If you read some real papers and some crackpot papers, you can learn to identify bad papers without having to have much knowledge on the topic. Bad papers will, for example, often lay out trivial things at length, i.e. have very low information density. Or they will say things that are incoherent even if you do not understand all the details. Or there will be no references to legitimate other literature. This paper is dense and coherent and does not contain obvious nonsense even to an non-expert. More I did not want to imply, just that it does not look like a a crackpot paper. For a more detailed judgment, for example whether the experiments they performed or the numbers they got are reasonable or something like that, I am indeed unqualified.

> > After skimming the paper, it reads like a legitimate paper even though I have zero expertise in the area.

most humble hackernews commenter

This whole thread is full of Dunning–Kruger victims misexplaining magnets to each other, this is pretty tame.

Or even wires.