Vincent Mourik

Data sharing helps avoid “smoking gun” claims of topological milestones Manipulating the topology of electronic bands can realize new states of matter, with possible implications for information technology. A central question is how to tell whether a topological regime ha...

The rarest of sights - a big glossy journal publishing negative replications! Yes, we had to bundle 4 replications into one article AND we had to wait 2 (!!) years in peer review, but here we are:

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

If publishing null results was a problem in my old field (physics beyond the Standard Model) there would have been, like, three papers in the past 30 years.

Kudos to Science – and of course Sergey and others like him who are holding their own fields accountable. That is how science progresses.

Bitter fight over 2020 Microsoft quantum paper both resolved and unresolved --The Register, 31 Jul 2025

2025 Headline of the Year nominee (July)

Freud's chuckling in the afterlife I suppose

Where's the commemorative plague recounting the events that took place at this historic spot?

YouTube video by Reuters Federal funding cuts could 'cripple science,' says Nobel Prize winner | REUTERS

Good to see John standing up for science

youtube.com/watch?v=7Vcm...

I'm sure its all worth it!

Yes, I was specifically alluding to your almost indefinite patience.

You are the anomaly.

@craiggidney.bsky.social If a technically versed reader needs to put in this much effort to understand a major caveat in a paper, that paper is misleading. The paper should be updated to fix this. Too bad published papers petrify and cannot be touched by mortal physicists.

Lol

I notice in my community numerous conferences featuring fraudsters. Along with people who stated that it's time to move on, and the lesson has been learned etc. Of course people who called out fraud are typically excluded.

I wonder if other communities went through this and have they survived?

There is no reliability nor safety in dealing with these people. 50/end

Summarizing: this nat com paper and the nat nano paper represents a decade of scientific malpractice, toxicity, intimidation, harassment, cover-up and plain retaliation at QuTech and TU Delft. Throughout all this I was a PhD student, post-doc and right now I am on a tenure track. 49/n

Vandersypen reach out to the leadership at my current employer, calling me an obstructionist and asking them to talk with me. I am still on a tenure track. 48/n

A few months later, after I publicly questioned Kouwenhoven / TU Delft's lobby of the Dutch government in the lead-up to the founding of QuantumDeltaNL (of which Delft got the lion's share of many many millions), Vandersypen retaliated against me. 47/n

Within a few weeks of his reinstatement as a full prof at TU Delft, right after the appearance of a scathing report of the Dutch educational inspection of toxic culture and social unsafety at Delft, Kouwenhoven harassed me at a conference we both attended. One of his team members did the same. 46/n

Io and behold, without an open integrity investigation against Kouwenhoven, the way was paved for his rehire as a distinguished professor at Delft University of Technology... Sidenote: Vandersypen used to be post-doc in Kouwenhoven's team, and was groomed by him for a leadership position. 45/n

to the Delft integrity committee for possible integrity violations regarding the nat com and nat nano papers (as if such a report can be unseen by an integrity committee...), upon which Tim van der Hagen and his board decided there was no longer a ground for the integrity investigation. 44/n

The other two being the ones related to the two retracted Nature papers. Here's the deal. Summer 2024, Lieven Vandersypen gets his final acquittal from the board, headed by Tim van der Hagen, of our complaint against him for not sharing data. Just prior to that, Vandersypen revoked his report 43/n

Parallel to this, based on our reports and suggestions, QuTech director Lieven Vandersypen had no choice but to make a report to the Delft integrity committee for possible integrity concerns regarding these two papers. This was a third integrity investigation into Kouwenhoven et al. 42/n

We went through a years long process of peer review of our criticism. I'm very relieved to no longer be an author on this piece of scientific malpractice and its nonsensical correction with perpetual editorial expression of concern. 41/n

During this time I also asked corresponding author Önder Gül if he knew of the data manipulations at the time in 2016, to which he responded affirmatively, see the science news piece. 40/n

Together with Sergey Frolov and Kun Zuo, we wrote an extensive analysis, which we submitted to the journal in December 2021, together with a request for removal of authorship in the case of myself and Kun Zuo. zenodo.org/records/6325... 39/n

I did get access to the full nature communications data in summer 2021, in my capacity as a co-author. I started analysing these and I found many undisclosed data manipulations, all to the effect of hiding unwanted features and propping conductance values up to the desired quantized value. 38/n

Comment on "Ballistic Majorana Nanowire Devices" by Gul et al. Nature Nanotechnology 2018 This work re-analyzes Gul et al. Nature Nanotechnology 2018 "Ballistic Majorana nanowire devices" using fuller data from the original experiments released in 2023 on Zenodo. The authors have prepared ...

They corrected some of their data manipulations, while hiding many more. For evidence of this, compare the correction of the nature nanotechnology paper to our recent analysis: arxiv.org/abs/2407.18623 37/n

This included a complaint against head of the board of the University Tim van der Hagen for his role in the obstruction of data sharing. Needless to say that all these complaints went nowhere. Throughout this time, Kouwenhoven et al started engaging with the journals on their own terms. 36/n

We went to the QuTech director, Lieven Vandersypen, with our data requests. He refused. We confronted him with the Netherlands Code of Conduct saying that materials should be shared for verification and reproduction. We didn't hear from him, we complained against him and other Delft officials. 35/n