A serious physics journal is retracting a two-year-old scientific paper that described the transformations of a chemical compound because it was squeezed between two items of diamond.
Such an esoteric discovering — and retraction — wouldn’t usually garner a lot consideration.
But one of the leaders of this analysis is Ranga P. Dias, a professor within the physics and mechanical engineering departments on the University of Rochester in New York who made a a lot larger scientific splash earlier this 12 months, touting the invention of a room-temperature superconductor.
At the identical time, accusations of analysis misconduct have swirled round Dr. Dias, and his superconductor findings stay largely unconfirmed.
The retracted paper doesn’t contain superconductivity however quite describes how a comparatively mundane materials, manganese sulfide, shifts its conduct from an insulator to a metallic and then again to an insulator beneath growing strain.
A criticism that one of the graphs within the paper seemed fishy led the journal, Physical Review Letters, to recruit exterior consultants to take a better look.
The inquiry arrived at disquieting conclusions.
“The findings back up the allegations of data fabrication/falsification convincingly,” the journal’s editors wrote in an e mail to the authors of the paper on July 10.
The Times obtained copies of the e-mail and three studies written by the surface reviewers. Those haven’t been printed however have circulated amongst scientists within the subject. The Campus Times newspaper on the University of Rochester and the journal Nature reported earlier on the upcoming retraction.
The reviewers have been all unconvinced by the reasons proffered by the authors. Furthermore, further information requested by the journal to again up the paper’s claims clearly didn’t match what had been printed.
While Dr. Dias continues to defend the work, to some scientists, there’s now clear proof of misconduct.
“There’s no plausible deniability left,” stated N. Peter Armitage, a professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who’s among the many scientists who’ve seen the studies. “They submitted falsified data. There’s no ambiguity there at all.”
Over the previous few years, Dr. Dias and his colleagues have printed a collection of spectacular findings in prime scientific journals.
The newest declare got here in March. They described, within the journal Nature, the invention of a superconductor — a cloth that conveys electrical energy with out dropping power to electrical resistance — that labored at temperatures as much as 70 levels Fahrenheit (though it additionally required a crushing strain of 145,000 kilos per sq. inch). Most superconductors need to be chilled to ultracold temperatures, which limits their sensible use.
Many scientists have been skeptical, nevertheless, as a result of an earlier superconductor paper by Dr. Dias and his colleagues, additionally printed in Nature, had already been retracted. Critics have additionally found that Dr. Dias’s doctoral thesis, accomplished in 2013 at Washington State University, comprises swaths of plagiarism that have been copied from different scientists’ work.
Several of the authors of the 2 Nature papers additionally seem on the Physical Review Letters paper on manganese sulfide. Those embrace Dr. Dias; Ashkan Salamat, a professor of physics on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; and Keith V. Lawler, a analysis professor at UNLV.
In an announcement supplied by his publicist, Dr. Dias stated, “We express our disappointment regarding the decision made by PRL’s editors and have duly submitted our responses to address their inquiries concerning the data quality in the original paper.”
No scientific misconduct occurred and the work contained no fabrication or manipulation of information, Dr. Dias stated within the assertion.
Dr. Salamat and Dr. Lawler didn’t reply to requests for remark.
Dr. Dias’s publicist stated the authors have been nonetheless in dialogue amongst themselves, and with the journal’s editors, concerning the subsequent steps.
Media representatives for the University of Rochester and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, stated the colleges have been conscious of discussions of the proposed retraction, and in the event that they obtained discover that the paper was retracted as a result of of misconduct, they might comply with their insurance policies for dealing with such allegations.
The Physical Review Letters inquiry centered on one determine within the paper that purported to point out electrical resistance in manganese sulfide. However, very comparable curves additionally appeared in Dr. Dias’s thesis for a completely totally different materials, germanium selenide.
The scientists, labeled Reviewers Alpha, Beta, Delta and Gamma, weren’t recognized. (Alpha and Beta collaborated on a joint report.) When requested for the unique experimental information used to generate the graph, Dr. Salamat supplied a spreadsheet of numbers that additional raised suspicions.
