No, this was just bad science from the beginning. I've done experimental physics research and the way this team published their results and how sloppy everythin

No, this was just bad science from the beginning. I've done experimental physics research and the way this team published their results and how sloppy everything looked is definitely not how science should happen, it's just a great way to ruin your reputation as a scientist (which the original authors thoroughly did). Every PhD student learns to e.g. include proof that an observed effect is not caused by a different mechanism than the one claimed (i.e. ferromagnetism instead of superconductivity), this is sorely lacking from the original publication. That paper would never have made it through peer review. The paper producing single crystal LK-99 and refuting the claims [1] is good science, read it and you'll immediately notice the differences in the quality of the text, the diagrams, presentation of methods, overall structure and conclusions. 1: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06256 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06256