On the "Author Correction: Magnetic field screening in hydrogen-rich high-temperature superconductors", Nat Commun 14, 5322 (2023)

J. E. Hirsch

On the "Author Correction: Magnetic field screening in hydrogen-rich high-temperature superconductors", Nat Commun 14, 5322 (2023)

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.09073 v1 pith:LGVHDBKZ submitted 2024-08-17 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

J. E. Hirsch This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords publishedcommunauthorcorrectionalreadyanalyzecoauthorscompilation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

0 comments

read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Hydride superconductivity: here to stay, or to lead astray and soon go away?
cond-mat.supr-con 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

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.

Pith tools