This news should be dated back in December, not now.
The T2T team published a preprint [1] last December and released the data [2] in March. However, due to the peer review process, the findings have only just been formally published in Nature. The publication timeline can indeed be slow, and in cases like this one, the question is: what's the point when all scientists interested in the topic already know about it and working with this assembly?
They probably generate ID when results are stored in database, not when samples are taken. Difference in processing time explains this. What are the dates of result (stated at the bottom of the pdf)?
Thank you. I'd say that is very convincing, especially with him walking about on 16, 17th and 18th.
When scanning a QR code, is the date visible anywhere on the page? I am trying to guess whether someone just edited a PDF with a different date (might explain why they chose 16.12 - you need to change a single number). Alternative would require someone back dating a test in the system.
No, that is the weak point of this system. Anyone can change date in pdf and no one can check that except Serbian authorities. The only limit for date is one year after test because verification system (qr code link) is set not to validate older tests.
The T2T team published a preprint [1] last December and released the data [2] in March. However, due to the peer review process, the findings have only just been formally published in Nature. The publication timeline can indeed be slow, and in cases like this one, the question is: what's the point when all scientists interested in the topic already know about it and working with this assembly?
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.01.518724v1.... [2] https://github.com/marbl/CHM13