Quality of research articles vs. Quantity of research articles Which is the better way to establish an eminent scientist?

I always wonder what will happen to all these high impact articles in ten years. they will become obsolete? i don't agree or I agree.

I prepared a 23-page article on parameterization. I submitted the article to a journal known as "good" in its field. After keeping my article for 4 months, the journal suggested a revision. Although the proposed revision appeared to be "major", it was actually a "minor" change due to the reviewers' lack of knowledge about the subject. The reviewers were asking for impossible changes about a subject they did not know (they asked why I didn't write my program in C++ which I wrote in Python, why I didn't use FTIR calculation in parameterization, etc.) and neither of them had any command of the subject of "parameterization". I made my explanations and 6 months later I got a rejection for a ridiculous reason that I "did not respond to the referee's questions" ( I responded with 17 pages and the email they sent after my responses had nothing to do with my responses; these two referees who wanted to present themselves as proficient in the subject ignored my responses like two fraudsters and played various word games: For example, they alleged that my program would not work without the Antechamber program used in the molecular dynamics procedure, and asked why I didn't publish it in the AMBER package, whereas that process was not related to my program, it was already part of the molecular dynamics procedure. They alleged that the VFFDT program would automatically number, I copied that part from the manual and wrote that it can't do it, if it can, show how it is done, they didn't respond to that either :) The other referee first said that the formula I took from the AMBER Manual was wrong, look, he said it was wrong, he didn't say the formula was incomplete or erroneous, he said it was wrong. In the reason for rejection, he found an excuse like "why did you write the formula in a way that will confuse the reader" since he understood that it was not wrong. You would appreciate that I had to hold myself not to swear.) ..and I got rejected. I was very surprised that a journal with such a good impact factor appointed two ignorant referees who really did not know the subject, did not understand the subject but insisted on pretending to understand the subject. The journal appears to be famous in its field and we corresponded occasionally with the editor-in-chief during the article process, actually the editor-in-chief is quite proficient in the subject and would never make the comments made by these two fake referees. Either due to bad luck or the incompetence of the field editor, I lost 6 months. Therefore, I want to learn the names of these two reviewers and write their names as "opposing referees" in my next articles. Do you think doing this would create an ethical problem? Since the incident happened to me, I could not make an unbiased decision. Therefore, I wanted it to be discussed here before sending the email: What would you do if you were I? Thank you.

I often receive ResearchGate e-mail notifications that someone has requested one of my publications that I have on file with ResearchGate; and I have responded to the requester.

However, when I received the most recent such e-mail, I clicked on "View request" but did not see how to send the stored document to the requester. What must I do?

Hellow.

I find the idea of H index problematic as it becomes a motivation by itself to ensure it will increase. it is problematic for another reason, I Believe that it is an indirect reflector (to some extent) of the of magnitude and the depth of networking and collaborations of a researcher.

In other words, researchers can raise this index simply by writing papers with peers, small groups or large groups, without actually making a discovery or being truly innovative. It is not filtering quotes from peers of the same institutions as an example.

I would like to replace it (for physics only) with an index which is raising only based on a single criteria, How many testable predictions a physicist made, and how many of them turned out to be roughly correct after margin ? It's the only thing that counts, the only measure that a TP impact should be measured upon, and it should also be binary, zero or an integer.

Physicist who made wrong predictions should have minus the number of wrong predictions they made. overall I think it can help further clarify who is at the top of the field rather than the current method of Hirsch.

The construction industry is a major contributor to global carbon emissions and environmental degradation. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in adopting sustainable practices in the built environment. Based on recent research studies, what are some of the most promising sustainable practices being implemented in the construction industry?

Dear Fellow Researchers

I notice that PDF text documents that I load to Research Gate as preprints are poorly imaged and not easy to read. Is anyone else experiencing this and have you any best practice tips to avoid this issue?