Bias In Peer Review Research Articles

ChatGPT as an effective tool for quality evaluation of radiomics research.

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4o in assessing the methodological quality of radiomics research using the radiomics quality score (RQS) compared to human experts. Published in European Radiology, European Radiology Experimental, and Insights into Imaging between 2023 and 2024, open-access and peer-reviewed radiomics research articles with creative commons attribution license (CC-BY) were included in this study. Pre-prints from MedRxiv were also included to evaluate potential peer-review bias. Using the RQS, each study was independently assessed twice by ChatGPT-4o and by tworadiologists with consensus. In total, 52 open-access and peer-reviewed articles were included in this study. Both ChatGPT-4o evaluation (average of two readings) and human experts had a median RQS of 14.5 (40.3% percentage score) (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons revealed no statistically significant difference between the readings of ChatGPT and human experts (corrected p > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient for intra-rater reliability of ChatGPT-4o was 0.905 (95% CI: 0.840-0.944), and those for inter-rater reliability with human experts for each evaluation of ChatGPT-4o were 0.859 (95% CI: 0.756-0.919) and 0.914 (95% CI: 0.855-0.949), corresponding to good to excellent reliability for all. The evaluation by ChatGPT-4o took less time (2.9-3.5 min per article) compared to human experts (13.9 min per article by one reader). Item-wise reliability analysis showed ChatGPT-4o maintained consistently high reliability across almost all RQS items. ChatGPT-4o provides reliable and efficient assessments of radiomics research quality. Its evaluations closely align with those of human experts and reduce evaluation time. Question Is ChatGPT effective and reliable in evaluating radiomics research quality based on RQS? Findings ChatGPT-4o showed high reliability and efficiency, with evaluations closely matching human experts. It can considerably reduce the time required for radiomics research quality assessment. Clinical relevance ChatGPT-4o offers a quick and reliable automated alternative for evaluating the quality of radiomics research, with the potential to assess radiomics research at a large scale in the future.

Affiliation Bias in Peer Review of Abstracts by a Large Language Model

This study assesses affiliation bias in peer review of medical abstracts by a commonly used large language model.

Unpacking p-Hacking and Publication Bias

We use unique data from journal submissions to identify and unpack publication bias and p-hacking. We find initial submissions display significant bunching, suggesting the distribution among published statistics cannot be fully attributed to a publication bias in peer review. Desk-rejected manuscripts display greater heaping than those sent for review; i.e., marginally significant results are more likely to be desk rejected. Reviewer recommendations, in contrast, are positively associated with statistical significance. Overall, the peer review process has little effect on the distribution of test statistics. Lastly, we track rejected papers and present evidence that the prevalence of publication biases is perhaps not as prominent as feared. (JEL A11, A14, C13, L82)

Affiliation bias in peer review and the gender gap

We document an affiliation bias in top Chinese journals and the gender gap in the current affiliation effect. We find that papers written by researchers who are affiliated with the journals' host institutions on average receive fewer citation counts than those written by non-affiliated researchers. Moreover, we show that this affiliation bias is greater for men than for women. We propose that the current effect can be accounted for by a social capital mechanism, and we provide evidence consistent with our proposition. In addition, the results of our analyses demonstrate heterogeneity of the affiliation bias and the gender gap with regard to researcher status. We discuss alternative mechanisms of the current effect and implications of our research.

Open Peer Reviewers in Africa - Bias in Peer Review

Open Peer Reviewers in Africa - Bias in Peer Review

Open Peer Reviewers in Africa Bias in Peer Review

Open Peer Reviewers in Africa Bias in Peer Review

Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?

Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?

Is There a Relationship Between Facility Peer Review Findings and Quality in the Veterans Health Administration?

The aim of clinical peer review (PR) is to improve facility health care quality. However, prior authors have shown that PR may be biased, have rater reliability concerns, or be used for punitive reasons. It is important to determine whether facility PR processes are related to objective facility quality of care. We collected proportion of PR findings that "most experienced and competent clinicians may have managed the case differently" or "most experienced and competent clinicians would have managed the case differently" as an objective measure of facility PR processes and outcomes. We correlated these with facility quality metrics for 2019. PR findings were not associated with facility quality metrics but were strongly associated with previous year findings. This study describes a potentially new source of bias in PR and demonstrates that objective facility outcomes are not related to individual PR findings.

