TABLE 2 – Holliday et al. (2024) 🔗 Links to Post-Publication Review Comments for Documentation of Problems

Firestone et al. (2007) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review.	#11, #16
2	Paper was communicated by NAS member with no subject matter expertise in impact physics.	#11
3	Individual data points omitted from magnetic spherule plot derived from Firestone et al (2006). Data apparently adjusted or transformed without explanation.	#38
4	Graphs of putative impact markers are different from and inconsistent with previous and subsequent publications and presentations by same authors.	#13, #14, #34, #53
5	Unexplained labeling contradictions, inconsistencies, and anomalies.	#63
6	Failed to disclose obvious nearby sources of industrial contaminants. Starting at comments section.	#19
7	Online version of supporting information has been deleted and is no longer available from PNAS.	#34
8	Graph of concentration peak has no associated data point.	#6
9	No response to multiple good-faith requests for materials, raw data and information, and subsequent requests.	#1, #17
10	Failed to comply with Materials and Data Availability guidelines.	#10
11	Failed to respond to request for data supporting key evidence (fullerenes with extraterrestrial helium).	#11
12	Failed to disclose that modern contaminants were improperly used as “YDB marker”. Comments starting at:	#20
13	Failed to disclose that material was collected from mixed and disturbed sediments.	#54
14	Descriptions of laboratory methods suggest lack of care to avoid contamination.	#50, #44

Kennett et al. (2009b) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review, Communicated by NAS member with no relevant subject matter expertise.	#2

Kurbatov et al. (2010) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Unresolved discrepancy: concentrations of supposed impact markers are different (by up to three orders of magnitude) in one table, compared to the graph of the same data.	#3, #7
2	Unresolved graphing problems: graphs contradict claims described in text.	#21
3	Data that the authors claimed were archived in 2010 do not exist in the archive.	#6
4	Repeated data misrepresentations in other papers written by coauthors of this paper.	#10
5	Failed to disclose their unsuccessful attempt to confirm results. Starting at #15 and subsequent comments.	#15
6	Failed to disclose their own withdrawn misidentifications of other putative impact markers that must have been contaminants.	#18
7	Failed to respond to good-faith requests for materials, raw data and information. See #17 and subsequent comments.	#17, #28
8	After previously stating samples existed, authors now state that there is nothing left.	#8
9	Failed to acknowledge possible source of laboratory contamination.	#27

Israde-Alcántara et al. (2012a) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review. Communicated by NAS member with no relevant subject matter expertise.	#2
2	Failed to correct misinformation about carbon spherules.	#1
3	Failed to correct false claim about air shock temperatures and misattribution.	#3
4	Failed to correct mistake about dating of Clovis archaeological sites.	#4
5	Failed to disclose that modern contaminants were improperly used as “YDB marker”.	#5
6	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#6

Israde-Alcántara et al. (2012b) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#1

Bunch et al. (2012) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review, Communicated by NAS member with no relevant subject matter expertise.	#11
2	Failed to disclose key collaborators.	#1
3	Failed to disclose nearby sources of industrial contamination.	#3
4	Failed to disclose bioturbation and mixed sediments and lack of stratigraphic control.	#5
5	Former collaborator stated “impact marker” was railroad slag; sediments post-industrial.	#7, #15
6	Failed to cite scientific sources. Conflated biblical concepts with science.	#12
7	Failed to disclose identification of contaminants at YDB location they cite.	#16

LeCompte et al. (2012) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review, Communicated by NAS member with no relevant subject matter expertise. Failure to respond to good-faith requests for materials, raw data and information.	#9
2	Violations of PNAS Materials and Data Availability guidelines.	#15

Wittke et al. (2013) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review, Communicated by NAS member with no relevant subject matter expertise.	#2
2	Failure to correct false claim about location from which Clovis point was recovered.	#1
3	Failure to correct false information about air shock temperatures and misattribution.	#3
4	Failure to disclose nearby sources of potential industrial contaminants.	#4
5	Failure to correct data discrepancy and misinformation about sampling location.	#19

LeCompte et al. (2013) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Cites non-peer-reviewed fringe source for physically impossible explanation of data.	#1
2	Redefinition of the word “independent”.	#6
3	Uncorrected misattribution.	#10
4	Failure to disclose nearby sources of potential industrial contaminants.	#14
5	Failure to acknowledge or address contamination findings.	#24

Wu et al. (2013) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review, Communicated by NAS member with no relevant subject matter expertise.	#2
2	Failed to disclose that modern contaminants were improperly used as “YDB marker”.	#3

Kinzie et al. (2014) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#2

Silvia (2015) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Directly quoted sources without proper citation and misrepresented cited sources. Lack of any peer review. Report published by unaccredited religious institution.	#1

Kennett et al. (2015) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Reported results claimed to be based on code with inconsistencies. Published code fails to execute. Methodological problem undermines paper’s central findings.	#4
2	Falsely claims that Kurbatov et al (2010) found nanodiamonds at the Younger Dryas boundary.	#6

Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017a) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Introduced novel diagnostic of impact events (“YDIH marker” and “impact proxy”) with no citation to impact cratering or collisional airburst literature.	#1

Moore et al. (2017) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Failed to correct mistake about location from which Clovis point was recovered.	#1

Wolbach et al. (2018a) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#2

Israde-Alcántara et al. (2018) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#2

Pino et al. (2019) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#6

Moore et al. (2020) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Went through peer review after correspondence author became member of journal’s editorial board after representing himself as a geophysicist with a PhD.	#1
2	Authors stated that it is their policy not to share their processed samples, and have no original samples.	#8
3	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#10

Bunch et al. (2021) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Maps contradict the data the authors purported to show, or omit important information.	#58, #103, #125
2	Images were inappropriately manipulated or photoshopped.	source
3	Cited misinformation from creationist literature.	#63
4	Misrepresented cited sources.	#74, #118, #122, #123
5	Failed to cite sources.	#125
6	Failed to publish response to Matters Arising article on Tall el-Hammam impact claims.	#33
7	Editorial expression of concern regarding unresolved data and conclusion issues.	#85

Sweatman (2021) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Failed to publish correction to large error in stated age of onset of Younger Dryas and misrepresentation of Pt age published by Petaev et al (2013).	#1
2	Failed to disclose extent of collaboration and personal relationships with leaders of the Comet Research Group.	#2
3	Falsely claimed that Kurbatov et al (2010) reported nanodiamonds at the YDB.	#5

Tanksersley et al. (2022) RETRACTED 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Retracted by journal because “the Editors no longer have confidence that the conclusions presented are adequately supported.”	#1

Powell (2022a) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Failed to disclose personal relationships with authors whose work the paper is reviewing.	#1
2	Failed to disclose that evidence cited has never been made available.	#2

Powell (2022b) WITHDRAWN 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Withdrawn by journal due to false allegations and defamatory content.	#1

Powell (2023) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Cites non-peer-reviewed advocacy blog as primary source of information.	#33
2	Misattribution of sources.	#14
3	Lack of standard peer review.	#39
4	Substantively similar to paper withdrawn by another journal.	#30
5	Failed to acknowledge and publish corrections to well documented and demonstrably false statements.	#1, #3, #4, #18, #19

Tankersley et al. (2023) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review.	#1

Moore et al. (2023a) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Failed to address dating ambiguities.	#1
2	Failed to address or correct possible error.	#2
3	Failure to disclose nearby sources of potential industrial contaminants.	#3

Moore et al. (2023c) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Nonstandard definition of “airburst”. Misrepresentation of cited sources. Lack of standard peer review.	#1

Moore et al. (2023d) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Nonstandard definition of “airburst”. Misrepresentation of sources in citation chain. Lack of standard peer review.	#1

Hermes et al. (2023) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Nonstandard definition of “airburst”. Misrepresentation of sources in citation chain. Lack of standard peer review.	#1

Tankersley et al. (2024) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Earlier version of this paper was retracted by journal. Lack of standard peer review.	#2

Sweatman (2024) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Failed to disclose that evidence cited has never been made available.	#2

Moore et al. (2024) 🔗

#	Issue	Comment
1	Lack of standard peer review.	#1
2	Previously rejected by two different journals.	#2