[adrian_b]

The part with "cannot be explained by current knowledge" is an exaggeration, because the abstract of the research article explains it very well, based on the current knowledge.

However, "a counter-intuitive discovery" is true. Manganese is frequently used in stainless steels, but only as a cheap substitute for nickel, when this is considered as giving up the superior resistance to corrosion provided by nickel in exchange for the low cost provided by manganese.

The counter-intuitive result of the research is that there are circumstances when manganese provides improved corrosion protection, not only a lower cost.

The reason why this has not been discovered earlier is that manganese alone does not protect against corrosion, but only in an appropriate combination with chromium, when chromium protects both the steel and the manganese at lower electric potential differences, while manganese protects both the steel and the chromium at higher electric potential differences.

[colechristensen]

A paper is hardly worth publishing if "cannot be explained by current knowledge" isn't true.

It is, however, incredibly tacky to talk about your research like this.

[wolfi1]

you should know how to spin it. Take Müller/Bednorz for example, their paper just said "_Possible_ high Tc superconductivity in the Ba−La−Cu−O system" and they got the Nobel Prize in Physics one year later