Seven Temperate Terrestrial Planets around the Nearby Ultracool Dwarf Star TRAPPIST-1
Nature, 2017 · paper · Astronomy
Concerns the nearby ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 and its system of seven temperate, terrestrial-sized planets, studied with ground- and space-based telescope observations. The text provided does not include the abstract or results.
Checked: PDF from europepmc.org, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
12 findings
Substance Main text p.3 gives the periods of d, e, f, g as "4.04d, 6.06d, 8.1d and 12.3d", and the abstract p.2 gives planet e as "6.06". Table 1 gives P_e = 6.099615 d and P_f = 9.206690 d, Fig. 1c gives Pe = 6.10d and Pf = 9.20d, and Methods p.7 gives "4.1d, 6.1d, 9.2d and 12.3d". So 8.1d should be about 9.2d and 6.06 should be about 6.10.
- p. 2 Abstract
(1.51, 2.42, 4.04, 6.06, 9.21, 12.35 days)
- p. 3 Main text, 2nd paragraph
signals of periods 4.04d, 6.06d, 8.1d and 12.3d
- p. 22 Table 1, Period P, column e
6.099615±0.11×10-4
- p. 19 Figure 1c label
Pe = 6.10d
Judge's note: I checked the abstract crop ("1.51, 2.42, 4.04, 6.06, 9.21, 12.35 days"), the main-text crop on p.3 ("4.04d, 6.06d, 8.1d and 12.3d ... TRAPPIST-1d, e, f, and g"), the Table 1 row on p.22 (e 6.099615, f 9.206690), the Fig. 1c labels on p.19 (Pe = 6.10d, Pf = 9.20d) and Methods on p.7 (4.1d, 6.1d, 9.2d, 12.3d). Planet f appears as 8.1 d only in that main-text sentence; the abstract, Methods, Table 1 and figure all give about 9.2 d. Planet e's 6.06 (abstract and main text) cannot come from rounding 6.0996, which rounds to 6.10. The paper says nowhere that these are preliminary or alias values. The ratio checks below agree with Table 1 and not with 8.1 or 6.06.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Period of planet e is given as 6.06 d in the abstract ("1.51, 2.42, 4.04, 6.06, 9.21, 12.35 days") and main text ("6.06d"), whereas Table 1 gives 6.099615±0.11×10-4 d, Fig. 1c 6.10d and Methods 6.1d.
- p. 3 Main text, 2nd paragraph
4.04d, 6.06d, 8.1d and 12.3d
- p. 22 Table 1, Period P, column f
9.206690±0.15×10-4
- p. 7 Methods
4.1d, 6.1d, 9.2d and 12.3d
- p. 2 Abstract
9.21, 12.35 days
Judge's note: Scoped to the planet e value; the planet f value (8.1) raised by one reviewer here is judged under C002 and planet d (4.04) under C003. Abstract (page 2 image) and page 3 image both read 6.06. Table 1 column e reads 6.099615 with an uncertainty of 1.1e-5 d, the Fig. 1c label reads Pe = 6.10d, Methods reads 6.1d. 6.0996 cannot round or truncate to 6.06, and nothing in the paper describes a different or preliminary period. The table value is the one consistent with the stated 3:2 ratios.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Methods states "1333 hrs of new observations" and itemises TRAPPIST-South (469 hrs), TRAPPIST-North (202 hrs), VLT (3 hrs), William Herschel (26 hrs), UKIRT (25 hrs), Liverpool (50 hrs), SAAO (11 hrs) and Spitzer (518 hrs), which sum to 1304 hrs, 29 short of the stated total.
