Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception in a physics lab

Re:Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception ... by 0cf8612b2e1e on Friday March 08, 2024 @01:34PM (#39644325)

That was one particular dataset being requested. There are near infinite ways to characterize a material, and even the best lab is only going to have the time, resources, and expertise to collect and present some of them.

I am not in the field, so I cannot comment on the specific relevance of the request, but in my area, there are absolutely some mandatory data inclusions which should block a paper from being published. Presumably this was not on that list.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception ... by strangattractor on Friday March 08, 2024 @02:33PM (#39645253)

There are numerous ways to embargo data and make it available to reviewers before publication and to the public after publication. [1] This isn't a new idea. They simply did not do it.

Nature is a "premier journal" known for publishing cutting edge research. Any data - in this case a bunch of numbers - used to support the conclusion should be made available. I am sure there are disciplines where the evidence would be difficult to provide directly - fossils, physical items etc. Maybe this PI did the experiment himself - thought he won a Noble - only to find he could not in fact reproduce the results after publication - oops. IMO Nature did not do its job. Just pointing that out.

[1] https://plos.org/resource/how-to-store-and-manage-your-data/

[ Parent | on HN ]