When you meet a colleague at #apsmarch, you discuss each other's work, family and war in 🇺🇦.
Then you may say 'oh, have you seen ...' I suggest the subject of that discussion my work with @VincentMourik on investigating unreliable research on the topic of Majorana.
A summary 🧵
1. The retracted Nature paper from last year is widely known. But do you know that there are several others hopefully headed in the same direction? They are...
2. A second @Nature paper from Delft including a lot of the same authors as the first one, currently under 'Editor's note'. Should be retracted:
3. A two-part @NatureComms + @NatureNano saga on 'Ballistic' Majorana. We have already shared a full post-publication analysis on the first part, the second part has...
4. The second part, in @NatureNano , has all the same problems as the first part, and should be retracted as well:
5. It is not just Delft, @QuTech_news , but also another @MSFTQuantum center in Copenhagen, which has published this paper we take apart in a 38-page post publication review.
Retraction will be necessary!
When it comes to the Copenhagen team, we have questions about several other papers, but the PI Charlie Marcus refuses to share data. The papers don't add up though, from the physics point of view and from what we know about these nanowires.
6. Last but not least, the infamous 'Chiral Majorana' paper @UCLA. Widely panned and praised at the time. It is totally unreliable and MUST be retracted immediately @ScienceMagazine . This is from a different research group and not investigated by us
7. TO BE CONTINUED. @VincentMourik and I have questions about other papers.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.