- p. 5 Methods, Observations and photometry, first paragraph
1333 hrs of new observations gathered from the ground with the 60cm telescopes
- p. 5 Methods, Observations and photometry, first paragraph
Spitzer (518 hrs)
- p. 5 Methods, Observations and photometry, first paragraph
1333 hrs of new observations
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1
476.8
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read the Methods sentence on page 5 and Extended Data Table 1 on the upright page 15 image. The eight itemised figures total 1304; ground only is 786. Rounding of eight integers cannot give 29 h. Adding the two facilities in ED Table 1 that the sentence omits (HCT 4.8, HST 3.9) gives 1312.7, still not 1333. ED Table 1 covers the whole data set, including ref. 1 data, in 'effective' hours, so its larger TRAPPIST-South, UKIRT and VLT figures do not bear on this sum; the text-versus-table differences for the all-new facilities are judged under C015. Either the total or an item is wrong; only the authors can say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 1 gives "29" unique transits observed for planet c, but the per-facility counts for c in Extended Data Table 1 (TRAPPIST-South "c: 1", Spitzer "c: 11", TRAPPIST-North 3, LT 1, UKIRT 3, WHT 1, VLT 1, HST 1) total only 22.
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1, planet c counts
c: 11
- p. 9 Table 1, Number of unique transits observed
29
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read both tables on the page images. Unique transits cannot exceed the total number of transit observations. For b the facility sum (42) exceeds the unique count (37), as expected. Methods state that the total dataset 'including the data presented in ref. 1' is 351 light curves, and the light-curve column of ED Table 1 sums to exactly 351, so the table is meant to cover the whole dataset; no other population explains the gap. The TRAPPIST-South 'c: 1' next to 'b: 13' over 214 light curves is the likely faulty entry, but only the authors can say which number is wrong.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 1 "Number of unique transits observed" gives 9, 7, 4, 5 for d, e, f, g, but Extended Data Figs 2 and 3 plot light curves at 10, 8, 6 and 6 distinct epochs; the d panel also shows four TRAPPIST light curves where Extended Data Table 1 lists "d: 3".
- p. 22 Table 1, Number of unique transits observed, columns d, e, f, g
Number of unique transits observed
- p. 13 Extended Data Figure 3, TRAPPIST-1f panel
epoch −38
- p. 12 Extended Data Figure 2, TRAPPIST-1d panel
epoch 10
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Counted epoch labels on the page 12 and 13 images. d: −27, −11, −7, −6, −4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 10 (10 distinct). e: −57, −48, −8, −6, −1, 0, 1, 2 (8). f: −38, −33, −4, −2, −1, 0 (6). g: −30, −25, −4, −2, −1, 0 (6). Table 1 on the page 22 image prints 9, 7, 4, 5. The numbers of plotted curves for e, f and g match the ED Table 1 facility totals (10, 8, 6); d has 10 plotted against a total of 9. Excluding partial transits does not reproduce the Table 1 counts consistently, and the paper states no such rule. Which numbers are right is for the authors. Separately, the g epoch −4 curve is labelled VLT, though ED Table 1 lists no g transit for VLT.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Author Contributions credit "CSF, MRB, DLH, AS and EJK" with the SAAO observations, but no author in the byline has the initials AS; the same footnote writes Demory's initials as both "BOD" and "BoD".
- p. 1 Author Contributions footnote
CSF, MRB, DLH, AS and EJK
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed the Author Contributions crop and read the byline on page 1. None of the 30 authors has initials A.S. (the A-initial authors are Agol, Burdanov, Burgasser, Chaushev, Triaud). Aleksander Chaushev (Leicester) is not credited anywhere else in the statement, so 'AS' is probably meant for him, but only the authors can say. 'BOD' and 'BoD' both appear in the crop.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Extended Data Table 1 disagrees with Extended Data Figs 2-3 and Table 1, and has label typos: Fig. 3 labels a TRAPPIST-1g transit "epoch −4 ... VLT" though the table lists no g transit for VLT/HAWK-I ("b: 1, c: 1, e: 1, f: 1", year 2015) and four for TRAPPIST-South; Fig. 2 shows four TRAPPIST transits of d against "d: 3"; the table's c transits total 22, fewer than the 29 unique transits in Table 1; the TRAPPIST-South filter is printed "1+z" (for 'I+z') and the facility "SAAO- lm/SHOC" (for '1m').