Gender parity and homophily in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence editorial process

BackgroundDespite efforts towards gender parity and some improvement over time, gender bias in peer review remains a pervasive issue. We examined gender representation and homophily in the peer review process for Drug and Alcohol Dependence (DAD). MethodsWe extracted data for papers submitted to DAD between 2004 and 2019, inclusive. Inferred gender was assigned to handling editors and reviewers using the NamSor gender inference Application Programming Interface (API). ResultsMen and women handling editors were approximately equally likely to invite women reviewers over time, with only a few exceptions. Over time, 47.1% of editors were women, and 42.6% of review invitations were sent to women. Men were largely consistent over time in their likelihood of accepting a review invitation, while the likelihood of women accepting a review invitation was more variable over time. Gender differences in rates of accepting a review invitation were minimal; however, as women approached half of all invited reviewers in recent years, there has been a greater trend for women, relative to men, to decline review invitations. Evidence of homophily on the part of reviewers accepting invitations was minimal, but in certain years, a tendency to accept review invitations at higher rates from editors of the same gender was observed. DiscussionGiven the benefits of diversity in scientific advancement, these results underline the importance of continuing efforts to increase gender diversity among editors and in reviewer pools, and the need for reviewers to be mindful of their own reviewing practices.

The Weight of Surgical Knowledge: Navigating Information Overload.

The Weight of Surgical Knowledge: Navigating Information Overload.

Addressing Racial Disparities in NIH Funding

The United States (US) must strategically invest in diversifying its biomedical workforce to retain global leadership in biomedical research and to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the US. The under-representation of minority groups in the biomedical sciences is influenced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding process which relies heavily on peer review subject to bias. Despite recent initiatives to combat structural racism within the NIH, the NIH has done little to rectify racial disparities in funding allocation that have been known for over a decade. In this report, I evaluate current NIH proposals to reduce bias in peer review and present stronger policy options for reducing inequity in grant funding. I recommend that the NIH treat the race/ethnicity funding disparity as it did the early career investigator disparity and immediately relax paylines and simultaneously prioritize research topics that align with interests of under-represented investigators, while working to develop a modified lottery for grant funding as a long-term solution to the biases that can influence grant peer review. Policies to address disparities in grant funding will diversify the biomedical workforce and have a profound and long-term positive impact on providing equitable access to science careers, regardless of race.

Double-blinded manuscript review: Avoiding peer review bias.

Double-blinded manuscript review: Avoiding peer review bias.

