A study on the discovery of a superconducting material believed to work at room temperature, published in March, was withdrawn from the journal this week Nature at the request of some of its authors, who question its validity.
The event is all the more notable as it is the second withdrawal by Nature of a study on superconductors produced by the same team from the American University of Rochester, led by Professor Ranga P. Dias.
Researchers have been striving for decades to find a superconducting material, that is to say one in which the current encounters no resistance, but which is economical to use.
Manufacturers know how to manufacture superconducting cables or magnets using this property (as in MRIs for example), but with solutions requiring expensive and complicated cooling of the material, down to temperatures below -200 degrees Celsius.
To overcome this constraint, scientists discovered in 2015 materials that become superconductive at higher temperatures, around -75 degrees Celsius.
The team of Pr Dias claimed a major breakthrough in March 2023, with the discovery of a superconducting material at room temperature (21 degrees Celsius), and a pressure of 10,000 bars.
The publication of the study in Natureon March 8, was accompanied by a commentary welcoming the discovery, while warning that doubts remained about the data provided.
And for good reason : Nature had withdrawn in September 2022 a previous study by Pr Dias because of serious doubts about his method and data. A withdrawal contested at the time by the Rochester team.
This time, it is eight of the eleven authors of the March 2023 study – but not the Pr Dias — who signed a request for its retraction, concluding that several aspects “sabotage the integrity of the published article.”
Naturewhich had explained that it was subjecting this study to a more severe rereading, was forced to carry out its own investigation, after scientists contested the reality of Ranga P. Dias’ discovery.
The journal “concluded that these questions were credible, substantial and remain unresolved”, thus justifying its decision to unpublish the study.