- p. 13 Extended Data Figure 3, TRAPPIST-1g panel, third light curve
epoch −4
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1, VLT/HAWK-I row
b: 1, c: 1, e: 1, f: 1
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1, TRAPPIST-South row, Filter/grism
1+z
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1, TRAPPIST-North row, Filter/grism
I+z
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: This cluster bundles several points, all checked on the images. (1) Page 13: the g panel has an 'epoch −4' curve labelled VLT, plus TRAPPIST at −30, −25, −2 and Spitzer at −1, 0. From Table 1's ephemeris, epoch −4 is BJD−2,450,000 ≈ 7615.9 (August 2016), while Methods and the table give VLT/HAWK-I only for December 2015 with no g transit; the table gives g four TRAPPIST-South transits, the figure three, so the VLT label is probably a mislabelled TRAPPIST curve. (2) Page 12: the d panel shows TRAPPIST curves at epochs −27, −7, −6 and 10 (four), but the table gives TRAPPIST-South d: 3 and no d for TRAPPIST-North. (3) The c entries in the table (1+11+3+1+3+1+1+1) total 22, which cannot be fewer than the 29 unique c transits in Table 1; the TRAPPIST-South 'c: 1' looks too low next to 'b: 13'. (4) An enlarged crop of the table shows '1+z' for TRAPPIST-South against 'I+z' for TRAPPIST-North and in Methods ('I+z' filter), and 'SAAO- lm/SHOC' for the 1m SAAO telescope; the caption also has 'parametrs'. The typos have evident fixes; which transit counts and which facility label are right is for the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "making their transit times occur early or late compared to a Keplerian orbit14" cites ref. 14 (Zeng, Sasselov & Jacobsen, "Mass-radius relation for rocky planets based on PREM"), which is not about transit timing; ref. 12 (Fabrycky, "Non-Keplerian dynamics of exoplanets") fits.
- p. 8 Methods, TTV analysis, first paragraph
early or late compared to a Keplerian orbit14
- p. 17 Reference 14
Zeng L, Sasselov DD, Jacobsen SB. Mass-radius relation for rocky planets based on PREM.
- p. 17 Reference 14
Mass-radius relation for rocky planets based on PREM
- p. 8 Methods, TTV analysis
compared to a Keplerian orbit14
Judge's note: Page 8 image shows 'Keplerian orbit14'. Page 17 gives ref. 14 as the mass-radius relation paper, which is cited appropriately on page 4 ('rocky compositions14') and in the Fig. 2 legend ('mass-radius curves14'). The main text on page 3 cites TTV dynamics as '10,11,12', and ref. 12 is Fabrycky's 'Non-Keplerian dynamics of exoplanets'. A 12 to 14 slip is the evident reading; the mismatch is clear from the reference titles alone.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Reference 57: "Hanno R, Tamayo D. WHFAST: a fast and unbiased implementation of a symplectic Wisdom-Holman integrator" appears to give the first author's given name as the surname (should be 'Rein H').
- p. 18 Reference 57
Hanno R, Tamayo D. WHFAST: a fast and unbiased implementation
- p. 18 Reference 57
Hanno R, Tamayo D. WHFAST
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the WHFast paper (MNRAS 2015, 452:376) is by Hanno Rein and Daniel Tamayo. The page 18 image prints 'Hanno R, Tamayo D.' as quoted. Nothing in the files confirms the true author name.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. 1c labels planet h "Ph = 14−25d", while Table 1 gives its period as 20 +15/−6 d, i.e. 14 to 35 d.
