The report was published in Nature on March 8th, 2023:
Dasenbrock-Gammon, N., Snider, E., McBride, R. et al. Evidence of near-ambient superconductivity in a N-doped lutetium hydride. Nature 615, 244–250 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05742-0
This will resolve to yes if an independent replication is published in a reputable scientific journal before 01/01/2025.
For more background, see:
Absence of near-ambient superconductivity in LuH2±xNy
Admittedly an early pub, without review, but it doesn’t look good for the Dias lab
It has been peer reviewed, just not copy edited and proofed. The disclaimer on the paper reads:
This is a PDF file of a peer-reviewed paper that has been accepted for publication. Although unedited, the content has been subjected to preliminary formatting. Nature is providing this early version of the typeset paper as a service to our authors and readers. The text and figures will undergo copyediting and a proof review before the paper is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.
@craftyvisage Ah! My mistake, I misread that disclaimer
So how does this resolve if there are one or more non-replications? Still wait until 2025?
Yes, wait until 2025.
A hypothesis has been advanced in this paper that different isotopes of Nitrogen might have been used by the Dias Lab (15N) to dope their lutetium hydride compared to potentially (unverified guess) of 14N doping by Hai-hu Wen et. al. One of these isotopes has a negative NMM (15N), the other (14N) has a positive NMM. https://ej-physics.org/index.php/ejphysics/article/view/255
This market is indeed free money. Being passingly familiar with RetractionWatch, and how hard it is to call out even blindingly obvious and not even very effortful fraud, it's easy to see all the signs. Scientists will hem and haw to be polite but "this other time very recently, some of the people in this team fabricated data" overrides any optimism about the paper. The chances of another team independently manipulating their data the same way, which can pretty much only happen intentionally, are minuscule.
Haha this market is free money. It's peer-reviewed and in nature. Yes, obviously this group has stirred controversy before, but there's no way anyone in this field (myself included, as a materials scientist) would give this anything below 50% chance of being replicated.