5 ms·
Let's be less cynical. Nothing to do with borrowing reputation. The original authors have something. They don't have the expertise in condensed matter physics
by light_hue_1 3y ago
Let's be less cynical. Nothing to do with borrowing reputation.
The original authors have something. They don't have the expertise in condensed matter physics to really know what. They don't know how to report results and what results would be conclusive. Their work is simply not convincing, and if they were experts they would also not be convinced.
That's why they brought in another collaborator who is an expert. But because the paper was released early it's clearly a mess. You can see the big quality improvement though just between the two drafts.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago> Nothing to do with borrowing reputation. It's a pretty common practice across science.
- Qem 3y agoIt's not cynism. The disagreement about authorship apparently was motivated by someone in the original team being pushed aside to open a slot for the well connected "10k citations" guy. It's a old problem academia still fails to address. See: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science
- Facemelters 3y agoNo one knows if this version of events is true
- Qem 3y agoIndeed. But if further investigation reveals the situation to be what it appears to be, this would follow a long list of similar occurrences, the likes of César Lattes and Jocelyn Bell.