- p. 19 Figure 1c, TRAPPIST-1h label
Ph = 14−25d
- p. 22 Table 1, Period P, column h
20
- p. 19 Figure 1c, label of TRAPPIST-1h light curve
14−25d
- p. 22 Table 1, Period P [d], planet h
20+15−6
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: A 6x render of Fig. 1c reads clearly 'Ph = 14−25d'. Table 1 on the page 22 image reads 20 with +15 and −6. The lower bounds agree (14) and the upper bounds do not (25 against 35). Table 1 is internally consistent: scaling from planet b by Kepler's third law with a_h = 63+27 = 90 gives about 35 d. No text states a different interval for the figure label. The figure label is probably the faulty one, but the authors must confirm.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "f(TTV) = ni/Pi - nj/Pj, where P is the orbital period, n the mean motion, and i and j the planet indices": with n defined as the mean motion the expression is not a frequency; the n's would have to be the integers of the near-resonance.
- p. 8 Methods, TTV analysis, 2nd paragraph
where P is the orbital period, n the
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the mean motion is 2π/P (not defined in the paper), and the standard TTV super-period frequency is j/P1 − k/P2 with integer j, k. Page 8 image shows the formula and definition as quoted. A mean motion divided by a period has units of 1/time², so the definition as written is dimensionally inconsistent with a frequency; integer resonance indices (e.g. 8 and 5 for the 8:5 pair named on page 4) would make it one. The authors should confirm the intended definition.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "We found an average separation of 10.5 ± 1.9 (excluding planet h), where the uncertainty is the rms of the six mutual separations": six planets (b-g) have five adjacent pairs, not six.
- p. 9 Methods, Preliminary assessment of the long-term stability
10.5 ± 1.9 (excluding planet h), where the uncertainty is the rms of the six mutual
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 9 image shows the sentence as quoted; the preceding sentence says the separations are 'between all adjacent pairs of planets'. Excluding h leaves b-g and five adjacent pairs; six would need h, which has no mass in Table 1. Recomputing the mutual-Hill separations from Table 1 masses and semi-major axes for the five pairs b-c to f-g gives about 10.3, 12.1, 11.6, 10.8 and 6.6, with mean 10.3 and rms scatter 1.9, consistent with the printed 10.5 ± 1.9 being based on five separations. So 'six' looks like a slip for 'five' (or for the six planets), but the authors should confirm.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
27 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Lower end of the TTV amplitude range differs: main text "amplitudes ranging from a few tens of seconds to more than 30 minutes"; Methods "the TTV amplitudes range in magnitude from 2 to more than 30 minutes However, the distances of" (which also lacks the full stop after "minutes").
- p. 3 Main text, 3rd paragraph
amplitudes ranging from a few tens of seconds to more than 30
- p. 8 Methods, TTV analysis
from 2 to more than 30 minutes
- p. 8
from 2 to more than 30 minutes However, the distances of
- p. 3 Results
from a few tens of seconds to more than 30 minutes
Judge's note: Page 3 image and Methods page 8 text confirm both sentences. The main text describes residuals of the linear-ephemeris fit and Methods says 'as calculated from the current data', so the two may be different measures, but the paper does not say so and the upper bound is identical. The missing full stop before 'However' is in the text layer and is a cosmetic slip.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The paper gives three different Spitzer transit counts: "34 clear transits" (main text p.3), "the global MCMC analysis of the 35 transits observed by Spitzer" (Methods p.8), and "16-11-5-2-3-2-1 transits were observed by Spitzer" (Fig. 1 caption; Extended Data Table 1 row b:16, c:11, d:5, e:2, f:3, g:2, h:1), which sums to 40.
