Measurement Method: Experiment/Theoretical

[kensei-te]

As a user of data, I want to clearly distinguish at least Tc is derived either by experiment of theory. In the current system, curator has to assign even exact method for experiment (resistivity, magnetic, specific heat), but I assume sometimes it is not evident nor easy.

Can we add "Experiment" for Measurement Method, and menu can be: Experiment Theoretical Experiment: resistivity Experiment: magnetic susceptibility Experiment: specific heat Theoretical: DFT Theoretical: Machine Learning

How do you think?

[lfoppiano]

This should be added in the guidelines.

Anyway, instead adding an additional field (experimental/theroretical) which is anyway derived by the measurement method, how about the curators always specify it?

The issue here is when is not specified at all in the paper, the curator could just use experimental or calculated as predefined values?

[lfoppiano]

https://github.com/lfoppiano/supercon2/issues/82#issuecomment-1286312274

[lfoppiano]

From the discussion, we should add the following in the guidelines:

• use experimental or theoreticals as fallback values when the correct specificaiton is not clear
• do not correct mistakes such as 'resiti- vity` and other things that we could do automatically

[kensei-te]

Proposed rule:

1. For future users of data, it is recommended to fill at least whether the value is derived whether from experiment or theory.

2. Curator do not need to unify the expressions for the variation (e.g. resistance, conductivity, resistivity, rho-T) as those will be fixed later on by post-processing of data automatically.