Nature’s news coverage and the quote war

50:41um so I I wanted to dig a little bit deeper. So, nature has a news article about this, right? >> Where they talk about this they they talk about like this paper and all of the other research around it. And nature being nature, they have to acknowledge that they themselves published a previous paper, right? So, what what's going on? So, I'm just going to read a little bit snippet of that of that news article, right? First of all, we we see um Shaoner who's the the reviewer number one. >> He gives a brief expose about like he says that the pattern of the diffraction peaks that are obtained very closely mimic that of hexagonal diamond and to

51:22demonstrate hexagonal structure conclusively there's a few more peaks that I really wanted to see. Once I saw that, the new paper shows those peaks, that's why I believe it. Okay? So, he's he you know true to his word, reviewer number one gave them a hard time, but and then went to go comment on the public on the public thing and said I was the reviewer, I believe it, I stand by this paper along with the authors. >> Right, which is a crazy >> Yeah. >> Like, you know, like yeah. >> Right? >> Yeah. >> Now, they mentioned last year another research group independently reported making hexagonal diamond. This is the 2025 paper out of Shanghai. And would they get a quote from those

52:04authors >> Oh, no. >> from the from the from last year's paper. And that guy, Houquang Mao from Shanghai, he says, "It looks like the new paper is very similar to ours. I have to say I cannot see any difference." He's quoted, right? And then and then and then he says, "But we're glad they have reproduced our results." Which is effectively a scientific way of saying they didn't do anything new. >> Right. >> They just I can't There It's effectively they're saying I can't believe a reproduction paper >> Yeah, right. >> also got into Nature. >> Right. >> So, something happened, bro. Like, something happened with these two groups. >> And um Schauer

52:45>> Yes. >> who's the reviewer number one, >> Yeah. >> he did a minor clapback. >> Yeah, yeah. >> He said it's almost the same, >> Yep. >> but he pointed out that the X-ray analysis by Mao and his colleagues, this is the previous paper, >> Yeah. >> that X-ray analysis lacked one or two of the diffraction peaks that are expected to be seen in hexagonal diamond. >> Mhm. >> So, he's saying this paper has a definitive like hexagonal diamond X-ray diffraction pattern. >> That perhaps the other one didn't. >> Right. >> But I just this whole saga is hilarious to me. >> And and you actually brought this up when we did episode five where you you said, "I think there might be another team that is working on this within >> within China.

53:25>> within China, but the this these guys got out first. >> Yeah. >> Um and you had literally like it was I wish I will try to see if we can do a like a our our our throwback thing here because your statement on that episode is almost literally exactly >> out it was this. It was this team. It was the that was doing >> it. I mean so two things. One, this is hilarious. I love scientific beef and beef among scientists. I wonder what conferences are like. Uh yeah, you know. >> Because because I think the point is like this is this is um it is a 50-plus-year-old >> Yeah. >> um unsolved problem. >> Mhm. So the prestige and the street cred

54:06and yada yada that you'll get from it for being first. >> Yeah. >> Uh matters. >> Yes. >> A lot. >> Yes. >> Especially in the material science cuz this resolves the simulation. Uh like