Reply to "Comment on Nature 586, 373 (2020) by E. Snider et al."

Ranga P. Dias; Ashkan Salamat

Reply to "Comment on Nature 586, 373 (2020) by E. Snider et al."

Ranga P. Dias, Ashkan Salamat

arXiv:2201.11883 · 2022-01-28

Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval

Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.

Abstract

In this paper, we respond to a recent criticism of our work on CSH, (1,2) raised by Hirsch and van der Marel on the arXiv (3). We point out that their non-peer reviewed critique (3) stems from either a lack of scientific understanding or a failure to appropriately analyze raw data. We explain that the use of their "Unwrapped" method was inappropriately performed. (3) We present scientific evidence that this basic and fundamental failure used in their method results in the false representations set forth in Ref (3). We also note that the raw data of Refs (1,2) were made available to Hirsch before he and van der Marel posted their comments on the arXiv. (3) We stand by the findings and conclusions of Refs (1,2) and remain committed to the integrity in scientific research.