A crystallographic paper is more or less just a structure determination in a common file format (CIF - the article talks about it). There's very little in the way of interpretation.

As such, they're way easier to falsify than papers in even really closely related fields. I've spent plenty of time pulling structures from ICSD and other databases populated off Acta Cryst; my PhD was in computational mineralogy - but a raw simulation isn't a publishable result in the way data hot off the diffractometer can be.

By the way, if anyone here gets the chance to visit a neutron source (eg Isis, isis.rl.ac.uk), take it! Amaaaazing machines.

That web address requires www: http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/

I'm wondering the same thing. Makes me nervous for noncrystallographic sciences, too.

The results were certainly different but perhaps the lab is the same. I'll check when I'm not on my iPhone.