Nature Retracts Controversial Superconductivity Paper By Embattled Physicist 36
Nature has retracted a controversial paper claiming the discovery of a superconductor -- a material that carries electrical currents with zero resistance -- capable of operating at room temperature and relatively low pressure. From a report: The text of the retraction notice states that it was requested by eight co-authors. "They have expressed the view as researchers who contributed to the work that the published paper does not accurately reflect the provenance of the investigated materials, the experimental measurements undertaken and the data-processing protocols applied," it says, adding that these co-authors "have concluded that these issues undermine the integrity of the published paper."
It is the third high-profile retraction of a paper by the two lead authors, physicists Ranga Dias at the University of Rochester in New York and Ashkan Salamat at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Nature withdrew a separate paper last year and Physical Review Letters retracted one this August. It spells more trouble in particular for Dias, whom some researchers allege plagiarized portions of his PhD thesis. Dias has objected to the first two retractions and not responded regarding the latest. Salamat approved the two this year. "It is at this point hardly surprising that the team of Dias and Salamat has a third high-profile paper being retracted," says Paul Canfield, a physicist at Iowa State University in Ames and at Ames National Laboratory. Many physicists had seen the Nature retraction as inevitable after the other two -- and especially since The Wall Street Journal and Science reported in September that 8 of the 11 authors of the paper -- including Salamat -- had requested it in a letter to the journal.
It is the third high-profile retraction of a paper by the two lead authors, physicists Ranga Dias at the University of Rochester in New York and Ashkan Salamat at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Nature withdrew a separate paper last year and Physical Review Letters retracted one this August. It spells more trouble in particular for Dias, whom some researchers allege plagiarized portions of his PhD thesis. Dias has objected to the first two retractions and not responded regarding the latest. Salamat approved the two this year. "It is at this point hardly surprising that the team of Dias and Salamat has a third high-profile paper being retracted," says Paul Canfield, a physicist at Iowa State University in Ames and at Ames National Laboratory. Many physicists had seen the Nature retraction as inevitable after the other two -- and especially since The Wall Street Journal and Science reported in September that 8 of the 11 authors of the paper -- including Salamat -- had requested it in a letter to the journal.
Re: (Score:2)
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-- Winston Churchill
Re: (Score:2)
Nice quote! Very, very accurate.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm curious what a democrat "extremist" is. Someone that wants healthcare for all and a social safety net because poverty and crime go hand in hand?
Re: (Score:1)
the nonexistent Democrats that support Hamas?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to Republicans who support Russia, the country sending weapons to Hamas?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Still waiting... (Score:2)
Statistically no Democrats "support Hamas" so by claiming they do and or are a significant bloc that is exactly what they are doing. Democrats accused of supporting Hamas are overwhelmingly actually opposing Israel, or even more specifically, Netanyahu.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly they are calling for a ceasefire, whilst the Israeli hostages are still not recovered and are going to leave Hamas (specifically, not the Palestinians in general) with huge leverage over Israel.
Why would Hamas release the hostages without a cease fire? That wouldn't make any sense.
The do that without having a plan for what would happen next.
Return to pre-1967 borders?
This is very much supporting Hamas over the Palestinians.
Israel has been illegally occupying more territory than they were granted for decades, and we're still funding them. That's very much supporting Israel over the Palestinians.
That was of course the goal, so it's not a surprise, but your entire premise is ignoring that. Netanyahu has deliberately funded Hamas, and Hamas only attacked military targets for the first seven years of its existence, pr
Re: (Score:2)
By equating support for Palestine as support for Hamas. Palestine's leadership is not innocent but neither is Israel. Both regions are full of citizens who are worthy of support. Israel deserves better than Netanyahu, and Palestine honestly deserves better than Hamas. The idea of blindly supporting either side is unthinkable to me at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of this statement did you find extremist?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh look, it's Mr. Trotsky Slut word salad here to make no sense. Hope those magic words make you feel better.
Re: (Score:1)
Two possibilities (Score:2)
Re:Two possibilities (Score:4, Interesting)
People adding their names to scientific papers they're barely associated with has been an issue for the past several decades - and likely longer than that. I remember controversies around the number of authors on some Physical Review papers in the early 1980s - some submitted papers had 50 co-authors!
Re: (Score:2)
This sometimes causes people writing papers to add names, and not even verify that the other authors want to be on the paper. There were several cases where I found my name was on a paper
Re:Two possibilities (Score:5, Funny)
The strange quarks are upset that only some quarks have charm. And don't get me started on those bottom quarks!
Re: Two possibilities (Score:2)
Plagiarizing your own phd thesis????? (Score:2)
How is that plagarism??? Most phd theses are just bolted together papers or manuscripts with some glue language. The whole point is to publish them. So how can a person possibly plagiarize their own phd thesis?
Or did he plagiarize someone else's phd thesis?
Re:Plagiarizing your own phd thesis????? (Score:4, Informative)
"Plagiarized his PhD thesis" means parts of his PhD thesis were plagiarized, i.e. copied from other people without attribution.
It's not relevant here, but it is possible to plagiarize yourself, and it's a pretty important concept in science. If you publish the results of an experiment and mention them in subsequent publications you're supposed to properly reference the original so that readers a) can find it and b) know that it's one experimental result, not several.
Re: Plagiarizing your own phd thesis????? (Score:2)
Evidently that's not the case here. A plot in an article he published tools like a plot in his thesis but is for a different compound suggesting he faked the plot. Not plagerism per se
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
It's quite possible he also plagiarized himself in subsequent papers, but the allegations mentioned in the summary are related to copying parts of his thesis from other people.
Common practice (Score:1)