Serioulsy, is it possible to find this reference ?
3. Burgess. R.H. &Robb,J.C. Trans. Faraday Soc. 54,1008-
1014 (1957).
The mercury-photosensitized hydrogen+oxygen reaction
(DOI: 10.1039/TF9585401008 in the shadows)
Serioulsy, is it possible to find this reference ?
3. Burgess. R.H. &Robb,J.C. Trans. Faraday Soc. 54,1008-
1014 (1957).
The mercury-photosensitized hydrogen+oxygen reaction
(DOI: 10.1039/TF9585401008 in the shadows)
A large click-count is hardly "an abuse of the system".
Meanwhile ResearchGate has been fighting for its very existence.
ResearchGate Wins (& Loses) Scientific Publishers' Copyright Lawsuit * TorrentFreak
They are correct. But I didn't say 'em.
Does that mean that the Adobe AI is dragging extra information from other sources (i.e. from the internet) without letting its users know?
It is available in the U.S.
Thanks JedRothwell - that's useful to know.
Consider it a gift from BBC license fee payers
For those of us based here in the UK, who can access "BBC Sounds" - there were a couple of excellent 5 minute radio interviews last week with Ivan Oransky from Retraction Watch. The first was about the record number of paper retractions, last year (over 10,000 worldwide). The second was about "Paper Mills", where authors can pay to have their names added to genuine papers, or where bogus papers are simply written to order.
Quote from Retraction Watch“When I see fields that don’t have as many retractions, I’m reasonably sure that’s because nobody is looking.”
Two BBC appearances by our Ivan Oransky.
BBC Radio 4 "PM", 18 March - starts at 46 minutes.
BBC Radio 4 "PM", 20 March - starts at 40 minutes.
For those of you outside the UK, who are probably blocked (are you?) - I'll see if I can capture and extract the audio.
Quote
Sawey says there are two key questions about the peer-replication model: who will pay for it, and who will find the labs to do the reproducibility tests? “It’s hard enough to find referees for peer review, so I can’t imagine cold e-mailing people, asking them to repeat the paper,” he says.
But since Researchgate shamelessly hosts bogus papers from the JONP proprietor and lists massive numbers of fake "full reads", they too should be added to this problematic list as well
Your hatred for a certain person seems to extend to RG - but the site is just a tool. This is what RG says about the Read stats:
QuoteReads is a simple metric designed to show you exactly how often research is being accessed on ResearchGate. Since it can take a long time before your research gets cited, reads are a great way to see early interest in your work — from both ResearchGate members and non-members.
They admit it is basically a click-count - nothing more - which can easily be swamped through links circulating on social media. It means nothing, compared to citations.
Note that the RG item in question, whilst it shows over 128,000 "reads" only has a single citation.
The study referenced here is relevant:
Ultimately, all papers and articles, wherever they are published, have to stand on their own merits. Caveat Lector - reader beware.
The number of retractions of papers from "reputable" journals - sometimes decades after they were first published - shows that using the status of a journal as a shorthand way to determine the veracity the data in a paper is just laziness. The same lazy approach also leads to the idea that all papers that appear in particular journals must be automatically worthless because of a "poor reputation", or because of who owns or runs them.
"Problematic journals" can be ones that make a pretence of carrying out peer review, and simply exist to rip-off authors with a "processing fee". And like the one at the start of this thread, they could also be "fly-by-night" operations - with no guarantee that the paper, once published, will be available online for an extended period. Some "journals" are little more than hobby websites - and simply reflect the proclivities of the owner. "JNOP" probably falls into that category - but note that it does not actually appear on Beall's List.
Interesting review of some of the issues - with some useful experimental data, and thoughtful conclusions.
The DW website posted another version of their video on 19th March 2024 (their original was posted on 7th February 2024). The new version mostly uses the same video footage, but edited slightly differently - and with a different commentary.
This time they don't mention "killing the hedgehog", but still translate Ernest talking about collecting stones to make magnets. As for how this is supposed to work, the narrator just vaguely mentions "thermodynamic principles".
Note that the DW footage seems to have been shot before the VOA video, and there are quite a few differences in the equipment. There is no tin-roofed adobe shed, and the bicycle wheel is mounted on a much taller pole. There is also an old fan strapped to a crossbar near the wheel.
n.b. Old BLDC fan motors, with dead driver circuits, can be wired as multi phase AC generators. But if this is meant to catch the wind, to turn, then it is not particularly well mounted - as the airflow is partly blocked by the crossbar.
Just so no one gets confused: The Ranga Dias superconductor fraud story is separate from the South Korean team reporting room temp conductivity. While there is still controversy over their findings, there have been no accusations of fraud as with Dias. In fact, they have been partially replicated, and hosted a news conference this month to say they still back their initial claims.
Good call. This does highlight, though, how an entire field can become tainted by the reported actions of one bad actor.
Well, knock me down with a feather...