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…
Just to clarify, the only person suggesting the graduate students were responsible is the OP. Neither the retraction notice nor the Science news article (https://www.science.org/content/article/something-seriously-...)…
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…
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…
Just to clarify, the only person suggesting the graduate students were responsible is the OP. Neither the retraction notice nor the Science news article (https://www.science.org/content/article/something-seriously-...)…
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…