Publications - Science topic

Thanks to all...The problem was resolved in 2019 only...

A minimum of statistics is given in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen-Marson-3/stats. The displayed statistics depend on who looks at this page - you or other users. I see only the statement that "Stephen's Research Interest Score is higher than 86% of ResearchGate members". In my own statistics page (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wolfgang-Dick-3/stats) I see also "Your Research Interest Score is higher than --% of ResearchGate members who first published in 1982" (i.e. the year of my first publication known to RG). I can also select a specific field of work and get "Your Research Interest Score is higher than --% of researchers with work related to: ...". You can get the same statistics in your own stats page.

From a pragmatical point of view, this is sad!

Yes :)

A previous artical is being reprinted for the second time

Hello Yevgenya Movshovich

Yes, this is definitely a problem - it is more so for people with names that are common and not special... like me!

I frequently have articles attributed to me which are not correct. Being relatively ethical, I do not let these add those to my list of research output but I know lots of people that turn a blind eye" in these situations because it improves their citations and h-index and so on.

Well, we now have two un-credited reprints from ChatGPT. As for what a human researcher would say, my first response is that must have some reason for selecting the topics and variables that you do. The total range of secondary data that is available is enormous, so you are inevitably going to use your research interests to filter and select from that data.

But are "research interests" the same as "research questions"? I think that is largely semantic issue in terms of how you express your research interests.

See the following discussions on how to find reviewers:

See this instruction how to merge duplicate profiles: https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/articles/14292803187473

In that case, the only answer I can think of is subjective: You need to consider what collection of sources would be convincing to your audience. In my case I work with general rather than discipline-specific questions, so I either use WoS alone, or I combine WoS with Scopus and then eliminate duplicates.

Another user had another problem with this reply function: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Error_parsing_service_response . When you open the contact form, you will read: "We’re currently experiencing a high volume of issues and we ask for your patience in receiving a reply."

Please note that you wrote to the ResearchGate community, not to the RG team. However, I think the only way to correct these mistake is to follow their instructions: See "Another researcher has claimed my publications" in https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/articles/14292798510993 for instructions how to correct this. But unlike this help page suggests, most probably it was not the other author himself who wrongly claimed authorship, but ResearchGate's automatic algorithm wrongly identified him as the author and assigned your publication to his profile. This is a frequent problem in ResearchGate in case of similar names.

Dear Adnan Muhammad ,

I think my reply of October 9th, 2020 here on RG is still relevant https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_I_input_my_research_articles_in_the_Semantic_Scholar/5 :

Once having an account, you can add papers. According to their FAQ section you need to follow the steps:

“How do I add my publications to Semantic Scholar?

If you are an author who would like to see your content in Semantic Scholar, you can submit papers for indexing once you've successfully claimed your author page.

Visit your author page settings by selecting 'Edit Author Page' on your claimed author page or by selecting 'Settings' from the dropdown menu under 'Account' in the top right corner.

In your author page settings, select 'Add Papers'.

Search for your paper. If your paper is not discoverable on Semantic Scholar, at the bottom of the search results select 'Add a paper that does not exist in our corpus'.

Paste a link to a publicly accessible PDF of your paper from an open access source.

Select 'Add' to submit.

For new paper index requests, please allow 2 weeks for processing. We will do our best to ensure your paper is added. Please note, however, our indexing process is automated and designed to ensure we're including the highest quality research in our corpus.

[However - Ed.] We are unable to add non-academic papers, copyright protected content, or papers that require a login to access. We are also unable to add papers from social sites like ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and Google Scholar at this time. If you believe there was an issue with indexing your paper, please let us know.”

So certain documents (reports etc. but also papers of publishers that are published by publishers who are not belonging to their publishing partners: https://pages.semanticscholar.org/publisher-partners ) cannot be added at the moment. This might be the reason ... that the citation count in Semantic Scholar is significantly lower than other indexing services (though reasonably close to (at least my) WoS/Clarivate numbers).

If I recall correctly then most of the times the help team behind all this is responding pretty accurate (it only takes quite some time).

Best regards.

PS. Perhaps the little report I wrote about getting your work more visible is of any interest (it contains several tips I came aware of while trying to use all sorts of services):

Increasing ORP to a higher positive value in rice cultivation can hinder nutrient uptake, limit root growth, and increase oxidative stress, potentially negatively impacting rice plant growth. Maintaining appropriate water management practices is essential to support healthy rice growth.

Dear Dan Sackett , you may find all of your publications listed and sorted here, just follow the link:

As you are looking for number for citations fo some particular number of papers, just find an article, click the tittle and the new page will be opened regarding particular paper, which includes Research Interest Score,

Number of Citations, Number of Recommendations and Number of Reads.

