> but such papers have never come under the scrutiny of peer review process as well. Except that such pre-prints far outnumber the supportive pre-prints, are

> but such papers have never come under the scrutiny of peer review process as well. Except that such pre-prints far outnumber the supportive pre-prints, are from verifiable scientists at reputable institutions, are in agreement with each other, and are not making claims of a shocking scientific breakthrough. As there is no substantial evidence to support superconductivity claims it's reasonable to dismiss them until said group decides to provide evidence. If you recall the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. > It is just frivolous to say whether LK-99 is superconductor or not for now. I don't think it's frivolous given the distraction and resource-sink this has been.