Once again the credibility of the so-called prestigious scientific research journal Nature was exposed as a major study it published was retracted after a good two years. On September 27, Nature reported that it has retracted a study on room-temperature superconductivity that was published in October 2020.
The study was titled “Room-temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride” and it made the groundbreaking claim that the researchers were able to create a superconductor at a temperature of only 15 ˚C.
In the field of conductivity or electronics, this claim would mean a historical turning point. Superconductivity is not thought to be achievable at such high temperatures; it’s thought to work only at absolute zero, which is 273 degrees below zero Celsius (- 273˚C). In some settings, applying a very high pressure has allegedly led to some limited success in work of developing superconductor properties in some material.
In this respect, the claim of creating a superconductor at only 15 ˚C would be taken with extreme caution and the study would be published after thorough investigation and fact-checking. But not with a so-called prestigious journal like Nature, which published the study in October 2020. Multiple researchers who read the paper in Nature found flaws with the relation between magnetic susceptibility and temperature.
The question is how come Nature didn’t see these flaws while publishing the paper. And what does it say about the so-called peer review process that is supposed to validate research as credible enough to be published? It says everything about the nominal fact-checking process as well as the credibility of scientific journals that brag about presenting “real science” to the world.
It’s worth mentioning that Nature has a history of publishing research papers that it later retracts when shown to be faulty, ranging from controversial stem cell studies to research making climate change claims. The retractions seemingly are the tip of the iceberg of junk science that has little substance to it other than corporate profits and political agenda tied to it. At times, Nature has openly come out in political support of globalist-leftist politicians, like Hillary Clinton in 2016, for high offices.