Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays.

By Jörg M. Wörle-Knirsch, K. Pulskamp, H. Krug. Nano letters (Print), 2006

1,001 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Materials Chemistry

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e6bdc82ddaa3a29a3caafd929374fe4c8413b2aa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Biomedical Engineering

1. Hak Soo Choi
2. Shaily Mahendra
3. S. Jin
4. John V. Frangioni
5. J. Venkatesan
6. R. Handy
7. Se-Kwon Kim
8. T. R. Pisanic

In Materials Chemistry

1. J. Lead
2. Shaily Mahendra
3. S. Jin
4. John V. Frangioni
5. J. Venkatesan
6. Hak Soo Choi
7. R. Handy
8. D. Lyon

Citations in the corpus

• Nanodiamond Particles: Properties and Perspectives for Bioapplications (2009, neutral): “396 , 397 In this regard, there are currently no standard benchmark nanoparticles.”
• Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. (2007, neutral): “When applying established toxicity tests to NP the results should always be interpreted with great care especially to avoid the reporting of false positive results (Wörle-Knirsch et al., 2006).”
• Magnetic nanoparticles for theragnostics (2009, background): “Overall, the use of multiple assays is important to avoid false-positive or false-negative results [137].”
• Nanoparticles for Biomedical Imaging: Fundamentals of Clinical Translation (2010, background): “Other reports suggest relatively low toxicity when samples are pure and used at a low dose.(107)”