Science does not stand still. New opportunities for research keep appearing and, as a result, new findings and discoveries happen hand to hand with artifact discoveries. These discovery some time with considerable controversy in the literature, sometimes at unusually impoliteand unprofessional levels. Some time artifact discoveries also surprised the world of science.
1) Different groups presents different results on same material and trying to prove each other results as wrong. Is it not sicietificy sound if these groups exchange specimens before they claim the work of others is simply wrong?
2) In some cases materials have been considered to be with ground breaking discovery when the data can be interpreted more simply via other well-known mechanisms. Is it not import to look wider before claims a breakthrough discovery?
3) In some cases the experimental results are true, despite theory implying that this is not possible. Is it appropriate to reject a experimental output just because theory doesn't exits which can explain it?
4) Controversy and attention on a new anomalous phenomenon such as Room Temperature Superconductivity.
Questions of ethics, plagiarism, theft. Two paper same abstract and work, line to line. One in Impact 46 and another in 5.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0060-5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024818302824
Aga, what seems to be the problem? Just contact the Editor of the Nature Energy and report the theft.
Sergei
Dear Sergei, I think the authors of nature Energy has approached the editorial board.
Dear Aga, if you imply a possible collusion between the authors and the Editorial board members, you should make this case public using another respected journal. This practice must be stopped ASAP!
Sergei
I am not an author and I just got this news when a number of people have taken it to Twitter and Facebook.
I am just feeling surprised, that these kind of thing are happening in the digital era and also in a well reputed journal.
Good News is that the Elsevier has started investigation on this paper.
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/08/23/elsevier-investigating-paper-on-solar-cells-that-appears-to-plagiarize-a-nature-journal/
You did it, Aga. Congrats! I will be closely watching the retraction development.
Sergei
Dear Sergei. I didn't do it. It has been done by Konrad Domanski, one of the corresponding authors of the Nature Energy paper
Dear Sergei, What is your opinion about "Preprint Evidence for Superconductivity at Ambient Temperature and Pr...
"A Room Temperature Superconductor? Well. . . . By Derek Lowe http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/08/13/a-room-temperature-superconductor-well
Short commentary on comparing previous claim of RT superconductivity with the data of arXiv:1807.08572, ”Evidence for Superconductivity at Ambient Temperature and Pressure in Nanostructures” by D. K. Singh https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.04912.pdf
Short Note on Superconductivity at Ambient Temperature and Pressure in Silver Embedded Gold Nano-particles: A Goldsmith job ahead by S. Awana https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1808/1808.01797.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics
- Condensed Matter Physics