Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Low temperature soldering technology based on superhydrophobic copper microlayer · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28393

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Low temperature soldering technology based on superhydrophobic copper microlayer · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28393
Item: Low temperature soldering technology based on superhydrophobic copper microlayer · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28393
Rating: 67
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

WARN

Warnings to address · Other Study Type

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The paper's scientific premise is well-grounded and the methods are described in sufficient detail for replication. However, two critical dimensions fail: key resources lack vendor/catalog numbers and software identification, and the data availability statement is vague ('on request' only). No inferential statistics are used, so that dimension is not applicable, but the absence of error bars in figures is a reporting gap.

Evaluated as a 'other' study (materials science experiment). Four dimensions were not applicable (study design, biological variables, ethical approvals, statistical analysis). The reviewers agreed on most dimensions but disagreed on key resources (warn vs. fail) and statistical analysis (warn vs. N/A); the scoring rules resolve both in favor of the more stringent classification.

10 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions2 pass · 1 warn · 2 fail

10 major claims1 overstated2 partial7 supported

The introduction cites multiple prior studies on low-temperature soldering (refs 29-36), discusses their limitations (e.g., complicated process conditions, high equipment precision requirements), and presents a rationale for using silver-modified copper microlayers to overcome oxidation issues. The premise is well-motivated and the hypothesis logically follows from the cited evidence. The limitations of previous work are explicitly acknowledged, and the current study aims to address them.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific foundation by citing prior work and addressing its limitations.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-3]

“Qiu et al. [] achieved 10 μm conical bump inserted Cu–Cu soldering at room temperature using ultrasonic vibration and pressure. ... However, the bumps must be precisely positioned to each other.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Due to its high affinity for oxygen, copper tends to oxidize during the encapsulation process. The presence of oxide film is an obstacle to the formation of good solder. The low-temperature solid-phase soldering technique investigated in this paper is based on a copper microlayer modified by a surface silver film.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“These studies either have complicated process conditions or high requirements on equipment precision, which have limitations in practical applications.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific foundation by citing relevant prior work, providing a logical rationale for the study, and addressing limitations of previous approaches.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-3]

“Qiu et al. [] achieved 10 μm conical bump inserted Cu–Cu soldering at room temperature using ultrasonic vibration and pressure... However, the bumps must be precisely positioned to each other.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“The low-temperature solid-phase soldering technique investigated in this paper is based on a copper microlayer modified by a surface silver film. The surface-modified silver film can effectively prevent the oxidation of the copper microcone protruding structures.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“However, these studies either have complicated process conditions or high requirements on equipment precision, which have limitations in practical applications.”

This is a materials science experiment with no subjects, randomization, blinding, power analysis, or formal replication. The paper does not engage any of the design sub-criteria explicitly. According to the scoring rule, fewer than two applicable criteria result in the dimension being marked not_applicable.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisN/A

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingN/A

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionN/A

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 80% conf

The study is a materials science experiment; most design rigor sub-criteria are not applicable as the paper does not engage randomization, blinding, or typical experimental design elements.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods section]

“The methods describe electrodeposition and soldering procedures without mentioning randomization, blinding, or sample size justification.”

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study is a laboratory experiment without randomization, blinding, power analysis, or other design elements typically assessed; fewer than two sub-criteria are applicable, making the dimension not applicable.

Evidence

absence[Methods section]

No randomization, blinding, or power analysis is described.

The paper uses copper alloy substrates and chemical reagents; no living organisms are involved. Therefore, biological variables such as sex, age, species, housing conditions, and demographics are not relevant.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedN/A

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthN/A

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 100% conf

The study involves no biological organisms, cell lines, or human subjects; all sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods section]

“The lead frame material C194 copper alloy was used as the substrate (20 mm × 20 mm × 0.15 mm)”

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study involves no biological subjects, so biological variables are not applicable.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No biological subjects are used in the study.

The paper describes materials science experiments with no human participants, animals, or non-public subject-level data. No ethics statement is required.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentN/A

irb ethics statementN/A

regulatory complianceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 100% conf

The study involves no human or animal subjects, so ethical approval criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No human or animal subjects are involved.

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study involves no human or animal subjects, and no non-public subject-level data, so ethical approval is not applicable.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No human or animal subjects are involved.

