[HN Gopher] Room-temperature superconductivity study retracted
___________________________________________________________________
Room-temperature superconductivity study retracted
Author : pseudolus
Score : 99 points
Date : 2022-09-27 14:52 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Also being discussed here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32993556
| moomin wrote:
| So they've set up a whole new company on the basis of refuted
| experimental result. I imagine it will have the ghost of Martin
| Fleischmann on the board.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > So they've set up a whole new company on the basis of refuted
| experimental result
|
| Nothing new about that.
| jjk166 wrote:
| The experimental result has not been refuted, the whole issue
| is that some scientists are claiming there isn't enough
| information to attempt to refute it.
| DFHippie wrote:
| One research quoted said he had tried and failed 6 times to
| reproduce the results.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Because the formula was not published.
| Gatsky wrote:
| Not sure how Nature lets through a paper like this without
| mandating the raw data is included and a detailed protocol to
| reproduce the results.
| tom-thistime wrote:
| I don't think I've ever seen a paper that included much raw
| data. It's possible this may be a good suggestion, but it's not
| the way things are currently done.
| Gatsky wrote:
| Maybe not typically, but room temp superconductivity is a
| nobel prize level claim, and it seems that the experiment is
| not fully specified without the raw data.
| p_j_w wrote:
| The scientific community generally does a pretty good job
| of shooting down big claims like this that get published
| (see: Pons and Fleischmann), so what's the huge benefit? On
| top of this, if it's to have any value, the reviewers of
| the article would need to recreate whatever code was used
| to process the raw data OR audit the existing code to make
| sure it made sense, both of which are pretty heavy duty
| tasks. Reviewers don't get paid, so this is a good way to
| ensure no one wants to review articles for your journal.
| jimmydorry wrote:
| If there is substantial interest in the paper after it
| has been published, it would be a lot easier to verify
| with the raw data than without. Nothing about the peer
| review process necessarily needs change beyond
| immediately rejecting all papers that do not include the
| minimum amount of data to validate their claims (even if
| said data is simply stored and not immediately reviewed).
| rsfern wrote:
| Many journals (including a lot of the nature ones) are
| requiring data and code on publication now
|
| Part of the problem is that as far as I can tell it's on the
| reviewers to flag noncompliance, and a lot of times groups
| won't actually publish code and datasets before the paper is
| accepted and assigned a DOI.
|
| So really it's a culture change around the whole publishing
| process that's needed, IMO
| hartjer wrote:
| Reminds of Jan Hendrik Shron
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-27 23:01 UTC)