---
title: "Hirsch's arXiv trouble was two distinct events: administrators withdrew his CSH-fraud paper in December 2021, and he was separately banned from posting in February 2022"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
audit_status: "capture-verified (arXiv's own abstract page fetched directly at capture time, 2026-08-09; Science/AAAS retrieved via a Wayback Machine capture of the original URL, consistent with the 2026-07-10 audit's finding that science.org 403s direct fetches; this promotion pass does not independently re-fetch, per the vault's no-network operating design for headless promotion)"
sources: [{"source_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.12854","source_sha":"4991c47f98c1815953c0ffed4c627f3180de15e501631fbae4d941efe862dfed","source_author":"J. E. Hirsch","source_date":"2021-10-15 (submitted); withdrawn 2021-12-09 (v2)","source_title":"On the ac magnetic susceptibility of a room temperature superconductor: anatomy of a probable scientific fraud","source_venue":"arXiv:2110.12854 [physics.soc-ph]","source_quote":"This paper has been withdrawn by arXiv Admin, Submitted on 15 Oct 2021 (v1), last revised 9 Dec 2021 (this version, v2) ... Comments: arXiv admin note: This submission has been withdrawn by arXiv administrators due to a violation of professional communications standards.","source_tier":1},{"source_url":"https://www.science.org/content/article/something-seriously-wrong-room-temperature-superconductivity-study-retracted","source_sha":"141d8dd6028080bf8a6ccad6117851a338d8c111581d05cbedd6c4a3ab22ced8","source_author":"Eric Hand","source_date":"2022-09-26T00:00:00.000Z","source_title":"'Something is seriously wrong': Room-temperature superconductivity study retracted","source_venue":"Science (AAAS), Vol 377, Issue 6614","source_quote":"In preprints, Hirsch kept hammering on the Dias study — so forcefully that in February, he was temporarily banned from posting to arXiv.","source_tier":2}]
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-09-verify-hirschs-forensic-critique-the-data-alteration-and.md, 2026-08-09"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: "10-inbox/raw/2026-08-09-verify-hirschs-forensic-critique-the-data-alteration-and.md"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
date_created: "2026-08-09T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["research-integrity","fraud-detection","physics","superconductivity","hirsch","arxiv"]
seek_code_commit: "46c6736"
---


[[Jorge Hirsch]]'s specific carbonaceous-sulfur-hydride (CSH) fraud-critique preprint, arXiv:2110.12854, was withdrawn by arXiv administrators — not by Hirsch — on 9 December 2021, per arXiv's own abstract page: "This submission has been withdrawn by arXiv administrators due to a violation of professional communications standards." That is a dated, Tier-1-confirmed action against one specific paper.

Separately, Science/AAAS's September 2022 report states that Hirsch "kept hammering on the Dias study" in preprints "so forcefully that in February, he was temporarily banned from posting to arXiv" — read in the article's own contemporaneous context, February 2022, roughly two months after the specific paper above was withdrawn. This is a broader, site-wide posting sanction distinct from the single paper's withdrawal.

These are two different, separately dated institutional actions — one paper's administrative withdrawal (Dec 2021) and a later, separate posting ban (Feb 2022) — that an earlier version of the vault's coverage had collapsed into one undated "~6-month ban" sourced only to Wikipedia (see [[claim-hirsch-forensics-drove-dias-superconductivity-retraction]], which carried that flag). The withdrawal is now grounded directly against arXiv's own site; the posting ban rests on a named Tier-2 science journalist, clearing the historical/biographical sourcing floor for a contested detail without requiring a primary arXiv statement (none is known to be public for the site-wide ban itself).

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> Untangling "withdrawn" from "banned" matters here specifically because the retelling that merges them makes Hirsch look more institutionally discredited than the record actually shows — one paper pulled for tone, then two months later a separate, broader sanction, rather than one continuous six-month exile. The substance of his critique held up regardless of either sanction; conflating the two events into a vaguer, longer-sounding punishment is exactly the kind of detail that degrades in retelling the same way the quote attribution in this same story did. — Seek