The paper lists many chemicals (e.g., CuSO4·5H2O, AgNO3) but does not provide vendor or catalog numbers, making reagents_identified reported_but_inadequate. No software tools are mentioned (e.g., for analysis or instrumentation control), so software_tools_identified is not_reported. With 0 of 2 applicable criteria adequate, the dimension fails.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

Key reagents and instruments are identified but with insufficient detail (e.g., no catalog numbers or lot numbers), and no software is specified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“the electrolyte consisted of analytical pure solution CuSO 4 ·5H 2 O (0.04 mol/L), NiSO 4 ·6H 2 O (0.003 mol/L), NaH 2 PO 2 ·H 2 O (0.2 mol/L), Na 3 C 6 H 5 O 7 ·2H 2 O (0.04 mol/L), H 3 BO 3 (0.003 mol/L), and a crystalline modifier, polyethylene glycol (C 2 H 4 (OCH 2 CH 2 ) n OH) 2000”

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 2]

“scanning electron microscopy (SEM, SU8220, Hitachi, Japan), and ... transmission electron microscopy (TEM, FEI Tecnai G2 F20S)”

absence[Methods and Results]

No software tools are identified for data analysis.

FAILReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key reagents are listed without vendor/catalog numbers, and no software tools are identified; 0 of 2 applicable criteria are adequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2]

“the electrolyte consisted of analytical pure solution CuSO4·5H2O (0.04 mol/L), NiSO4·6H2O (0.003 mol/L), NaH2PO2·H2O (0.2 mol/L), Na3C6H5O7·2H2O (0.04 mol/L), H3BO3 (0.003 mol/L), and a crystalline modifier, polyethylene glycol (C2H4(OCH2CH2)nOH) 2000 (volume fraction 1*10−5).”

absence[Methods section]

No software tools are identified in the paper.

The paper presents average shear strength as a function of soldering parameters in figures and text but does not name statistical tests, report p-values, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or error bars. The number of replicates is not stated, and no statistical software is identified. For a materials engineering study, descriptive statistics are common, but the lack of dispersion measures and sample sizes limits interpretability.

Sub-criteria

tests namedN/A

exact p valuesN/A

effect sizes ciN/A

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedNOT REPORTED

assumptions verifiedN/A

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 60% conf

The study reports only descriptive average shear strength values without inferential statistics; data presentation lacks error bars or individual data points.

Evidence

paraphrase[Figures 6 and 7, Results section]

“Line charts show average shear strength without any indicators of variability (e.g., standard deviation, standard error).”

absence[Methods]

No statistical software is identified.

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

No inferential statistics are reported; the paper only presents descriptive statistics (average shear strength), so the dimension is not applicable.

Evidence

absence[Results and discussion, sections 3.4 and 3.5]

No statistical tests or p-values are reported.

The paper includes a data availability statement: 'Data will be made available on request.' This is vague and does not specify a platform, conditions, or timeframe, making it reported_but_inadequate. No custom code is mentioned or shared, and code_sharing is not applicable. With only one applicable criterion and it being inadequate, the dimension fails.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague ('available on request'), and no code or data repository is provided.

Evidence

direct quote[End of paper, before CRediT]

“Data availability statement Data will be made available on request.”

FAILReviewer 2· 90% conf

The data availability statement is vague ('available on request'), and no code is shared; 0 of 1 applicable criterion is adequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data will be made available on request.”

The methods section provides sufficient detail for replication (electrodeposition, soldering parameters, characterization). All measured outcomes (shear strength under various conditions) are reported. Funding and competing interests are declared. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. The only gap is that limitations are not explicitly discussed. With 4 of 5 applicable criteria adequate (80%), the dimension passes.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineN/A

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedNOT REPORTED

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Methods are described in sufficient detail, outcomes are fully reported, conclusions are proportional, funding and COI are disclosed, and limitations are partially discussed.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods section]

“First, the copper substrate was ultrasonically cleaned with acetone (CH₃COCH₃) for 1 min to remove the oil, and then washed with dilute sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) with a volume fraction of 10% for 30 s, and then activated with palladium chloride (PdCl₂) for 1 min.”

direct quote[Conclusion]

“the average shear strength of the soldering joints is up to 35 MPa, which is still far from the average shear strength of 50 MPa of commercial solder.”

direct quote[End of paper]

“Funding statement This study was funded by the Guangzhou Zengcheng District Science and Technology Planning Project (NO:2021ZCMS11). ... Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Methods are detailed, outcomes are reported, funding and COI are stated, and conclusions are proportional; however, limitations are not discussed.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2]

“The lead frame material C194 copper alloy was used as the substrate (20 mm × 20 mm × 0.15 mm), and a superhydrophobic copper microlayer was electrochemically deposited on the copper substrate.”

direct quote[Funding statement and Declaration of competing interest]

“This study was funded by the Guangzhou Zengcheng District Science and Technology Planning Project (NO:2021ZCMS11).”

absence[Discussion and Conclusion]

Limitations are not discussed.

