  This manuscript was originally submitted to Nature for consideration as a
"Brief Communication" in response to a "Corrigendum" that appeared in 2006 (1)
to an earlier paper in Nature. That corrigendum was the subject of a Nature
editorial (2) stating that "key data were misrepresented by the authors, both
during the review process and in the final published version of the paper" and
it claimed to provide an explanation for alterations in their data that had the
effect of changing their priority claim from a result no better than previous
work by Isaacson and Scheinfein that was 1 Angstrom shy of atomic resolution to
what appeared to be atomic resolution. In this manuscript we show that this
explanation is physically inconsistent with the evolution of their data. When
originally submitted to Nature, the manuscript was peer-reviewed, deemed
"carefully and properly argued" and recommended for publication with
appropriate responses from the corrigendum authors. Subsequent exchanges with
those authors did not reach a satisfactory state and publication did not occur.
We now have learnt that an article is likely to appear in Nature concerning the
circumstances surrounding the concerns expressed in this initial document and
we consider it important and relevant that this document and the supplementary
material be made available in the public domain. As to the question of proper
attribution of priority, we would suggest instead citing the concurrent work of
Batson (3).
  1. Browning, N.D., Chisholm, M.F., and Pennycook, S.J.
Corrigendum:Atomic-resolution chemical analysis using a scanning transmission
electron microscope, Nature 444, 235 (2006). 2. Editorial. Correction or
retraction? Nature 444, 123-124 (2006). 3. Batson, P.E. (1993). Simultaneous
STEM imaging and electron energy-loss spectroscopy with atomic-column
sensitivity. Nature 366, 727-728.
