3 ms·
The comment by Brian Skinner who discovered the correlated noise in a graph is available on Arxiv [1]. It's not claiming fraud but points out that such an effec
by _Microft 8y ago
The comment by Brian Skinner who discovered the correlated noise in a graph is available on Arxiv [1]. It's not claiming fraud but points out that such an effect of correlated noise below a threshold temperature between seemingly independent measurements has not been observed before.
Quit-your-bullshit played safe ;)
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.02929.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.02929.pdf
- williamscales 8y agoIt is indeed a very well written comment drawing attention to the issue. One imagines that there could be some explanation that isn't a deliberate attempt at data fabrication. Perhaps there was some temperature dependent process in their measurement apparatus that they didn't understand and it was getting suppressed by high magnetic fields. In their rush to show their results, this could have been overlooked. I don't know how likely that is, but it seems plausible in some sense.
- komali2 8y agoThat is a really smart way to play it, because while it is astronomically unlikely, it's possible the answer is "woops, we charted the wrong data there, here's the actual results" and we enter a beautiful new world of room temperature superconductivity. I get kind of exhausted of the typical response to Hot New Shit In Science, which hasn't changed in about four hundred years: outright, arrogant dismissal.
- SubiculumCode 8y agoOne would hope that the correlated noise was a problem in a plot command. Two observations. 1) The correlated noise in that plot seems obvious. If one was to fake data, why make it that obvious? 2) If it was a plotting error, that would be easy to check and to respond about.