I would strongly recommend reading the critique of the data originally published by these authors: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S02179792237

I would strongly recommend reading the critique of the data originally published by these authors: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979223750012 https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S02179792237... The fact that "measured" data fits a cubic spline so well is extremely strong evidence of misconduct. This just doesn't happen with real data. The misuse of significant figures is also implicative.