• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    An initial paper was submitted to Nature in 2020, but rejected.[10] Similarly-presented research on room-temperature superconductors by Ranga P. Dias had been published in Nature earlier that year, and received with skepticism—Dias’s paper would subsequently be retracted in 2022 after its data was found to have been falsified.

    Emphasis added. The paper that had falsified paper was by a different researcher and was about a completely different putative superconductor. Only Dias’ paper appears to be based on falsified data. There’s no indication that the LK-99 paper is based on falsified data. Unfortunately LK-99 is suffering guilt by association simply because both of these things are about room-temperature superconductors, but they share nothing in common with each other beyond that broad topic.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah, I skim, read it, and missed that they were talking about a completely different material and paper. Honestly, fairly silly of Wikipedia and rare to bring up something that isn’t really related to that specific topic.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It explains why Nature might have been quicker to reject another paper about room temperature superconductivity than they otherwise would have been. But yeah, it’s a little misleading stuck in there like that.

        • MJBrune@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The confusing part specifically is “Similarly-presented research” which doesn’t say why it’s similarly-presented. It sounds like looking into it that it’s just “both were room temperature superconductors” but it could have also meant that “both are about LK-99”, “both are from the same university” or something like that. It’s ambiguous.