My point was that if they would be trying to forge the results, they would likely write a better paper. Like, I have never seen nor would I use a phrase like:

Humankind has long learned that the properties of matter stem from its structure.

or

It is the superconductor with the same color as typical superconductors.

in the results section. It just reads like a student report.

So while it does not prove whether it is correct or not, it, at least in my understanding, indicates that it is genuine. The explanation might be off, the important step of the synthesis might include adding a teaspoon of luck, but the observations/measurements part I believe. Which is what I meant by the comment.

You're kind of discounting the concept of credibility. People make all sorts of wild claims—far too many to actually test them—so it's necessary to weed out claims that aren't credible by looking at things like how well the claims are presented. A new theory in physics will be ignored if it's written in crayon in scraps of trash, as it should be.

Obviously the recent claims about superconductivity are a lot more credible than that, and a bunch of researchers around the world have decided their claims are worth testing, but there's nothing wrong with tempering your optimism in response to a paper that seems a bit dodgy. It's not unreasonable to suspect that researchers who can't get their shit together enough to release a paper without drama might also have trouble getting their shit together enough to conduct research without making critical mistakes.