• xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would be very skeptical of this paper’s claims.

    1. It hasnt been peer reviewed

    2. The data hasn’t been replicated

    3. The clains being made are extraordinary. i.e a cheap material that has a superconduction transition temperature 200 degrees kelvin above the cuprates at standard pressure

    4. The fragility of this superconductive state makes me wonder if what theyre claiming to observe is an artifact (pathological science) rather than a real effect

    5. The paper is “rough around the edges” i.e multiple proofreading mistakes and has undergone little apparent editing for quality

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is always room for pathological science. Especially when something like room temperature superconductors are the subject in question. A good researcher will try to find and test all the alternative hypotheses that they can. i.e contrast the cisplatin paper with fleischmann and pons’ paper about cold fusion. This paper reminds me a lot more of the cold fusion paper than it does the cisplatin paper. Another example of a bad paper would be NASA’s announcement of a microbe that used an Arsenic containing analog of DNA.