Do algorithm-superiority claims in thermodynamic-cycle multi-objective optimization survive their own evidence? A systematic audit of reporting practice

Abstract

This study audits reporting practice in the published literature on multi-objective metaheuristic optimization of thermodynamic energy conversion cycles. Studies in this field routinely claim that one optimizer outperforms another. Methodological guidelines for such claims have been published in the field's own journals since 2020, but no one has measured whether the cycle literature follows them. Each eligible study is coded against six criteria drawn from those guidelines, and compliance is reported per criterion with interval estimates, split before and after 2021.