Resolves YES if the following arxiv link labeled 'Main paper' is updated to include a retraction of the original results, in 2023. NO otherwise.
Small experimental adjustments or clarifications won't count. The paper is allowed to produce a genuine new discovery, as long as the claim to have produced room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductors is retracted. If there is a disagreement among the authors, any author registering a retraction with arxiv is sufficient. If any authors request a retraction and arxiv does not comply, I may still accept it as a retraction as long as arxiv confirms they received the request.
Statements by journalists or other scientists won't count.
Main paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008
Companion paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
Related questions
@Mira the market says "following link" but there are two links following. Maybe worth clarifying in the description, I think I read below that it's about the main paper.
I think the community is way too high on this. Scientific papers rarely get retracted, even if they are totally debunked. And this is on Arxiv, which I don't even think has a retraction process (until the scientists remove it themselves). The scientists behind it also insist that it is a superconductor, and it will take months for them to fully publish their results.
@PelegShilo Resolution criteria specifies arXiv confirming they received the request is enough, not actual retraction.
It could happen now that there is more focus on "Research Misconduct"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/science/retraction-ranga-dias-rochester.html
The retracted paper did not involve superconductivity, but it added to accusations against Dr. Dias of research misconduct, including the fabrication and falsification of data. While the University of Rochester dismissed earlier allegations, a spokeswoman said this week that it had initiated a comprehensive investigation of Dr. Dias’s research by outside experts.
Nine of the 10 authors of the paper, which was published in Physical Review Letters, agreed to the retraction. Dr. Dias was the lone holdout, and he has maintained that the paper accurately portrays the research findings. However, he said on Tuesday that his collaborators, working in the laboratory of Ashkan Salamat, a professor of physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, introduced errors when producing charts of the data using Adobe Illustrator, software not typically used to make scientific charts.
The Flat Hat, The College of William and Mary's student newspaper since 1911, reports that arXiv admins have been contacted. I request immediate resolution by confirming with arXiv admins.
@NicoDelon I know "Statements by journalists or other scientists won't count", but I believe "If any authors request a retraction and arxiv does not comply, I may still accept it as a retraction as long as arxiv confirms they received the request" applies. The Flat Hat article is a prima facie evidence that arXiv has already received the request. So I am requesting resolution by confirming with arXiv.
@SanghyeonSeo The report is vague and confusing. Mira should check with arxiv at some point, but no one gets to ‘request’ an ‘immediate’ resolution, much less based on a student newspaper.
@BTE Scientific is roughly 0.0004% (around 400- 700 papers per year) , Medical is higher mostly due to Covid skewing the averages much higher in recent years due to falsified reporting.
@jskf pre-prints.
Published are less likely since they are peer-reviewed before being put in journals.
@jskf My books published by the United Nations Office on Scientific Affairs and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Data may be skewed since more Asian/Middle Eastern countries do not usually have great data. Data is published in paperback form every 5-10 years.
Summarizing the discussion that got buried below: This is about the first of the two papers, which was uploaded without the permission of the first author, and is now being retracted. Considering this, "Yes" seems undervalued.
"If it is determined that a violation of the Code of Conduct has occurred, arXiv will take enforcement actions. The enforcement will depend on a number of factors, including the channel where the violation happened, whether it was directed at a specific individual or a group of people, if it is part of a pattern of repeated violations, and the severity of the violation.
The following are examples of possible enforcement actions, which may be taken alone, in combination, or with additional measures not listed here.
Email Notification
In all cases, the violator will receive a written warning explaining the violation.
If additional enforcement actions are required, the email will also explain the enforcement action and its duration.
Account Level Enforcement
Verifying account identity: arXiv staff may take extra steps to ensure that the user is representing themselves accurately.
Suspending submission privileges: the user may not be allowed to submit papers for a designated period.
Flagged account: the user’s account may be flagged, notifying administrators and moderators to more closely monitor the user’s activity.
Suspending user account: the user will not be able to access their account.
Submission Level Enforcement
If a submission (or the user’s related arXiv offense) violates arXiv policy or legal requirements, the submission may be removed, withdrawn, or redacted. Similarly, a violator’s ownership of a submission may be removed, or arXiv could require replacement of the submission.
arXiv may edit the submission’s metadata, including adding metadata notes."
https://info.arxiv.org/help/policies/code_of_conduct_enforcement.html
What is moving this market? As far as I can tell, the only thing remaining is mainly administrative, that of Sukbae Lee actually going through the process of retraction. This can't be resolved or be 99% yet since there is a possibility of him changing his mind, but the chance seems minuscule.
Is there some information I am missing?
@SanghyeonSeo Preprint from Berkeley explaining a possible theoretical underpinning for the observed phenomenon. Probably it's being given too much weight though.
@jonsimon Sanghyeon is right though, the prob. of LK-99 being superconducting has no bearing on whether the THREE author paper (this one) will be retracted. Two of the three authors have already seemingly stated they would like to retract it.
@BenjaminShindel Actually, Hyun-Tak Kim is not the author of this paper, so it's only one of three authors. But yes, I do think Sukbae Lee is speaking for the whole group.
@SanghyeonSeo A retraction of the 3-author arxiv paper will resolve this market YES even if the superconductor is real and the other papers stand. I won't resolve based on a translated interview that mentions a retraction, and am currently waiting for arxiv's confirmation that they received the retraction request or to see it withdrawn on the site.
If I don't see it withdrawn on the site by market close, I plan to email arxiv moderators and ask them if they received a retraction request from any of the paper's authors.
