the dft results are definitely interesting, but i note that with the caveat that my background is in experimental condensed matter physics for materials like this and not theoretical, my understanding is that the dominant feature of the conclusions (the flat bands) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for superconductivity in the way the authors describe.
again, in experimental condensed matter physics it's acceptable to do a fine experiment and then throw in a half-baked "theoretical underpinning" to appease reviewers, so I wouldn't be surprised if the superconductivity turns out to be totally unrelated to the mechanism proposed in the paper. i would really like to see some more robust characterization work(biased because this is my background), hopefully some of the labs doing the replication studies can take a look at the juicy stuff
i should also have mentioned that I do not personally know the extent of his knowledge about superconductivity, to my understanding he was an expert on the synthesis of phase change materials, particularly the metal insulator transition. in the 2nd paper he is cited for proposing the superconductivity mechanism based on mechanisms seen in the metal-insulator-transition, which I have not seen before as an SC mechanism
i agree re. skepticism but all I'm saying about HT Kim is that he's a real scientist with real bona fides, which I think you could find by asking anyone in my specific subfield of condensed matter physics
i do not understand this either regarding the samples, usually(in my limited experience) synthesis groups have collaborators that specialize in transport or other types of measurements which I think would have added a bit of credibility, probably could have gotten a measurement of Tc, and just generally added a lot to the paper
Recent W&M Condensed Matter Physics Grad. Worked closely with HT Kim, not on this project. He is a trustworthy guy, knows his stuff. I think he is right when he calls the paper very sloppy, I am confused why there is no phase diagram and the sample purity seems suspect. These are things I think would have been addressed in peer review and would give me more confidence overall. Probably not fraud, but doesn't mean it's superconductivity.
Not optimistic about replication in the next week too, Solid State Synthesis seems "easy" but in my experience can be problematic. Not an expert in that part though
again, in experimental condensed matter physics it's acceptable to do a fine experiment and then throw in a half-baked "theoretical underpinning" to appease reviewers, so I wouldn't be surprised if the superconductivity turns out to be totally unrelated to the mechanism proposed in the paper. i would really like to see some more robust characterization work(biased because this is my background), hopefully some of the labs doing the replication studies can take a look at the juicy stuff