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEEditorialNEXTConfronting Racism in Chemistry JournalsCynthia J. BurrowsCynthia J. BurrowsMore by Cynthia J. Burrowshttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7253-8529, Jiaxing HuangJiaxing HuangMore by Jiaxing Huanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9176-8901, Shu WangShu WangMore by Shu Wanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8781-2535, Hyun Jae KimHyun Jae KimMore by Hyun Jae Kimhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6879-9256, Gerald J. MeyerGerald J. MeyerMore by Gerald J. Meyerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4227-6393, Kirk SchanzeKirk SchanzeMore by Kirk Schanzehttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3342-4080, T. Randall LeeT. Randall LeeMore by T. Randall Leehttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9584-8861, Jodie L. LutkenhausJodie L. LutkenhausMore by Jodie L. Lutkenhaushttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2613-6016, David KaplanDavid KaplanMore by David Kaplanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-9245-7774, Christopher JonesChristopher JonesMore by Christopher Joneshttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3255-5791, Carolyn BertozziCarolyn BertozziMore by Carolyn Bertozzihttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4482-2754, Laura KiesslingLaura KiesslingMore by Laura Kiesslinghttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6829-1500, Mary Beth MulcahyMary Beth MulcahyMore by Mary Beth Mulcahyhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3060-9189, Craig W. LindsleyCraig W. LindsleyMore by Craig W. Lindsleyhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0168-1445, M. G. FinnM. G. FinnMore by M. G. Finnhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8247-3108, Joel D. BlumJoel D. BlumMore by Joel D. Blumhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5389-8633, Prashant KamatPrashant KamatMore by Prashant Kamathttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2465-6819, Wonyong ChoiWonyong ChoiMore by Wonyong Choihttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1801-9386, Shane SnyderShane SnyderMore by Shane Snyderhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2709-9840, Courtney C. AldrichCourtney C. AldrichMore by Courtney C. Aldrichhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9261-594X, Stuart RowanStuart RowanMore by Stuart Rowanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8176-0594, Bin LiuBin LiuMore by Bin Liuhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-0956-2777, Dennis LiottaDennis LiottaMore by Dennis Liottahttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7736-7113, Paul S. WeissPaul S. WeissMore by Paul S. Weisshttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5527-6248, Deqing ZhangDeqing ZhangMore by Deqing Zhanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5709-6088, Krishna N. GaneshKrishna N. GaneshMore by Krishna N. Ganeshhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2292-643X, Harry A. AtwaterHarry A. AtwaterMore by Harry A. Atwaterhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9435-0201, J. Justin GoodingJ. Justin GoodingMore by J. Justin Goodinghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5398-0597, David T. AllenDavid T. AllenMore by David T. Allenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6646-8755, Christopher A. VoigtChristopher A. VoigtMore by Christopher A. Voigthttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0844-4776, Jonathan SweedlerJonathan SweedlerMore by Jonathan Sweedlerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3107-9922, Alanna SchepartzAlanna SchepartzMore by Alanna Schepartzhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2127-3932, Vincent RotelloVincent RotelloMore by Vincent Rotellohttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5184-5439, Sébastien LecommandouxSébastien LecommandouxMore by Sébastien Lecommandouxhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0465-8603, Shana J. SturlaShana J. SturlaMore by Shana J. Sturlahttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6808-5950, Sharon Hammes-SchifferSharon Hammes-SchifferMore by Sharon Hammes-Schifferhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3782-6995, Jillian BuriakJillian BuriakMore by Jillian Buriakhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-9567-4328, Jonathan W. SteedJonathan W. SteedMore by Jonathan W. Steedhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7466-7794, Hongwei WuHongwei WuMore by Hongwei Wuhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2816-749X, Julie ZimmermanJulie ZimmermanMore by Julie Zimmermanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5392-312X, Bryan BrooksBryan BrooksMore by Bryan Brookshttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6277-9852, Phillip SavagePhillip SavageMore by Phillip Savagehttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7902-3744, William TolmanWilliam TolmanMore by William Tolmanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2243-6409, Thomas F. HofmannThomas F. HofmannMore by Thomas F. Hofmannhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4057-7165, Joan F. BrenneckeJoan F. BrenneckeMore by Joan F. Brenneckehttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7935-2134, Thomas A. HolmeThomas A. HolmeMore by Thomas A. Holmehttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0590-5848, Kenneth M. Merz Jr.Kenneth M. Merz, Jr.More by Kenneth M. Merz, Jr.http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9139-5893, Gustavo ScuseriaGustavo ScuseriaMore by Gustavo Scuseriahttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4635-8126, William JorgensenWilliam JorgensenMore by William Jorgensenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-9520, Gunda I. GeorgGunda I. GeorgMore by Gunda I. Georghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8900-9460, Shaomeng WangShaomeng WangMore by Shaomeng Wanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8782-6950, Philip ProteauPhilip ProteauMore by Philip Proteauhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7791-8854, John R. Yates IIIJohn R. Yates, IIIMore by John R. Yates, IIIhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5267-1672, Peter StangPeter StangMore by Peter Stanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2307-0576, Gilbert C. WalkerGilbert C. WalkerMore by Gilbert C. Walkerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5248-5498, Marc HillmyerMarc HillmyerMore by Marc Hillmyerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8255-3853, Lynne S. TaylorLynne S. TaylorMore by Lynne S. Taylorhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4568-6021, Teri W. OdomTeri W. OdomMore by Teri W. Odomhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8490-292X, Erick CarreiraErick CarreiraMore by Erick Carreirahttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1472-490X, Kai RossenKai RossenMore by Kai Rossenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3857-0004, Paul ChirikPaul ChirikMore by Paul Chirikhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8473-2898, Scott J. MillerScott J. MillerMore by Scott J. Millerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7817-1318, Joan-Emma SheaJoan-Emma SheaMore by Joan-Emma Sheahttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-9801-9273, Anne McCoyAnne McCoyMore by Anne McCoyhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6851-6634, Martin ZanniMartin ZanniMore by Martin Zannihttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7191-9768, Gregory HartlandGregory HartlandMore by Gregory Hartlandhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8650-6891, Gregory ScholesGregory ScholesMore by Gregory Scholeshttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3336-7960, Joseph A. LooJoseph A. LooMore by Joseph A. Loohttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9989-1437, James MilneJames MilneMore by James Milnehttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2119-2377, Sarah B. TegenSarah B. TegenMore by Sarah B. Tegenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8618-2666, Daniel T. KulpDaniel T. KulpMore by Daniel T. Kulphttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1147-2196, and Julia LaskinJulia LaskinMore by Julia Laskinhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4533-9644Cite this: Chem. Mater. 2020, 32, 13, 5369–5371Publication Date (Web):June 19, 2020Publication History Published online19 June 2020Published inissue 14 July 2020https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c02523Copyright © 2020 American Chemical SocietyRIGHTS & PERMISSIONSArticle Views1661Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (2 MB) Get e-AlertsSUBJECTS:Interfaces,Mathematical methods,Computational chemistry,Materials Get e-Alerts

