Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Analysis of "Revaluation of the lower critical field in superconducting H_3S and LaH_10 (Nature Comm. 13, 3194, 2022)" by V. S. Minkov et al

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

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 2409.12211 v1 pith:ZGA54WXJ submitted 2024-09-18 cond-mat.supr-con

classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords dataanalysisminkovpublishedreportedresultsrevaluationunderlying
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In Nat Comm. 13,3194 (2022) [1] and an "Author Correction" to it [2], Minkov et al. presented magnetization data versus applied magnetic field for H_3S and LaH_10 under pressure, argued that the data provide evidence that these materials are superconducting at high temperatures, and extracted from the reported data the behavior of lower critical fields versus temperature. In several papers [3,4,5,6] analyzing Refs. [1,2] it was shown that the published magnetization data could not have been obtained from the reported measured data through the processes described in Refs. [1,2]. Recently, Minkov et al performed a revaluation of their experimental results [7] and argued that the results derived from their new analysis are consistent with the results reported earlier [1]. In addition, they made public the underlying data [8] from which the data published in Ref. [1] were derived. In this paper we analyze those underlying data and conclude that (a) the data published in Ref. [1] are incompatible with the underlying measured data, and (b) the revaluation analysis presented in Ref. [7] does not support the conclusions drawn by the authors in Ref. [7] nor Ref. [1].

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. Reply to "Is $MgB_2$ a superconductor? Comment on "Evidence Against Superconductivity in Flux Trapping Experiments on Hydrides Under High Pressure" "

    cond-mat.supr-con 2024-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    Hirsch and Marsiglio rebut claims that their Bean-model analysis of trapped flux misrepresents the Meissner state, arguing the Comment plotted their equations outside their valid field range.

Pith tools