The problem of researchers taking the discoveries of others and advancing the science of superconductivity, without attribution to those upon whose work they build, is becoming pandemic.
Since 2005 several universities around the world have not given proper credit - or any credit - to Superconductors.ORG (SCO) despite making discoveries based on SCO research. This problem includes outright plagiarism.
Below are some of the universities that have been contacted, yet still refuse to redress this problem.
In August 2005 SCO filed a patent claim regarding "planar weight disparity". Before that date there were no known references to "planar weight disparity" in any journals of superconductivity. Within this 2005 article it was specifically stated "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". Then in November 2005, SCO filed a patent claim for "Super YBCO", a new superconductor family based on planar weight disparity. That article also specifically stated "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED".
In 2006 and 2010 Universidad Nacional de Colombia published articles that claimed new discoveries within this same family of rare earth copper-oxides based on "planar weight disparity" without attribution of any sort. Below are direct quotes from both the UNAL article and original SCO article.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia 2010: "An exact 5050 mix of Yttrium and a heavy rare earth has been found to significantly improve Tc in the Lu0.5Y0.5Ba2Cu3O7-d by creating substantial planar weight disparity in alternating layers, which has previously been found to increase Tc.in copperoxide."
Original SCO article from 2005: "An exact 50-50 mix of Yttrium and a heavy rare earth has been found by Superconductors.ORG to significantly improve Tc. This creates substantial planar weight disparity in alternating layers, which has previously been found to increase Tc in copper-oxide superconductors."
This is a case of shameless plagiarism and lack of attribution. The 2010 UNAL article can be read in full at this link.
In June 2008 Superconductors.ORG (SCO) filed a patent claim and posted a news story on "Ultra YBCO", a Y358 variant of YBCO that produced a higher resistive Tc without additional elements. Some months later Sharif University of Iran contacted SCO by email and began asking questions regarding the synthesis of this material. Then, in September 2009, Physica C published an article by these same researchers purporting a "New Y-Based HTSC with Tc Above 100K". Nowhere in the article was Superconductors.ORG referenced or acknowledged.
These researchers are attempting to pass this discovery off as their own by saying "In this paper, we will report a new compound..." This false claim continues in the Abstract, where it reads "This is the first observation of such a high transition temperature in the Y-based compound." Sharif University did NOT make the "first observation".
The Sharif article can be read in full at this link.
And, to make matters worse, Physica C refuses to publish a correction. Jan Willem Wijnen of Reed Elsevier Publishing characterized this matter as mere "impoliteness". Such a cavalier attitude actually enables such bald-faced theft. Shame on the board of directors at Reed Elsevier. They have become facilitators for reprehensible conduct within the scientific community. The people behind this decision are listed below:Executive Directors:
In March 2010 Srinakharinwirot University of Bankok, Thailand, published an article claiming several new variants of YBCO, based on Y358. This article also gave no mention of Y358 being discovered by Superconductors.ORG. It only mentioned the Sharif University article. These researchers were contacted, yet still refuse to acknowledge SCO. To read the Thai article in full click here.
Then, in December 2017, yet another research team published an article on Y358 (in the Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism) that failed to give attribution to SCO. Bin Faisal University researchers in Saudi Arabia were contacted, but refused numerous requests to give recognition to Superconductors.ORG.
Since these researchers refuse to give credit, even when pressed, they clearly intend to usurp the work of others for personal glory. No independent researcher can be expected to continue to work hard, when the fruits of his labor are misappropriated by intellectual property thieves.