- p. 8 Methods, Analysis of the photometry, last paragraph
global MCMC analysis of the 35 transits observed by
- p. 20 Figure 1 caption (panel c)
16-11-5-2-3-2-1 transits were observed
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1, Spitzer/IRAC row
b: 16, c: 11, d: 5, e: 2, f: 3, g: 2, h: 1
- p. 3 Main text
Its resulting light curve shows 34 clear transits
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked the crops on p.3, p.8 and p.20 and the upright image of Extended Data Table 1. The 34 refers explicitly to the 20-day campaign. Methods p.6 says Spitzer also observed on 21 February 2016 and on 3-18 March 2016, so 40 could legitimately include those runs. Overlapping transits (counted once per planet but once per event) could also lower the event count. But the paper never explains which set the 35 in the global analysis is, and the main text (p.4) describes that analysis as using 'the transits observed by Spitzer'. Only the authors can say how 34, 35 and 40 relate.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "this work was based on 1333 hrs of new observations gathered from the ground with ... TRAPPIST-South (469 hrs) and TRAPPIST-North (202 hrs), ... (3 hrs), ... (26 hrs), ... (25 hrs), ... (50 hrs), ... (11 hrs), and from space with Spitzer (518 hrs)": the itemised hours, including Spitzer, sum to 1304, not 1333.
- p. 5 Methods, Observations and photometry
1333 hrs of new observations gathered from the ground
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Corrected description: the reviewer read 1333 as the ground-based total, but the sentence covers ground and space together, so Spitzer's 518 h belongs in the sum. Even so, the listed figures total 1304 h (786 ground + 518 Spitzer), 29 h short of 1333. HCT (4.8 h) and HST (3.9 h) appear in Extended Data Table 1 but not in the sentence; adding them gives about 1313, still not 1333. Extended Data Table 1 is not comparable directly (it gives effective hours and includes the ref. 1 data). No explanation found in the text; the discrepancy is about 2%.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Acknowledgments: "DHL acknowledges financial support form the STFC"; the author is Daniel L. Holdsworth, given as "DLH" in the Author Contributions. Also "BoD, JI, and JdW" against "BOD led the TTV/dynamical simulations", and "AS" in "CSF, MRB, DLH, AS and EJK" matches no listed author.
- p. 16 Acknowledgments
DHL acknowledges financial support form the STFC
- p. 1 Author Contributions
CSF, MRB, DLH, AS and EJK
- p. 16
DHL acknowledges financial support form the STFC.
- p. 1 Author Contributions footnote
DLH
Judge's note: Page 1 image: the author list has Daniel L. Holdsworth and the contributions give 'DLH'. Page 16 image: 'DHL acknowledges', a transposition, since no author has the initials DHL. 'BOD' and 'BoD' both appear in the contributions paragraph for Brice-Olivier Demory. 'AS' matches no name in the author list (Selsis is FS); whether this is a mistyped initial or an unlisted observer only the authors can say. The 'form' typo in the same sentence is handled in C036.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Period of planet d is given as "4.04" d in the abstract and main text, "4.1d" in Methods and 4.05d in Fig. 1c; Table 1 gives 4.049610 d, which rounds to 4.05 (or 4.0), not 4.04 or 4.1.
- p. 2 Abstract
1.51, 2.42, 4.04, 6.06
- p. 7 Methods, Analysis of the photometry
periods of 4.1d, 6.1d, 9.2d and 12.3d
- p. 22 Table 1, Period P, column d
4.049610±0.63×10-4
- p. 19 Figure 1c label
Pd = 4.05d
Judge's note: Page images 2, 3, 19 and 22 and the Methods text confirm the four forms. 4.04 is a truncation of 4.0496 and 4.1 a loose round-up; the differences are at most 0.05 d and no reader is misled about the planet, so this is a rounding inconsistency, not a wrong value. The other periods in the same abstract list (9.21, 12.35) are rounded, not truncated.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Telescope apertures differ between sections: main text "the 3.8m UKIRT telescope at Hawaii, the 4m William Herschel"; Methods "the 4.2m William Herschel telescope (26 hrs), the 4m UKIRT telescope" (also "The 4m telescope UKIRT" and "The 4.2m William Herschel Telescope").