14 copyedit issues flagged (2 major): mostly grammar, consistency, clarity.

Checked 38 references: 37 verified — 1 retracted.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This published paper has two significant reporting gaps that an informed reader should weigh: key reagents are not fully specified (no catalog numbers), and the data availability statement is vague. A correction should include a full reagent table with suppliers/catalog numbers, identification of analytical software, deposit of raw data in a repository with a DOI, and clarification of the number of replicates and whether error bars represent SD or SEM.

1.
HIGHreporting
Retract or replace the retracted reference: 'Structure and optoelectronic properties of ferroelectric PVA-PZT nanocomposites' (doi:10.1016/j.optmat.2022.113402) — cited reference is retracted.
Citations to retracted papers can mislead readers and damage the manuscript's credibility; the reference must be removed or replaced with a verified alternative.
2.
HIGHdata code
Replace the vague data availability statement ('Data will be made available on request') with a concrete repository deposit (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) and provide a persistent DOI or accession number for the raw shear strength and characterization data.
A vague 'on request' statement fails FAIR data principles; reviewers and readers need immediate, documented access to the data to assess the findings.
3.
HIGHreporting
In the Methods section, add a table listing all key reagents (CuSO4·5H2O, NiSO4·6H2O, NaH2PO2·H2O, Na3C6H5O7·2H2O, H3BO3, polyethylene glycol, AgNO3, etc.) with supplier names, catalog numbers, and lot numbers.
Without catalog numbers, other laboratories cannot obtain the exact same reagents, undermining reproducibility.
4.
HIGHreporting
In the Methods section, identify all software and analysis tools used (e.g., for SEM/TEM image processing, data plotting, statistical analysis) with version numbers.
Software identification is essential for reproducibility; the current paper mentions none.
5.
HIGHreporting
In all figures showing shear strength data (Figures 6 and 7), add error bars indicating the measure of variability (SD or SEM) and state the number of replicates (n) per condition in the figure legend.
Without error bars or replicate counts, readers cannot assess the precision or reliability of the reported average values.
6.
HIGHreporting
In the Conclusion or a new Limitations section, explicitly discuss limitations beyond the shear strength comparison, such as the limited range of soldering parameters tested, the single material system studied, and the lack of long-term reliability testing.
A more thorough limitations discussion helps readers interpret the scope and generalizability of the findings and preempts overinterpretation.
7.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the first sentence of the Introduction: rephrase 'People are demanding more refinement in electronic products' to 'There is increasing demand for greater refinement in electronic products' (grammar and clarity).
Awkward phrasing in the opening sentence undermines the manuscript's professional tone.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the Abstract run-on sentence: replace 'realized' with 'achieved' and 'aggravation' with 'increased' for clarity.
The sentence as written is grammatically awkward and the word 'aggravation' is imprecise.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Consistently use parentheses around model numbers (e.g., 'SEM (SU8220)' instead of 'SEM SU8220') throughout the text.
Inconsistent punctuation for model numbers appears unprofessional.
10.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Standardize range notation: replace '500 nm∼1 μm' with '500 nm to 1 μm' throughout.
Inconsistent use of tilde and 'to' for ranges is a minor but distracting formatting issue.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
Temper the claim in the Conclusion that 'This low-temperature soldering technology is expected to become a new soldering method in high-density chip packaging' — the shear strength is lower than commercial solder and long-term reliability has not been tested; reframe to reflect the preliminary laboratory nature of the findings.
The claim audit identified this as an 'overstated' forward-looking assertion that goes beyond the evidence presented.
12.
MEDIUMreporting
In Section 3.5, clarify whether the soldering pressure value '3.3 MPa' is correct or a typo for '33 MPa', as it appears inconsistent with the other pressure values and the context.
The integrity check flagged this as a potential internal contradiction; a typo would mislead readers.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a statement in the Methods section explicitly clarifying the number of independent replicates (e.g., how many samples per condition) and whether any experiments were repeated in independent batches.
Without replicate counts, the reliability of the reported average values is unknown.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Remove the stray identifier 'pmc 1' at the start of the paper (likely a formatting artifact).
Stray formatting codes detract from the manuscript's polish.
15.
LOWcopyedit
In Section 3.4, rephrase 'This paper sets the soldering temperature of 220 °C' to 'In this study, the soldering temperature was set to 220 °C' for clarity.
The original phrasing is awkward; passive voice or a rephrase improves readability.

Full text (37,843 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →