RETRACTED: Experimental and modelling analysis of waste material-based geopolymer concrete incorporated with crumb rubber particles
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. Following concerns raised by a reader, an investigation of this paper was undertaken by the edi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Construction & building materials 2024-11, Vol.453, p.138985, Article 138985 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. Following concerns raised by a reader, an investigation of this paper was undertaken by the editors. The findings indicate that this paper [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.138985] and another in Case Studies in Construction Material [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03893] utilise the same dataset (see supplementary data provided for each paper) and the same methodology (identical Figures 5 and 18 in CBM and Figures 5 and 12 in CSCM paper). Three other figures (Figures 2, 3 and 15) and four tables (Tables 1 – 4) are also repeated in both papers. Additional concerns are raised by the nonconventional presentation of Figures 2 and 15 in which the abscissa is plotted in reverse.
The dataset used in these papers is not cited and reports only average properties without providing indication of variation or sample size. As part of this investigation, the lead author (Raut) provided additional supporting data for review. The investigating editor found the mix design data did not appear to match that reported in the published supplementary material and the compression results were suspect for their minimal apparent variation over 108 geopolymer mixes. Additionally, mix design data and density was incorrectly calculated.
Although this CBM paper was submitted after the CSCM paper, both papers were in review at the same time and ultimately published within five days of each other. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0950-0618 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.138985 |