- p. 2 Main text, first paragraph
the 3.8m UKIRT telescope at Hawaii, the 4m William Herschel
- p. 5 Methods, Observations and photometry
the 4.2m William Herschel telescope (26 hrs), the 4m UKIRT telescope
Judge's note: Page 2 image shows 3.8m UKIRT and 4m William Herschel; the Methods text on pages 5-6 has 4m UKIRT (twice) and 4.2m WHT (twice). The exact and rounded values are swapped between the two passages. Each value is a rounding of the other, so it is a cosmetic inconsistency.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspellings and stray characters: affiliation 22 "Makkah Clock, Saudia Arabia" (affiliation 21 has "Saudi Arabia") and "King Abdulah Centre"; "parametrs" (ED Table 1 caption); "mentionned" (ED Fig. 2 caption); "assesment" (Methods heading); "F. Jímenez" (Acknowledgments); doubled bracket in Table 1 "R★ [R⊙]]".
- p. 2 Affiliation 22
King Abdulah Centre for Crescent Observations and Astronomy
- p. 2 Affiliation 22
Makkah Clock, Saudia Arabia
- p. 16 Acknowledgments
F. Riddick, F. Jímenez
- p. 15 ED Table 1 caption
parametrs
Judge's note: Seen on the images: 'Saudia Arabia' and 'King Abdulah' in affiliation 22 on page 2, with 'Saudi Arabia' on the line above; 'parametrs' in the ED Table 1 caption (upright page 15); 'Jímenez' with the accent on the i in the page 16 crop; 'R★ [R⊙]]' in the Table 1 radius row. 'mentionned' and 'assesment' are in the text layer at pages 12 and 9 (plain words, no extraction risk). 'Abdulah' and the accent placement in 'Jímenez' are spellings of proper names and are the less certain items; the rest are plain typos.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Pointer reads "(Extended Fig. 2 and 3)"; every other pointer reads "Extended Data Fig." (the word "Data" is missing).
- p. 3 Main text, 3rd paragraph
(Extended Fig. 2 and 3)
- p. 3
planets10,11,12 (Extended Fig. 2 and 3).
- p. 14 Extended Data Figure 4 title
Transit Timing Variations (TTVs) measured for TRAPPIST-1b-c-d-e-f-
- p. 3 main text, earlier in same page
(Extended Data Fig. 2 and 3)
Judge's note: Page 3 image: the TTV sentence ends '(Extended Fig. 2 and 3)', while the same page twice has 'Extended Data Fig. 2 and 3'. The suggestion that the pointer should be to Extended Data Fig. 4 (the TTV plot) is not confirmed as an error: the captions of ED Figs 2-3 show the transit shifts for d-g, so the pointer is defensible.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Stray comma before the closing parenthesis: "(Mercury=6.7 SEarth, Ceres=0.13 SEarth,)."
- p. 4
Mercury=6.7 SEarth, Ceres=0.13 SEarth,). Notably, planets
- p. 4 main text, irradiation paragraph
Ceres=0.13 SEarth,)
Judge's note: Page 4 image shows 'Ceres=0.13 S_Earth,).' with the comma before the bracket.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Subject-verb disagreement: "The stellar irradiation of the planets cover a range" (should be "covers").
- p. 4 main text, irradiation paragraph
The stellar irradiation of the planets cover a range
Judge's note: Page 4 image shows the sentence as quoted; the singular subject 'irradiation' takes 'covers'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "with the orbital periods ratios Pc/Pb" should read "orbital period ratios".
- p. 4 main text
the orbital periods ratios Pc/Pb
Judge's note: Page 4 image shows 'the orbital periods ratios'. A grammatical slip.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Panel references are styled inconsistently: "(Fig. 2.a)" and "(Fig. 2.b)" versus "(Fig. 2a)" on the same page, and "Fig.2a" in the code availability statement.