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

Confronting Racism in Chemistry Journals

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEEditorialNEXTConfronting Racism in Chemistry JournalsCynthia J. BurrowsCynthia J. BurrowsMore by Cynthia J. Burrowshttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7253-8529, Jiaxing HuangJiaxing HuangMore by Jiaxing Huanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9176-8901, Shu WangShu WangMore by Shu Wanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8781-2535, Hyun Jae KimHyun Jae KimMore by Hyun Jae Kimhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6879-9256, Gerald J. MeyerGerald J. MeyerMore by Gerald J. Meyerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4227-6393, Kirk SchanzeKirk SchanzeMore by Kirk Schanzehttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3342-4080, T. Randall LeeT. Randall LeeMore by T. Randall Leehttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9584-8861, Jodie L. LutkenhausJodie L. LutkenhausMore by Jodie L. Lutkenhaushttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2613-6016, David KaplanDavid KaplanMore by David Kaplanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-9245-7774, Christopher JonesChristopher JonesMore by Christopher Joneshttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3255-5791, Carolyn BertozziCarolyn BertozziMore by Carolyn Bertozzihttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4482-2754, Laura KiesslingLaura KiesslingMore by Laura Kiesslinghttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6829-1500, Mary Beth MulcahyMary Beth MulcahyMore by Mary Beth Mulcahyhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3060-9189, Craig W. LindsleyCraig W. LindsleyMore by Craig W. Lindsleyhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0168-1445, M. G. FinnM. G. FinnMore by M. G. Finnhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8247-3108, Joel D. BlumJoel D. BlumMore by Joel D. Blumhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5389-8633, Prashant KamatPrashant KamatMore by Prashant Kamathttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2465-6819, Wonyong ChoiWonyong ChoiMore by Wonyong Choihttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1801-9386, Shane SnyderShane SnyderMore by Shane Snyderhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2709-9840, Courtney C. AldrichCourtney C. AldrichMore by Courtney C. Aldrichhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9261-594X, Stuart RowanStuart RowanMore by Stuart Rowanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8176-0594, Bin LiuBin LiuMore by Bin Liuhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-0956-2777, Dennis LiottaDennis LiottaMore by Dennis Liottahttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7736-7113, Paul S. WeissPaul S. WeissMore by Paul S. Weisshttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5527-6248, Deqing ZhangDeqing ZhangMore by Deqing Zhanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5709-6088, Krishna N. GaneshKrishna N. GaneshMore by Krishna N. Ganeshhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2292-643X, Harry A. AtwaterHarry A. AtwaterMore by Harry A. Atwaterhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9435-0201, J. Justin GoodingJ. Justin GoodingMore by J. Justin Goodinghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5398-0597, David T. AllenDavid T. AllenMore by David T. Allenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6646-8755, Christopher A. VoigtChristopher A. VoigtMore by Christopher A. Voigthttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0844-4776, Jonathan SweedlerJonathan SweedlerMore by Jonathan Sweedlerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3107-9922, Alanna SchepartzAlanna SchepartzMore by Alanna Schepartzhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2127-3932, Vincent RotelloVincent RotelloMore by Vincent Rotellohttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5184-5439, Sébastien LecommandouxSébastien LecommandouxMore by Sébastien Lecommandouxhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0465-8603, Shana J. SturlaShana J. SturlaMore by Shana J. Sturlahttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6808-5950, Sharon Hammes-SchifferSharon Hammes-SchifferMore by Sharon Hammes-Schifferhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3782-6995, Jillian BuriakJillian BuriakMore by Jillian Buriakhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-9567-4328, Jonathan