third-party services, although the outsourcing was not declared. Homing in on a sub-set of that preprint's 2400 cases, looking specifically at 23 of the 94 papers published in the mega open access journal, <i>Heliyon</i>, that were flagged in that exposé, textual descriptors in the methods section were compared against SEM descriptors in figures' micrographs. Only two papers showed an unequivocal discord between textual and figure descriptors related to SEM at the level of model and maker, while 16 of the 23 papers had no methodological description of SEM in the methods section. <i>Heliyon</i> editors need to investigate these omissions and discrepancies, and correct the articles accordingly, wherever applicable. See also the graphical abstract(Fig. 1).