- p. 4 main text
(Fig. 2.a)
- p. 4 main text
(Fig. 2a)
Judge's note: Page 4 image shows '(Fig. 2.a)' and '(Fig. 2a)' two paragraphs apart; 'Fig. 2.b' and 'Fig.2a' are in the text layer. Style inconsistency only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "the irradiation received by planets (b,c,d) are still low enough to make possible for limited regions": singular subject with plural verb (should be 'is'); also a missing space in "liquid water1,7.While".
- p. 5 main text
the irradiation received by planets (b,c,d) are still low enough
Judge's note: Read on the page 5 image: the text is as quoted. 'irradiation ... are' is a subject-verb disagreement, and 'water1,7.While' has no space after the full stop.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Table 1 prints the TRAPPIST-South filter as "1+z" (digit one; TRAPPIST-North row and Methods give "I+z") and the facility as "SAAO- lm/SHOC" (letter l and a stray space; Methods: "the 1m SAAO telescope").
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1, TRAPPIST-South row, Filter/grism
1+z
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1, facility column
SAAO- lm/SHOC
- p. 5 Methods, Observations
the 1m SAAO telescope (11 hrs)
Judge's note: Viewed the upright page 15 image and a 5x render of the page. The TRAPPIST-South filter glyph is a digit 1 with a flag, visibly different from the serif capital I in the TRAPPIST-North row; the text layer also gives '1+z'. The facility reads 'SAAO- lm/SHOC' with a lowercase l and a space after the hyphen. Methods say 'the 1m SAAO telescope (11 hrs)' and "same 'I+z' filter". Both are typographic slips with evident fixes.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "with the same observational strategy than described in ref. 1" should read 'as described'.
- p. 6 Methods, VLT/HAWK-I
the same observational strategy than described in ref.
Judge's note: Read on the crop of page 6: the text is as quoted. 'same ... than' is ungrammatical; the next paragraph uses the correct 'same observational strategy as'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "from 2 to more than 30 minutes However, the distances of these pairs to exact resonances controls the amplitude ... and is not precisely pinned down": missing full stop before 'However', and plural 'distances' with singular verbs.
- p. 8 Methods, TTV analysis, 2nd paragraph
from 2 to more than 30 minutes However, the distances
- p. 8 Methods, TTV analysis
to more than 30 minutes However, the distances
Judge's note: Read on the page 8 image: there is no full stop between 'minutes' and 'However', so it is not an extraction loss. The following clause has 'the distances ... controls ... and is'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Methods heading on p.9 is misspelt: "Preliminary assesment of the long-term stability of the system" should read "assessment".
- p. 9 Methods section heading
Preliminary assesment of the long-term stability of the system
- p. 9 Methods heading
Preliminary assesment of the long-term stability
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the heading in the p.9 crop.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 2 caption on p.12 is misspelt: "are mentionned above each light curve" should read "mentioned".
- p. 12 Extended Data Figure 2 caption
are mentionned above each light
- p. 12
facility used to observe it are mentionned above each light curve.
- p. 12
mentionned above each light
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the caption in the p.12 crop.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Table 1 caption on p.15 reads "the following parametrs are given" (should be "parameters"), and Extended Data Fig. 4 caption on p.14 reads "are show as vertical lines" (should be "shown").
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1 caption
the following parametrs are given: the effective number of observation (not accounting
- p. 15
the following parametrs are given: the effective number
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1 caption
the following parametrs are given
- p. 12 Extended Data Fig. 2 caption
are mentionned above each light
Judge's note: I checked the upright image of p.15 for 'parametrs' and the p.14 crop for 'show as'. The 'mentionned' item listed in this cluster is the same defect as C028 and is covered there.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Figure 4 legend: "The 1-sigma errors of the transit timing measurements are show as vertical lines." ('show' should be 'shown').
- p. 14 Extended Data Figure 4 caption
measurements are show as vertical lines
- p. 14
transit timing measurements are show as vertical lines.
