Boris BarbourMar 10, 2024

This investigation of Ranga Dias' superconductivity publications is remarkable for multiple reasons.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00716-2

Nobody comes out of it well, but Nature are much more transparent about the editorial process than I can ever remember. (It's a little unclear if that was spontaneous, but, if not, the frequently claimed independence of Nature News came good.)

Thread. /1

Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception in a rising star’s physics lab

Ranga Dias claimed to have discovered the first room-temperature superconductors, but the work was later retracted. An investigation by Nature’s news team reveals new details about what happened — and how institutions missed red flags.

Show threadBoris BarbourMar 10, 2024

The "research" is at times risible. Key experimental results appeared suddenly in a manuscript version upon which lab members were given a couple of hours to comment before submission to Nature.

"When the students asked Dias about the stunning new data, they say, he told them he had taken all the resistance and magnetic-susceptibility data before coming to Rochester."

Just nonchalantly sitting on proof of room-temperature superconductivity for a few years, as one does. /2

Show threadBoris BarbourMar 10, 2024
The students are definitely not the villains of the piece, but if they "did not suspect misconduct at the time" and "trusted their adviser", they seem somewhat naive under the circumstances. /3
Show threadJeremy Monat
@BorisBarbour Most beginning graduate students probably are naive about publication-quality research standards because they haven’t published as undergrads. Many students largely learn it from their advisor, which can be problematic. How can that be fixed? Perhaps graduate schools should have a required course on the topic for first-year students.
Mar 11, 2024 at 2:23pmWeb