/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15265736
I guess if one is outside of the field it is a little difficult to talk about the in-depth workings of a given paper. In this case the background of the individuals has attracted more discussion. I'll put in a high-effort post, though this is just a compilation of sources that have been mentioned in links posted ITT.

There's a lot of mainstream media attention given to this. Here's articles from NYT and WSJ, so Dias is basically a household name now:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/science/room-temperature-superconductor-ranga-dias.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/superconductor-breakthrough-energy-reddmatter-90dfa165

Science-specialized media have been more cautious in their reporting. They raise no specific issues with this paper but mention Dias' background, with the 2020 Nature retraction being the most famous issue. However, his other work has also met scrutiny.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/room-temperature-superconductor-discovery-meets-with-resistance-20230308
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/40

Specifically, two old papers that Dias was on have PubPeer comments from a few weeks back (pic). They make allegations that these papers contain data from Dias' thesis, which is not an issue in itself. However, in one case the data in the paper is noted to be identical to data in his thesis, though labeled as belonging to an entirely different material. In another case there is a measurement which should be the same material (and the same pictures of the sample are given) but the measured data is very different between the thesis and paper. Further on the thesis, it has been alleged that it contains several pages' worth of section plagiarized from another person's thesis.