4 ms·

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, ha

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 https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11883v1, where they say: "We note here that we did not use the measured voltage values of 108 GPa as the background." If the second statement is true then, at best, the first statement is highly misleading. Furthermore, they have not been at all forthcoming about how exactly that background subtraction was performed - despite repeated requests for clarification. I challenge anyone to understand the background subtraction methodology that they describe in the second paragraph of page 2 in the article linked above. In my mind, what is at question here is not only the validity of the background subtraction, but the validity of the raw data itself. If the raw data is valid, then why are they unable to show how to go from raw data to published data?

jjk166 4y ago
Their explanation of the background subtraction methodology seems pretty clear to me, and I don't see how their statement in the first paper could be construed as misleading nonetheless deceitful. They are able to show how they went from the raw data to the published. Unless you are claiming that the raw data itself is completely made up (in which case why not just make up data that gives the result they want with a different background subtraction method?) then I don't see how the validity of the raw data is in question.
- Extractor212 4y ago
  Here is the text in question: "We selected the background after carefully investigating the temperature dependence of the non-superconducting CSH sample at 108 GPa, the closest pressure prior to the superconducting transition. We note here that we did not use the measured voltage values of 108 GPa as the background. We use the temperature dependence of the measured voltage above and below the Tc of each pressure measurement and scale to determine a user defined background (Fig. 2a). The scaling is such that one achieves an approximately zero signal above the transition temperature; the subtracted background isolates the signal due to the sample." I challenge you to actually repeat what they did using that description. It is not a complete description. And no, they did not "show how they went from the raw data to the published". Just because they said they did, doesn't mean they did. The raw data is in question because it's impossible to understand how subtracting two noisy data sets would produce data that is a combination of a spline and digitized data.

jjk166 4y ago

Their explanation of the background subtraction methodology seems pretty clear to me, and I don't see how their statement in the first paper could be construed as misleading nonetheless deceitful. They are able to show how they went from the raw data to the published. Unless you are claiming that the raw data itself is completely made up (in which case why not just make up data that gives the result they want with a different background subtraction method?) then I don't see how the validity of the raw data is in question.

Extractor212 4y ago
Here is the text in question: "We selected the background after carefully investigating the temperature dependence of the non-superconducting CSH sample at 108 GPa, the closest pressure prior to the superconducting transition. We note here that we did not use the measured voltage values of 108 GPa as the background. We use the temperature dependence of the measured voltage above and below the Tc of each pressure measurement and scale to determine a user defined background (Fig. 2a). The scaling is such that one achieves an approximately zero signal above the transition temperature; the subtracted background isolates the signal due to the sample." I challenge you to actually repeat what they did using that description. It is not a complete description. And no, they did not "show how they went from the raw data to the published". Just because they said they did, doesn't mean they did. The raw data is in question because it's impossible to understand how subtracting two noisy data sets would produce data that is a combination of a spline and digitized data.