W. SteedJonathan W. SteedMore by Jonathan W. Steedhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7466-7794, Hongwei WuHongwei WuMore by Hongwei Wuhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2816-749X, Julie ZimmermanJulie ZimmermanMore by Julie Zimmermanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5392-312X, Bryan BrooksBryan BrooksMore by Bryan Brookshttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6277-9852, Phillip SavagePhillip SavageMore by Phillip Savagehttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7902-3744, William TolmanWilliam TolmanMore by William Tolmanhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2243-6409, Thomas F. HofmannThomas F. HofmannMore by Thomas F. Hofmannhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4057-7165, Joan F. BrenneckeJoan F. BrenneckeMore by Joan F. Brenneckehttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7935-2134, Thomas A. HolmeThomas A. HolmeMore by Thomas A. Holmehttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0590-5848, Kenneth M. Merz Jr.Kenneth M. Merz, Jr.More by Kenneth M. Merz, Jr.http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9139-5893, Gustavo ScuseriaGustavo ScuseriaMore by Gustavo Scuseriahttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4635-8126, William JorgensenWilliam JorgensenMore by William Jorgensenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-9520, Gunda I. GeorgGunda I. GeorgMore by Gunda I. Georghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8900-9460, Shaomeng WangShaomeng WangMore by Shaomeng Wanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8782-6950, Philip ProteauPhilip ProteauMore by Philip Proteauhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7791-8854, John R. Yates IIIJohn R. Yates, IIIMore by John R. Yates, IIIhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5267-1672, Peter StangPeter StangMore by Peter Stanghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2307-0576, Gilbert C. WalkerGilbert C. WalkerMore by Gilbert C. Walkerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5248-5498, Marc HillmyerMarc HillmyerMore by Marc Hillmyerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8255-3853, Lynne S. TaylorLynne S. TaylorMore by Lynne S. Taylorhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4568-6021, Teri W. OdomTeri W. OdomMore by Teri W. Odomhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8490-292X, Erick CarreiraErick CarreiraMore by Erick Carreirahttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1472-490X, Kai RossenKai RossenMore by Kai Rossenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3857-0004, Paul ChirikPaul ChirikMore by Paul Chirikhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8473-2898, Scott J. MillerScott J. MillerMore by Scott J. Millerhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7817-1318, Joan-Emma SheaJoan-Emma SheaMore by Joan-Emma Sheahttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-9801-9273, Anne McCoyAnne McCoyMore by Anne McCoyhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6851-6634, Martin ZanniMartin ZanniMore by Martin Zannihttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7191-9768, Gregory HartlandGregory HartlandMore by Gregory Hartlandhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8650-6891, Gregory ScholesGregory ScholesMore by Gregory Scholeshttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3336-7960, Joseph A. LooJoseph A. LooMore by Joseph A. Loohttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9989-1437, James MilneJames MilneMore by James Milnehttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2119-2377, Sarah B. TegenSarah B. TegenMore by Sarah B. Tegenhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8618-2666, Daniel T. KulpDaniel T. KulpMore by Daniel T. Kulphttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1147-2196, and Julia LaskinJulia LaskinMore by Julia Laskinhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4533-9644Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2020, 7, 7, 447–449Publication Date (Web):June 19, 2020Publication History Received16 June 2020Accepted16 June 2020Published online19 June 2020Published inissue 14 July 2020https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00476Copyright © 2020 American Chemical SocietyRIGHTS & PERMISSIONSArticle Views668Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (2 MB) Get e-AlertsSUBJECTS:Interfaces,Mathematical methods,Computational chemistry,Materials Get e-Alerts