4 ms·
There are concerns about this. [1] But for the past three years, the Rochester team—and Dias in particular—has been shrouded in allegations of scientific misco
by IncRnd 4y ago
There are concerns about this. [1]
But for the past three years, the Rochester team—and Dias in particular—has been shrouded in allegations of scientific misconduct after other researchers raised questions about their 2020 claim of room-temperature superconductivity. In September, the Nature paper reporting that result was retracted, as documented in Science and For Better Science. Further misconduct allegations against Dias have recently emerged, with researchers alleging that Dias plagiarized substantial portions of someone else’s doctoral thesis when writing his own and that he misrepresented his thesis data in a 2021 paper in Physical Review Letters (PRL). Jessica Thomas, Executive Editor of the Physical Review journals, confirmed that PRL has launched an investigation into that accusation. “This is a pretty serious allegation,” she says. “We are not taking it lightly.”
To understand those allegations, Physics Magazine independently examined Dias’ thesis and spoke with more than a dozen experts in high-temperature superconductivity, including Dias. Although opinions differ, an overwhelming majority agree that some form of misconduct has likely occurred. Dias denies the accusations. “I really do see all this as a scientific debate,” he says. “So even though these are meaningless, baseless claims, I really do think that these are adding to advancing the science.” He insists that the data for both of his room-temperature-superconductivity claims are robust and valid.
and
On a hunch, he pulled up Dias’ 2013 thesis and fed both his thesis and Dias’ into a plagiarism checker. His computer screen lit up; the two documents contained numerous identical passages. Physics Magazine independently compared the two theses and found dozens of paragraphs that match word for word and two figures that have striking similarities.
[1] https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/40 https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/40
- geoelectric 4y agoI’d recommend not using preformat for quoting, or using a very short line width if you do. Your comment is rather unreadable on the mobile version of the site for wrapping 4/5 of the way through each line, then hitting a hard EOL two words later.
- Dylan16807 4y agoThat doesn't sound unreadable at all. Even ignoring that it's better than what it used to do.
- IncRnd 4y agoThank you.
- geoelectric 4y agoAnd thank you! It’s much easier to parse now.
- lostlogin 4y agoThis would have been trivial to avoid for the cheater. Just rephrase the copied bits. Sloppy cheating is disappointing on so many levels.
- IncRnd 4y agoIt's also a path to near-ambient superconductivity, err sort of...
- geoelectric 4y agoThe thing that gets me is they have to know it’ll need to be reproduced under some kind of controlled condition eventually. Unless they were planning on a Theranos style fake it until you make it strategy, I have to wonder if they aren’t sincere. That’s not to say I think they’ve necessarily achieved their claim. If their procedure is as incredibly fiddly and measurements as subtle as I infer from the stuff I’ve read, that’s a lot of chances for mistakes and noise.