
On the 30th of July 2021 Science published an Editorial Expression of Concern about this article after two quantum wire experts questioned whether the data it presented accurately represented the outcome of experiments. Science then filed a “Form for reporting suspicion of research misconduct or questionable research practices” to the Practice Committee of the University of Copenhagen. The Practice Committee asked us to act as an expert panel to assess the complaint and report on our conclusions. To perform our investigation, we were provided all material related to the publication process at Science and interviewed many of the parties involved in the preparation of this paper and many independent experts on quantum wire Majorana physics. We also examined all the data gathered by the authors in connection with the paper in question. This report states our conclusions and summarizes the considerations on which they are based. The conclusions and opinions stated are our own, and not necessarily those of our institutions.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
