arXiv:2201.11883cond-mat.supr-con
Reply to "Comment on Nature 586, 373 (2020) by E. Snider et al."
Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.
Abstract
In this paper, we respond to a recent criticism of our work on CSH, (1,2) raised by Hirsch and van der Marel on the arXiv (3). We point out that their non-peer reviewed critique (3) stems from either a lack of scientific understanding or a failure to appropriately analyze raw data. We explain that the use of their "Unwrapped" method was inappropriately performed. (3) We present scientific evidence that this basic and fundamental failure used in their method results in the false representations set forth in Ref (3). We also note that the raw data of Refs (1,2) were made available to Hirsch before he and van der Marel posted their comments on the arXiv. (3) We stand by the findings and conclusions of Refs (1,2) and remain committed to the integrity in scientific research.
They were not at all forthcoming. In the original paper they stated: " The background signal, determined from a non-superconducting C–S–H sample at 108 GPa, has been subtracted from the data." Then after questions were raised, they published https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11883v1…
Extractor212View on HNParent context