If I got this paper as a referee, I would reject it for lack of proof. arxiv.org/abs/2201.03453 (For anyone who is interested, I can be more technical in DM or email, details are not twitter-friendly…) Here are a few general thoughts:
First, there is the context - the subject is under scrutiny. E.g. one paper from the same group is under an Editorial Expression of Concern. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc… The concern is about non-representative data selection, but scientific root is - alternative explanation!
There exists a well-established NON-MAJORANA explanation for sticky zero bias peaks and related phenomena (subgap features). Here is a thread from a year ago where I explain Andreev Bound States in quantum dots, which are often unintended: x.com/spinespresso/s…
There exists a well-established NON-MAJORANA explanation for sticky zero bias peaks and related phenomena (subgap features). Here is a thread from a year ago where I explain Andreev Bound States in quantum dots, which are often unintended: x.com/spinespresso/s…
Is this known to the authors? Yes! But, like the Science paper above, the new manuscript does not discuss the potent alternative explanation. It is easy to see: papers about Andreev States mimicking Majorana are absent from the list of references. x.com/spinespresso/s…
Is this known to the authors? Yes! But, like the Science paper above, the new manuscript does not discuss the potent alternative explanation. It is easy to see: papers about Andreev States mimicking Majorana are absent from the list of references. x.com/spinespresso/s…
@MDrndic They call it 'Silvano' in their Zenodo repository after a paper by Silvano de Franceschi that first found the non-Majorana explanation in experiment. But they don't call it 'Silvano' in their paper, and they don't cite Silvano's paper.
@spinespresso now I learned what a "Silvano" sort of is... :)