tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post8734488392834232276..comments2024-03-28T04:15:44.459-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: APS March Meeting, Day 3Douglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-80391963619045314822021-03-19T20:09:30.434-05:002021-03-19T20:09:30.434-05:00I think the situation is a bit more nuanced; leavi...I think the situation is a bit more nuanced; leaving out data happens all the time. <br />Either because of artifacts (spikes due to range switching in Keithley's, XRD equipment with spurious peaks, Fourier filtering out periodic vibrations in STM data etc) or (more problematic) due to known physics that is not relevant for the effect at hand. The latter could be XRD peaks due to sample containers or clips or something like that.<br /><br />I do think in this case what they left out was problematic, because it is physics of the sample, and it thus describes the sample, provides a more complete picture of the sample. It can be okay to leave that out, BUT it should be noted in the paper. <br />That is the standard even for artifacts as vibrations in STM - you can take it out but have to let folks know. <br />This case it is actual physics, so certainly they have to mention that they did that.<br /><br />The "bad" part is not correct language here, I think. Bad supposes an intention. And frankly, we don't know. Intentions are generally unknown, even if people think they know.<br /><br />Incorrect, inappropriate actions can be called out. Intentions, bad or otherwise, remain hidden from the viewer, unless you have metaphysical powers.<br /><br />I suggest to only describe the facts. <br /><br />And even there I find the report of the investigative panel to be almost borderline - though they base their remarks about (absence of bad) intention on interviews with the actors here. <br /><br />I do think the Delft group acted wholly inappropriately, blind, not objective enough in looking at their own data. <br /><br />I also note that the excuse (read the report, paraphrased here) "these papers in Nature do not allow for the length to fully describe everything" - implying they would have described all they did (leaving out data) had they submitted their work to e.g. PRB - to be galling. <br />And I leave you to draw your own conclusion about glossy short format journals...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-54813786337764075022021-03-19T08:37:41.496-05:002021-03-19T08:37:41.496-05:00Anons, yeah, selectively leaving out data points o...Anons, yeah, selectively leaving out data points or regions of gate voltage is definitely bad. The fact that there was an independent panel that investigated shows that it was taken seriously by Delft. I agree that the whole thing is disappointing.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-62470108680351169682021-03-19T04:19:41.310-05:002021-03-19T04:19:41.310-05:00I also doubt that the problems with the Delft pape...I also doubt that the problems with the Delft paper can be explained by just confirmation bias. Data appears to have been manipulated to confirm with what they wanted to show. For example the calibration error that shifted their plateau onto the expected quantized value. Overall, it just looks really bad and I feel deeply disappointed by the involved scientists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-88523873483501659292021-03-18T08:45:34.944-05:002021-03-18T08:45:34.944-05:00What did you think about the Delft group saying th...What did you think about the Delft group saying that in the 2018 paper they had deleted points in a graph? I think this should be a scandal in and of itself. One can understand the self-biasing towards an interesting result, but deleting data and not coming clean up to 3 years later? In my mind it should be more of a scandal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com