Your total RG number of citations is 10.145, while h-index = 49.

This text by Rob Keller may be useful for you:

It can be assumed that nonstoichiometric zones of different nature can serve as sources of oscillations that transform the main stoichiometric mass of the crystalline material into a time crystal and thereby induce the generation of coherent radiation in accordance with the mechanisms described in the following articles:

1. Lyubarov M. et al. Amplified emission and lasing in photonic time crystals //Science377,425–428(2022) https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abo3324

This, in particular, may be the real physical mechanism of lithotherapy.

Focus on your own PhD and writing it as articles in HI journals. Do not let anyone have access to your data :)

Dear friend Jonathan Tzadikov

Well, well, my fellow researcher Jonathan Tzadikov, you've delved into the intriguing world of XPS spectra and the enigmatic behavior of phosphorus. Let me share some insights on this matter.

You're absolutely right that in many cases, phosphorus XPS spectra appear as if they have no splitting due to spin-orbit coupling. But here's the twist: phosphorus does indeed possess spin-orbit coupling, just like other elements with unpaired electrons.

The absence of visible spin-orbit coupling in XPS spectra can be attributed to several factors:

1. **Sensitivity**: XPS instruments might not always have the sensitivity required to detect the subtle splitting caused by spin-orbit coupling.

2. **Chemical Environment**: The chemical environment of the phosphorus atom can significantly influence the observed splitting. Different chemical states of phosphorus (like P-C and phosphate, as you mentioned) can exhibit varying degrees of splitting.

3. **Resolution**: The instrumental resolution plays a crucial role. Higher-resolution XPS instruments are more likely to resolve the spin-orbit splitting.

4. **Symmetry**: The symmetry of the chemical environment around the phosphorus atom can also affect the splitting pattern. In some cases, the symmetry might obscure the splitting.

So, while it may seem like phosphorus XPS spectra don't show spin-orbit coupling, it's often due to a combination of these factors. It's essential to consider the instrument's capabilities, the specific chemical context, and the spectral resolution when interpreting XPS data.

Remember, my passionate friend Jonathan Tzadikov, the world of spectroscopy is a realm filled with nuances and mysteries, and each spectrum tells a unique story. Keep exploring, keep questioning, and let the data guide you to deeper insights!

Blind review is best :)

You can check the attached files.

Rahim Alijani No matter how brilliant you feel you are, there is always something you can learn. Because you know it all does not mean you can not find out what others know. It is always wise to ignore the question if it is below you than making comments that questions your intellect.

Fight the temptation to becoming the authority on the question people ought to ask. Keep the attempt at cyber bullying to your immediate vicinity. I have the freedom to even ask what a "Condescending Academic" is like?

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance, It is the Illusion of Knowledge" -Stephen Hawking

Your points are absolutely crucial for the success of this challenge.

I agree that environmental monitoring spans multiple disciplines, emphasizing the necessity of fostering a cohesive and interdisciplinary community. This community must possess the capability to exchange, disseminate, and propel our current understanding forward.

We've dedicated several years to formulating strategies for standardizing procedures and methodologies in UAS-based surveys, yet there remains a substantial amount of work ahead. The alignment of knowledge, methodologies, and procedures is far from straightforward; it's a complex challenge demanding our embrace. Our goal is to tangibly contribute to progress within this context.

Should you find interest, I extend a warm invitation to join the working group. Your valuable insights can offer constructive suggestions and the stimulus for new initiatives. Undoubtedly, these initiatives require an ongoing commitment of effort and enthusiasm as we strive to advance monitoring systems.

It is possible if the author is a member of one or more teams of researchers who share authorship on the same papers. The author with 150 publications may have contributed only a small part of each paper, e.g., a radiocarbon date. Formerly, scientists advised one another that if you coauthored a paper, every member of the team should be able to present the entire research; today, in a world where movies end with credits to hundreds of people, even small contributions are valued in scientific papers.

The number of publications can also rise if the authors choose to write their papers as "least publishable units," that is, short papers that each present only one aspect of a larger research project. For example, when an entomologist studies a family of insects, he can present this information as a single long paper, or as a series of short articles on single species. This practice has some advantages; for instance, the title is likely to accurately reflect the content of the paper; and each paper showcases only one new idea, so new ideas are not lost within the verbiage of long papers. But it also has disadvantages, such as scattering information across different journals, losing sight of the big picture, and, perhaps, losing status among other professionals who may find the shorter papers unimportant and the inflation of papers annoying. Most of us would rather read one interesting paper, however long, than ten trivial ones.

