I noticed that too.The writing style itself seems a bit strange. I'm not deep into superconductors, so I can't judge the science itself but I have doubts about how much trust this article can give.
Maybe just a combination of academic jargon and English not being the authors first language? At this point I would also not be surprised if language models are used for writing abstracts.
The two teams could "synergize" their tacit knowledge, overcome "involution"?
Without open peer review like in the old days it's hard, even with frontier models, for nonexperts to know if the above breakthrough was (unfairly?) relegated or how significant TFA is truly
The writing here seems very odd. It reads like a product announcement or blog page, not an article in Nature. I'm left questioning its validity.
I noticed that too.The writing style itself seems a bit strange. I'm not deep into superconductors, so I can't judge the science itself but I have doubts about how much trust this article can give.
Hmm. I didn’t get that impression from a quick skim. Just curious: what makes you think that?
I would guess it's the 'vast' and the 'unprecedented' for example.
Maybe just a combination of academic jargon and English not being the authors first language? At this point I would also not be surprised if language models are used for writing abstracts.
That was fun but this is gun?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-026-03375-4
The two teams could "synergize" their tacit knowledge, overcome "involution"?
Without open peer review like in the old days it's hard, even with frontier models, for nonexperts to know if the above breakthrough was (unfairly?) relegated or how significant TFA is truly