- p. 14 Extended Data Fig. 4 legend
are show as vertical lines
Judge's note: Read on the page 14 image: the legend has 'are show as vertical lines'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Table 1 caption: "the effective number of observation (not accounting for calibration and overhead times)" is missing a word; the column is "Number of hrs", so it should read 'number of hours of observation'.
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1 caption
the effective number of observation (not accounting
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 1 caption
the effective number of observation (not accounting for calibration and overhead times)
Judge's note: Read on the page 15 image. The caption lists the columns in order and the corresponding column header is 'Number of hrs', so 'hours' has been dropped. This is a separate defect from the misspelling 'parametrs' in C032, so it is not treated as a duplicate.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Acknowledgments: "financial support form the STFC" should read 'from the STFC'.
- p. 16 Acknowledgments
financial support form the STFC
Judge's note: Read on the page 16 image. Kept separate from C035, which covers the author initials.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference 35: "The new era of of wide-field astronomy" has a duplicated 'of'.
- p. 17 Reference 35
The new era of of wide-field astronomy
- p. 17
The new era of of wide-field astronomy, ASPC Conference
Judge's note: Read on the page 17 image; the doubled 'of' is printed in reference 35.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 1 legend: "whereas the open circle depict binned measurements" and "The relative positions of the planets corresponds to their orbital phase" (number disagreement); also "The same colour code as in the two other panels" although there are three other panels (a, b, c).
- p. 19 Figure 1 caption, panel c
whereas the open circle depict binned measurements
- p. 20 Figure 1 caption, panel d
The same colour code as in the two other panels
- p. 19 Fig. 1 legend
the open circle depict binned measurements
- p. 20 Fig. 1 legend
The relative positions of the planets corresponds to
Judge's note: Read on the page 19 and 20 images. Both agreement errors are printed as quoted. 'Two other panels' is a minor point: the authors may be counting a and b as one panel.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 1c labels planet f "Pf = 9.20d", but Table 1 gives 9.206690 d, which rounds to 9.21 d as in the abstract ("9.21").
- p. 19 Fig. 1c label
Pf = 9.20d
- p. 22 Table 1, Period P [d], planet f
9.206690±0.15×10-4
Judge's note: The 6x render of Fig. 1c reads 'Pf = 9.20d'; Table 1 on the page 22 image gives 9.206690±0.15×10-4; the abstract lists 9.21. The other labels in the panel are rounded (for example Pd = 4.05d from 4.049610), so 9.20 is a truncation slip. Cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1, transit depth for planet h: "0.352±0.0326" gives the uncertainty to four decimals against a three-decimal value, unlike every other entry in the row (e.g. 0.367±0.017).
- p. 22 Table 1, Transit depth, column h
0.352±0.0326
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read on the page 22 image; the entry is printed as quoted, and the text layer agrees. The value 0.352 is consistent with the radius row. The uncertainty probably carries a stray digit (±0.033 or ±0.026), and the intended value cannot be determined from the paper.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1, row 'Density ρ★ [ρ⊙]': the value is typeset as '50.7 +1.2 −2.2ρ⊙', with the unit ρ⊙ repeated and attached at subscript level to the lower uncertainty, although the unit is already given in the row label and no other row repeats its unit.
- p. 22 Table 1, Density ρ★ row
50.7−2.2
Judge's note: Viewed the crop of Table 1 on PDF page 22. The density value shows '50.7' with superscript '+1.2' and subscript '−2.2' immediately followed by a small 'ρ⊙' on the subscript line. The row label already reads 'Density ρ★ [ρ⊙]'; the Mass, Radius, Luminosity and Teff rows give the unit only in the label. The layout text confirms '−2.2ρ⊙'. The numbers themselves are unaffected; this is a cosmetic typesetting redundancy (the same table also has a stray extra ']' in 'Radius R★ [R⊙]]', consistent with sloppy typesetting of this author-manuscript table). Fix: delete the trailing ρ⊙ from the value cell.
Second check: none (judge only)