Room Temperature Superconductor: Join our Newsletter! https://geni.us/TwoBitWeeklyPhysics has always been my favorite field of study. Everything from how pl...
Everything I’ve seen says that the 2020 paper was rejected, not falsified. It had been submitted to Nature shortly after Diaz’s now-likely-fraudulent superconductor research had been accepted and turned out to be controversial, so it’s understandable that Nature was gun-shy of superconductor papers. Do you have any references to its falsification? A paper can be rejected for many reasons other than falsification, indeed I would think most rejections are not for that since peer review doesn’t include independently replicating the results.
What it feels like to me is that the authors were panicking over the possibility of getting “scooped.” They’ve been working on this stuff for decades and had often gone without funding so that seems like less of an urgent concern to me.
An initial paper was submitted to Nature in 2020, but rejected.[10] Similarly-presented research on room-temperature superconductors by Ranga P. Dias had been published in Nature earlier that year, and received with skepticism—Dias’s paper would subsequently be retracted in 2022 after its data was found to have been falsified.
Emphasis added. The paper that had falsified paper was by a different researcher and was about a completely different putative superconductor. Only Dias’ paper appears to be based on falsified data. There’s no indication that the LK-99 paper is based on falsified data. Unfortunately LK-99 is suffering guilt by association simply because both of these things are about room-temperature superconductors, but they share nothing in common with each other beyond that broad topic.
Ah, I skim, read it, and missed that they were talking about a completely different material and paper. Honestly, fairly silly of Wikipedia and rare to bring up something that isn’t really related to that specific topic.
It explains why Nature might have been quicker to reject another paper about room temperature superconductivity than they otherwise would have been. But yeah, it’s a little misleading stuck in there like that.
The confusing part specifically is “Similarly-presented research” which doesn’t say why it’s similarly-presented. It sounds like looking into it that it’s just “both were room temperature superconductors” but it could have also meant that “both are about LK-99”, “both are from the same university” or something like that. It’s ambiguous.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Everything I’ve seen says that the 2020 paper was rejected, not falsified. It had been submitted to Nature shortly after Diaz’s now-likely-fraudulent superconductor research had been accepted and turned out to be controversial, so it’s understandable that Nature was gun-shy of superconductor papers. Do you have any references to its falsification? A paper can be rejected for many reasons other than falsification, indeed I would think most rejections are not for that since peer review doesn’t include independently replicating the results.
What it feels like to me is that the authors were panicking over the possibility of getting “scooped.” They’ve been working on this stuff for decades and had often gone without funding so that seems like less of an urgent concern to me.
Wikipedia said data was falsified https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99 so that’s where I took that information from.
Emphasis added. The paper that had falsified paper was by a different researcher and was about a completely different putative superconductor. Only Dias’ paper appears to be based on falsified data. There’s no indication that the LK-99 paper is based on falsified data. Unfortunately LK-99 is suffering guilt by association simply because both of these things are about room-temperature superconductors, but they share nothing in common with each other beyond that broad topic.
Ah, I skim, read it, and missed that they were talking about a completely different material and paper. Honestly, fairly silly of Wikipedia and rare to bring up something that isn’t really related to that specific topic.
It explains why Nature might have been quicker to reject another paper about room temperature superconductivity than they otherwise would have been. But yeah, it’s a little misleading stuck in there like that.
The confusing part specifically is “Similarly-presented research” which doesn’t say why it’s similarly-presented. It sounds like looking into it that it’s just “both were room temperature superconductors” but it could have also meant that “both are about LK-99”, “both are from the same university” or something like that. It’s ambiguous.