Just a reminder that’s not everything one can find in a paper (never mind a preprint) is true. The response from the community was great. Modellers doing some e

Just a reminder that’s not everything one can find in a paper (never mind a preprint) is true. The response from the community was great. Modellers doing some electronic structure calculations, synthesis experts trying to re-create the material, people doing all sorts of characterisation. The closest parallel I can think of is the faster-than-light neutrinos from a couple of years ago. Except that this time there were many teams and individuals all over the world trying to replicate the results. The material was supposedly easy to make, the reagents were quite easy to find, room-temperature conductivity measurements are not too difficult. There was a lot of enthusiasm and activity, which was really motivating. The fact that it could not be replicated is not surprising, considering the sloppiness of the original preprint. But still, it was a very public example of science in action. What was also interesting is the response from some corners of the Internet who were more than happy to bash scientists who were supposedly trying to cover up their own incompetence by debunking the plucky researchers from a brave private institution. Well, most often if something sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.