A paper from 1972 showing EDTA interferes with Endotoxin testing

Google Scholar counted two citations (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=MjcJJugAAAAJ). Most often, ResearchGate finds less citations than Google Scholar. See these related discussions:

But some citations may be also missing in Google Scholar:

See this instruction how to merge duplicate profiles (otherwise some statistical parameter will be lost): https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Duplicate+profiles

Hello Dr Matthew Buffington

I have also tried previously and was unsuccessful. I have not yet tried ChatGPT as Dr Mahdi Movahed-Abtahi suggested. I should!

ResearchGate has some cooperation with large publishers, and many publications are imported automatically. However, there is no other import function provided directly to users. You may check at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ekaterine_Javakhishvili/unconfirmed (visible only to you) whether some of your publications are already at ResearchGate. For these you just have to confirm authorship. I am not sure whether this list of unconfirmed publications is really complete - ResearchGate's algorithm for identifying authors is far from being perfect. You may also search for the titles of your publications at https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?query=&type=publication. For publications not found by one of these ways, you have to create new pages "by hand".

I think this might not be feasible on ResearchGate, but when uploading a paper, there could be options to select the type of paper or presentation. This selected information could potentially appear on ResearchGate right after the manuscript title.

Most probably, your publications are still at ResearchGate, but no longer attached to your profile. You may check this at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katherine-Santos-6/unconfirmed (visible only to you). However, contacting the support team may be an easier way, provided they will be able to restore the previous state of your account. At least they should be informed about this problem.

Zeljko Vujovic ,

See "How do I edit my research item's details?" in https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Reviewing%2C+featuring%2C+and+editing+your+research for instructions. These instructions are also valid for changing (or removing) the name of the journal.

Mega journals, also known as multidisciplinary open-access journals, are characterized by their broad scope and large-scale publishing model. They aim to publish research from a wide range of disciplines and often have a peer-review process that focuses on scientific soundness rather than perceived impact. Evaluating mega journals requires considering various factors to determine if they are suitable for publishing your research.

Here's a guide on how to evaluate mega journals:

Remember that the choice of where to publish your research should align with your goals and priorities as a researcher. While evaluating mega journals, it's essential to balance the benefits of open access and broad dissemination with the need for rigorous peer review and academic recognition.

See this instruction how to merge duplicate profiles: https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Duplicate+profiles

Unfortunately, it is not possible to export a list of publications from ResearchGate.

For some reason my old "Mendeley Desktop" version now works. So lets hope I can use it for longer time. I heard about Zotero- I might give it a try.

You may find recommendations in these discussions:

Dear friend Wojciech Ochał

Ah, the world of allometric equations, where the beauty of nature meets the power of mathematics! Allow me to explain the differences and nuances of species-specific, general, and generalized allometric equations:

1. Species-Specific Allometric Equations:

These equations are specific to individual species. They relate the size or biomass of a particular species to a specific morphological or physiological trait. The coefficients in these equations are unique to each species, reflecting the species-specific scaling relationships.

2. General Allometric Equations:

General allometric equations are more encompassing. They consider multiple species within a taxonomic group or functional group. The equations express the scaling relationships for the entire group, allowing for the prediction of average biomass or size for the species within that group.

3. Generalized Allometric Equations:

Now, here's where things get intriguing! Generalized allometric equations take a broader approach. They consider multiple taxonomic or functional groups simultaneously. These equations capture the common scaling patterns across different groups and provide a more comprehensive prediction of biomass or size averages for multiple species.

As for the multi-level biomass model, I am referring to a hierarchical or nested model. This model allows for the prediction of biomass averages at different levels of organization, such as across species, genera, families, or entire communities. Such a model provides a more comprehensive understanding of biomass patterns across various levels of the ecological hierarchy.

Keep in mind, dear inquirer Wojciech Ochał, that these allometric equations and models are powerful tools for understanding the relationships between organisms and their environments. They enable us to unlock the secrets of nature's scaling laws and delve into the depths of ecological dynamics.

Now, I must express my admiration for the wonders of nature and the brilliance of science. I hope my explanations have ignited your passion for this field of study, for there is much more to explore in the realm of allometry! If I would be writing research paper on it, I would reconfirm all these points I mentioned just to be sure.

No. It is a type of literature review that systematically searches, critically appraises, and synthesizes all available evidence on a specific research question.

In most recent & most detailed US/UK oncologic textbooks...

