It is likely that no new materials were discovered. Most of the materials produced were misidentified, and the rest were already known. This happened because of problems in both the computational and the experimental portions of the work.
The computational predictions suffered as they generated structures with ordered cations, where in fact the same or very similar compounds are known with disordered cations. This inability to deal with compositional disorder is an important limitation of the methods used here. When the predicted, ordered, compounds were synthesised experimentally, the known, disordered, compounds were produced instead. This accounted for 2⁄3 of the whole list of compounds in the paper.
(...)
My personal view hasn’t changed from my initial analysis. This paper is incorrect in its headline claims. No new materials were discovered. The best thing to happen here is for the paper to be retracted while these fundamental issues are fixed, both on the computational and experimental side.
This was apparently a bust: