4 ms·

Serious question - With their past retraction, why wouldn't Nature demand independent verification of the results?

• sigmoid10 4y ago
  Peer review exists to make sure that the scientific methodology is sound. It doesn't protect from systematic incompetence or malice. So if you can make something sound reasonable, there's no reason they wouldn't publish you, especially for something so spectacular. On the other hand, your downfall will be even harder if the inevitable replication confirms that you screwed up. I can't imagine why this group would risk their entire career, because they already screwed this up once. If they did so again, they're done.
  • staunton 4y ago
    Looking at existing precedent, people who get caught in even the most blatant fraud (e.g. J. H. Schon) end up doing alright. One scapegoat will lose their position and credentials and go on to work in industry for about the same wage they would have expected prior to the "revolutionary work" that was exposed as fraud. Everyone else will not feel any repercussions at all and find positions (e.g. tenure) about as easily as they would have given the prestige of the group prior to being found out.
    • galangalalgol 4y ago
      Was the previous paper retracted due to honest experimental errors or the inability to produce results? Or was it something more concerning? Experimental errors happen to everyone, no need to crush careers over them.
      • mrguyorama 4y ago
        J. H. Schon actively defrauded the materials science community for like a year. It was no mistake.
    • sigmoid10 4y ago
      If you look at Pons & Fleischmann, their fraud was so bad that it essentially killed the entire field. You can't publish anything in that area anymore without getting dismissed immediately.
• Ekaros 4y ago
  They would not be first to release it? They also have to pick the most marketable stories...
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]