{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026706231454005934, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005934718100890208, 'mean_word_length': 5.553398058252427, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to "Comment on 'Identification of a superoxide in superconducting La2CuO4+ delta by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy' "

New and interesting results are presented which complement our previously published conclusions on the presence of a superoxide phase in the near-surface region of superconducting ceramic lanthanum cuprate. Although we disagree with some of the data interpretation of Zhou, Sinha, and Goodenough (Phys. Rev. B 39 (to be published)), their Comment nevertheless emphasizes the difficulties in determining the species responsible for the observed superconductivity in the absence of a direct spectroscopic probe of excess oxygen in the bulk material.