The paper argues that the magnetic evidence cited in a recent expert comment does not support hydride superconductivity, and that the field's claims rest on unverified or unavailable data.
On the "Author Correction: Magnetic field screening in hydrogen-rich high-temperature superconductors", Nat Commun 14, 5322 (2023)
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
1
Pith paper citing it
abstract
I analyze the implications of the recently published "Author Correction" (Nat Commun 14, 5322 (2023)) to a paper by Eremets and coauthors reporting magnetization measurements on hydrides under high pressure (Nat Commun 13, 3194 (2022)) to the understanding of the validity and reproducibility of the published data. This paper is a compilation of several different papers already published or to be published in the scientific literature.
citation-role summary
background 1
citation-polarity summary
fields
cond-mat.supr-con 1years
2024 1verdicts
REJECT 1roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Hydride superconductivity: here to stay, or to lead astray and soon go away?
The paper argues that the magnetic evidence cited in a recent expert comment does not support hydride superconductivity, and that the field's claims rest on unverified or unavailable data.