Lee Seok-bae, CEO of the Quantum Energy Institute, is in the process of publishing his thesis in 'APL Materials', an academic journal published by the American Physical Society .
Will the LK-99 article pass peer review and be published by APL Materials before the end of the year ?
The article should be published in the APL website https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apm
If the article is retracted later that still counts as YES as long as it was published before 2024.
In particular, If the article is published but does not claim LK-99 to be superconductive or claims it to not be superconductive, that still counts as YES
Related questions
All results that U.S university fail to make superconductivity (LK-99) were already in Lee's paper.
WARNING: this market is deceptive. It uses the definite article to refer to the infamous lk-99 preprints both in the resolution criteria and in the title, but in the comments the OP says he will use the indefinite article and close this as YES even if whatever is published is not THE lk-99 papers claiming superconductivity.
Again, the OP has stated he’ll resolve positively if a journal entry is published even if the entry does not claim superconductivity. BEWARE!
@AdamTreat I don't think the question is deceptive, as I explained in responses to your comments. If you really think people are being deceived maybe you could suggest improvements to the title, or to the description.
@Odoacre Simple. Use the indefinite article not the definite article.
“Will APL Materials publish any research on LK-99 ?”
And
“Will an article about LK-99 pass peer review and be published by APL Materials before the end of the year ?”
And to be super clear you can put at the end of the resolution criteria:
“Any APL article with lk-99 as principal subject - even if it doesn’t claim superconductivity - will count as a YES.”
@AdamTreat I can add the superconductivity clause to the description but I think your title is too generic, I'm not referring to ANY lk99 article, I want the one the lk-99 authors have promised.
@AdamTreat That’s why I am mystified that you would accept as YES any article that failed to claim RTSC
@AdamTreat yes, but if they remove or retract the superconductivity claim that's still an article and it still counts as yes
@AdamTreat The only reason anyone here is interested or even talking about this is because they claimed RTSC
@Odoacre They will not retract as that has no scientific merit to be published by APL because the assertion was not peer reviewed in the first place.
But they might very well remove the superconductivity claim and just claim “interesting magnetic features” which again is deceptive to award as YES become people here are interested because of the superconductivity claim.
So if you want to resolve that as yes then use the indefinite article and change your title and resolution description
@DavidMathers But somewhat reassured that @chrisjbillington who seemed to have decent materials science knowledge on the other LK-99 markets is buying 'no' at 36% anyway.
@DavidMathers Yes, I still think it very unlikely, but as a general rule I don’t want to be involved in deceptive markets.
@AdamTreat I got so excited about the number of people coming in from outside to make "yes" bets for no real reason that I didn't think enough about deviant ways it could resolve yes.
@DavidMathers Unfortunately one of the skills necessary to cultivate on Manifold it seems is a cynical reading of resolution criteria and titles
Hmm, maybe we could use another few related markets distinguishing the strength of the article, if any?
Also I'd like one on whether any of the researchers will ever publish again.
This wording in resolution criteria indicates that any peer reviewed paper needs to be substantially similar to the already famous preprint that made the superconducting claims:
“Will the LK-99 article pass peer review and be published by APL Materials before the end of the year ?”
I will expect this to close as NO if any peer reviewed article is not generally similar to the two infamous preprints. In particular if some article is peer reviewed and published but does not make any superconducting claims I expect this article will resolve to NO.
Just want to get it in the record now and explicitly that this market is about supposed superconducting lk-99 and not just some article about non-superconductor lk-99
@AdamTreat I think an article about non superconducting LK-99 is infinitely better than no article. I would like to see such an article published so we can finally put the matter at rest. The only thing I would like more would be an article about superconducting LK-99.
Not claiming superconductivity means they admit it's not a superconductor, or at least that they failed to convince the reviewers (which is effectively the same thing). That's the whole point of peer review.
Why would I resolve NO?
@Odoacre If it is published it means it passes peer review. Your market as it stands is deceptive as your resolution criteria wording says “will THE lk-99 article” and your title says “THE research” and thus it refers to the now infamous articles/research claiming superconductivity.
@AdamTreat "the" refers to the planned article that will be published in APL materials. I have no way of knowing what the article will be until it is published
How will you resolve if the paper does not make any superconducting claims?
@AdamTreat if it's about LK99, and Lee Seok is one of the authors, it will be YES even if it does not claim superconductivity.
@Odoacre Well thanks for letting me know you are running a deceptive market I guess. I only lost 8 mana.
https://twitter.com/gimjiun79102152/status/1699792063846641776
Hyun-tak Kim said on Sep 2nd that their APLM paper on Lk99 was on the revision process, and it would take another 3w to get outline.