All of the reviewers famous that once they plotted Dr. Salamat’s information on a chart, they didn’t see kinks seen within the printed graph. “The alleged ‘raw’ data appears to be a smoothed and otherwise doctored version of the data shown” within the journal article, Reviewers Alpha and Beta wrote.
In their e mail, the journal editors wrote, “We view this lack of correspondence and what appears to be a deliberate attempt to obstruct the investigation as another ethical breach.”
The journal informed the authors that they may volunteer to retract the paper themselves. The journal added that it might retract the paper if the authors didn’t.
Until now, each the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the University of Rochester have lauded the potential breakthroughs {that a} room-temperature superconductor might result in.
“I hope this forces the institutions involved — the University of Rochester, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas — to confront what’s going here,” Dr. Armitage stated.
After James J. Hamlin, a professor of physics on the University of Florida, reported the similarities between the graphs, one of the paper’s authors, Simon A.J. Kimber, stated he instantly acknowledged issues with the resistance information.
“I called for a retraction less than 24 hours later and was uninvolved in attempts to prevent it,” Dr. Kimber stated in an e mail.
The different authors — Dr. Salamat and Dr. Dias, specifically — continued to defend the paper, saying that beneath strain, each manganese sulfide and germanium selenide act like metals, and thus it might not be shocking that each supplies would conduct electrical energy equally.
The reviewers weren’t satisfied, pointing to smaller kinks within the curves that gave the impression to be measurement glitches or noise.
“If you want an analogy,” stated one of the reviewers, who requested to stay nameless as a result of the reviewers haven’t been publicly recognized, “you could say, Oh, one blond actress looks like any other blond actress. But these blips are more like the mole on the cheek of Marilyn Monroe.”
To discover one other blond actress with an an identical mole on the identical location on the identical cheek would defy disbelief. That is how intently the manganese sulfide curve matches the germanium selenide one, this reviewer stated.
The conclusion within the report of Reviewer Gamma wryly famous that this match, if true, would herald a significant discovery — “a novel universality in nature” that totally different supplies beneath totally different situations behave the identical.
Reviewer Gamma added, “It is also conceivable that these findings suggest a departure from standard practices in experimental condensed matter research and require closer investigation.”
As the Physical Review Letters paper faces retraction, the superconducting declare from March stays in scientific limbo.
“The group that made this phenomenal claim is a group that now is demonstrably engaged in slipshod or even fraudulent data handling,” stated the reviewer who spoke on the situation of anonymity. “It just puts a giant beware sign on these results.”
The cloud of suspicion and uncertainty hovering over Dr. Dias overshadows earlier breakthroughs by different scientists, the reviewer stated. Beginning in 2014, a analysis group led by Mikhail Eremets of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany confirmed that hydrogen-containing compounds are superconductors at surprisingly heat temperatures when squeezed beneath ultrahigh pressures.
“There really does look like there’s high-pressure, near-room-temperature superconductivity,” the reviewer stated. “This is a phenomenal discovery and is broadly accepted in the community.”
Dr. Dias is just not the one researcher looking for a room-temperature superconductor. A paper posted by researchers in South Korea a number of days in the past claims that modifying the mineral apatite produces a superconductor that works at strange temperatures and pressures.
The manganese sulfide episode echoes a scientific scandal twenty years in the past at Bell Labs in New Jersey. A physicist there, J. Hendrik Schön, printed groundbreaking analysis that turned out to be fabricated.
“My initial reaction is that this is very similar to the Schön case in terms of what appears as data duplication,” stated Lydia L. Sohn, a professor of mechanical engineering on the University of California, Berkeley, who was one of the scientists who discovered practically an identical graphs in a number of of Dr. Schön’s papers.
Dr. Sohn stated the proof up to now was not sufficient to achieve a assured conclusion of scientific misconduct within the manganese sulfide work. She famous {that a} panel assembled to analyze the Bell Labs scandal supplied Dr. Schön the chance to confirm his experiments.
“The PRL authors should be given this opportunity as well,” Dr. Sohn stated. If the phenomenon is actual, she stated, “then the data will repeat.”