Comment on “ Carbon content drives high temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride below 100 GPa” by G. A. Smith, I. E. Collings, E. Snider, D. Smith, S. Petitgirard, J. S. Smith, M. White, E. Jones, P. Ellison, K. V. Lawler, R. P. Dias and A. Salamat, Chem. Commun., 2022, 58, 9064

Chem. Commun. 59, 5765 (2023)
(Paper commented on: Chem. Commun. 58, 9064 (2022))
To read the Comment if you can't access it at the journal, write to and ask them to allow posting it, or email me for a copy.

Abstract: Experimental data supporting the claim that a carbonaceous sulfur hydride (CSH) under pressure is a high temperature superconductor were presented. Here we report results of a mathematical analysis that indicates that with probability larger than 1–10-338 some of those data were not measured in a laboratory, contrary to what the papers claim. This finding undermines confidence in the claim that any of the experimental evidence reported in those papers reflects the properties of real physical samples of CSH.

Note: the journal's policy on Comments is:
For publication, a Comment should present an alternative analysis of and/or new insight into the previously published material. Any Reply should further the discussion presented in the original article and the Comment. Comments and Replies that contain any form of personal attack are not suitable for publication.

Comments that are acceptable for publication will be forwarded to the authors of the work being discussed, and these authors will be given the opportunity to submit a Reply. The Comment and Reply will both be subject to rigorous peer review in consultation with the journal’s Editorial Board where appropriate. The Comment and Reply will be published together.

The authors submitted a Reply that did not pass through peer review.