And don't tell me it is getting better. I am from an industrial city in Ukraine, and been smelling this all my life. It is bad in Pittsburgh.
I imagine hiring an Austrian postdoc called Bruno and then never talking about him
@JakeYeston why not extend this policy to all Science submissions, not only NIH funded?
@florian_krammer This is fantastic. And - no need to hire a data manager if all researchers collect and generate data in shareable form from to begin with.
I hope @NSF does the same. And that it does not just narrowly cover data from paper figures.
@ad_mico Generally, reproducibility is an issue. But here, in this paper, we just have reproducibly and robustly not-Majorana features which they just called Majorana without justification or disclosure that it is at least may be not Majorana.
you can't build a quantum computer without breaking a few qubits
@sdeliberato @davidUIB I think a fixed point of that is a wave of false ones because that becomes the only way to sustain the hype.
@MDrndic They call it 'Silvano' in their Zenodo repository after a paper by Silvano de Franceschi that first found the non-Majorana explanation in experiment. But they don't call it 'Silvano' in their paper, and they don't cite Silvano's paper.
@MDrndic I disagree on the last part. PRB or any other journal requires full discussion.
Finally, the proof burden for 'Topological Transition' - a new state of matter - was high even before the retraction and expressions of concern in the field. Now it is even higher
At a minimum, can a non-Majorana scenario be thoroughly discussed?
@davidUIB thanks. science can be ground to a halt by a flood of faux discoveries.
Given how many spurious quantum dots there are, a gap of 25 microvolt would be washed away by disorder over microns-long nanowire.
The ALTERNATIVE that this 'topological gap' is just ABS crossing zero bias is robust.
But wait, you say, they looked at not one, but two ends of a nanowire. That can only be Majorana?
Of course not. In the 11-dimensional space of parameters, you can find two points with similar looking features. We do not call that correlation.
An illustration from our paper:
To me, data like these are a tell-tale sign of Andreev states from multiple quantum dots: I see several states criss-crossing zero source-drain voltage, with differing slopes
Most likely, the sample has significant disorder that creates unintentional dots.
Is this known to the authors? Yes!
But, like the Science paper above, the new manuscript does not discuss the potent alternative explanation.
It is easy to see: papers about Andreev States mimicking Majorana are absent from the list of references.
There exists a well-established NON-MAJORANA explanation for sticky zero bias peaks and related phenomena (subgap features).
Here is a thread from a year ago where I explain Andreev Bound States in quantum dots, which are often unintended:
First, there is the context - the subject is under scrutiny. E.g. one paper from the same group is under an Editorial Expression of Concern.
The concern is about non-representative data selection, but scientific root is - alternative explanation!
If I got this paper as a referee, I would reject it for lack of proof.
(For anyone who is interested, I can be more technical in DM or email, details are not twitter-friendly…)
Here are a few general thoughts:
@ScienceMagazine @NeilLewisJr @ScienceCareers So, for example, have you made any changes to tracking review and publication process delays? Nothing to hurt a young scientist's career opportunities as getting stuck waiting for months and years for their paper to come out...