Bitter fight over 2020 Microsoft quantum paper both resolved and unresolved The journal Science is preparing to remove an editorial expression of concern that cast doubt on a five-year-old Microsoft quantum computing research paper. The notice is expected to be replaced by a correction that says researchers didn't present a full description of how they tuned the relevant devices and didn't present a …
"the challenge of maintaining civil peer review norms in the social media era "
What the heck does "social" media have to do with peer review ?
Peer review is conducted on scientific sites, not social media.
At least, that's the way it should be and, if it isn't, then Science is going down the drain just like the rest of us - no need for Trump.
What the heck does "social" media have to do with peer review ? - not peer review, but basic facts confirmation. Unfortunately, more and more "journalists" are either getting their "facts" from Instagram or calling scientists to ask for confirmation or denial of something inane that was posted in social media. Or even worse, when searching for someone for an authoritative opinion, their first criterion is popularity on social networks.
On the other hand, science is going down the drain. Trump and associates are just accelerating the process.
The other thing about social media is that it should be no surprise to anyone that it can be a venue for harassment and other forms of abuse.
That said, it seems to me that something's going on with the editorial board at Science.
This is the second editorial intervention in recent days, the first being the retraction of the "arsenic life" paper,1 not because of any allegations scientific misconduct but because of a hoohah over data and methods.2
Not having domain knowledge, I have no opinion one way or another about the validity of the paper's conclusions but it seems to me the way to question the results of an experiment is to try to replicate the experiment and publish your results, not attack the authors through side channels and attempt to wreck their careers.
__________________
1 Science: Fifteen years later, Science retracts ‘arsenic life’ paper despite study authors’ protests
2 Per the article above
. . . Science’s current Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp and Valda Vinson, executive editor of the Science family of journals, emphasize there is no suggestion of foul play in the GFAJ-1 paper. Instead, pointing to subsequent commentary and research that suggest some of the paper’s findings stem from contamination, not arsenic use by bacteria, they write: “Science believes that the key conclusion of the paper is based on flawed data.”
Sound very much like hunting a Shark. Clearly these Majorana beasties are wee timid creatures if not actually Boojums.
A bit of frame confusion with prof Frolov's "you can put your mac and cheese in it [microwave] and it will cook."
Puzzled why anyone would put an Apple product and cheese inside a microwave oven ? There are some right daft buggers among quantum physicists and physicists generally but even they wouldn't claim the outcome was "cooking."
Even after the penny dropped I am not sure that placing the flagship product of the Golden Arches, with additional cheese, in a microwave would be significantly better.
I thought Microsoft had pulled the plug on quantum computing and was going all in on AI. Perhaps their Baldrick cunning plan is to hybridize QC with AI so Copilot can present a superposition of answers that are simultaneously both right and wrong.
As Blackadder doubtlessly would retort:
"Given that gormless lot's abysmal track record you can expect a superposition of obviously wrong and utterly wrong."
"Puzzled why anyone would put an Apple product and cheese inside a microwave oven ?"
I'm told that the glue Apple uses to fasten their non-user replaceable batteries into the cases adds an unusual and quite unique flavor to some microwaved delicacies. As for cheese. A day without microwaved cheese is like ... well ... ehr ... a day without microwaved cheese.
• If your experiments, findings, and conclusions alter or conflict with the currently-accepted models of how things work, expect people with emotional and/or economic vested interests in those currently-accepted models to attack your work, and/or you.
• If your experiments, findings, and conclusions alter or conflict with the currently-accepted models of how things work, and you withhold data, or fail to describe your experiment in sufficient detail to allow reproduction by other teams, expect people -- high-standards-holding, nitpicky bastards such as myself -- to jump your shit.
• If your experiments, findings, and conclusions alter or conflict with the currently-accepted models of how things work, and you allow your public relations department to issue any statements or summaries ("Alfaz makes you thinner, stronger, and younger!") without your pre-publication, binding editorial review and control, expect people to criticise your data, your procedures, your findings, and your conclusions.
• If your experiments, findings, and conclusions alter or conflict with the currently-accepted models of how things work, and you even appear to have monetary, reputational, and/or political influences affecting your results, expect people to slam what you've done, and to also call your mother ugly.
You have to dot every 'i', and cross every 't'.
The paper was always unmitigated bollocks, but money and lawyers always win.
This is a field where organisations and governments are throwing upteen billions at in FOMO on quantum fairy dust in the hope to get a patent in first. Unsurprisingly there is no shortage of at best bad science but more likely outright fraud to keep those research grants coming.
Results depend upon whether the cat is watching or just asleep. As cats sleep more as they age I would expect the results of the experiment to slowly change over time, until the cat dies and a new young cat takes its place, whereupon the experimenters will look at the data and have kittens!
I'm convinced fur balls are a fundamental part of the structure of the universe so what do I know.
The original paper was deemed defective due to two primary issues:
* Incomplete Description of Device Tuning: The paper did not fully describe the methods used to tune the relevant devices, which is critical for replicating and validating the experimental results.
* Incomplete Data Catalog: The authors failed to provide a comprehensive catalog of the measured data, which undermined the transparency and verifiability of the findings.