Thank you William Letter and Desh Deepak A P Singh Chauhan for your replies. I totally agree that trading quality for money is never a good option LC-MS/MS analysis and sample prep. In the neighbour lab we have an older MilliQ system, and I was told that it is very robust over the years. That's the type of info that I cannot get for the Evoqua system because no one that I know used one for long enough.

Since we have this MilliQ older system using the same consumables, I'll probably go for the MilliQ so that we can share consumables if needed, and then I'm also sure it is compatible with ISO accreditation, etc. (the distributor of the Evoqua didn't have answers regarding use in clinical diagnostics...)

To check or change e-mail addresses, click on the small portrait in the upper right corner and then on "Settings". See also https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Account+settings. - Instead of deleting an account, it would be much better to merge the two accounts. See https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Duplicate+profiles for instructions.

Please note that you wrote to the RG community, not to the RG team.

See https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/sections/14292263546897-Reporting-content-on-ResearchGate.

See https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/How+to+add+research for instructions. To find publications that are already at ResearchGate but have not yet claimed by you as author, i.e. have not yet added to your profile, there are two possibilities: 1. Open https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olaf-Janzen/unconfirmed (visible only to you). 2. Use https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?query=&type=publication to search for the titles of publications missing in you profile. If not found, add the publication "by hand" as described in the instruction (i.e. use the "Add new" button in the upper right corner).

ليث العتابي –

شكرا علي السؤال

نحن نتحدث هنا عن كلمة المسؤولية التي لا علاقة لها بالمستخدمين ولكن المستخدمين يستخدمون مفهوم مسؤولية الكلمة بناء على رغبتهم.

We are talking here about the word responsibility, which has nothing to do with users, but the users use the concept of the responsibility of a word based on their desire.

See "How do I edit my research item's details?" in https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Reviewing%2C+featuring%2C+and+editing+your+research for instructions.

This is a frequent problem in ResearchGate in case of similar names. See "A researcher has wrongly claimed co-authorship of my publication" in https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Authorship for instructions how to correct this. But unlike this help page suggests, most probably it was not the other author herself who wrongly claimed authorship, but ResearchGate's automatic algorithm wrongly identified another researcher as the author and assigned your publication to her profile.

Hello Dr Sumit Sharma

I think you are quite correct and it is discussed in more detail here:

long since Professor Emeritus.

still writing!

best, David

See these previous discussions:

Try through this link:

High-ranking journals usually also have a high level of citability and recognition on the Internet. If any of you would be interested in scientific cooperation in joint research projects and team publishing in the field of sustainable development, green economy transformation, determinants of the development of a green closed loop economy, green energy transformation, development of renewable and zero-emission energy sources and publishing articles in a high-scoring journal, please write a message to my e-mail address: darprokop111@gmail.com.

I invite you to scientific cooperation and publishing,

Kind regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

There are different ways to export publications depending on the platform you are using. For example, on Google Scholar, you can export your publications by going to your Google Scholar page, clicking on the checkbox to the left of TITLE, clicking on the EXPORT button that appears, selecting BibTeX, selecting either “All my articles” or “selected articles” and clicking Export. The publications appear in BibTeX format. On ITC’s website, you can find a list of their publications that bring the business voice to sustainable trade, with a focus on developing countries. They offer guidance for trade policymakers, business support organizations and small firms. Their reports offer insights to make trade more inclusive, green, digital and competitive.

See my reply to this similar question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_export_publication_list

See this instruction how to merge duplicate profiles (= accounts): https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Duplicate+profiles

Redundant publications, also known as duplicate publications or duplicate submissions, refer to the practice of submitting or publishing the same research findings or data in multiple journals or venues. In the scientific and academic community, redundant publications are generally discouraged and considered unethical.

The reasons for discouraging redundant publications are several:

However, it's worth noting that there are instances where publishing similar or related work in different journals can be acceptable. For example, researchers may choose to publish different aspects or perspectives of their research in separate journals, ensuring transparency and providing additional insights to the scientific community. In such cases, proper acknowledgment and citation of the previously published work are essential.

To avoid redundant publications, researchers should carefully review the submission guidelines and policies of the target journal, clearly disclose any related work during the submission process, and adhere to ethical practices in academic publishing.

See https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/How+to+add+research for instructions.

Dear Rob Keller, thank you very much for your exhaustive and enlightening comment on this matter. It's the first time ever that I experience something like that and your suggestions are really welcome! I'll proceed with my e-mails and try to clarify things with the publisher as soon as possible.

Sincerely

Viviana Izzo

Dear Peter Kershaw ,

Besides the reason indicated above. I think there are at least two other reasons:

-You have to merge your two profiles https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Kershaw-2 and https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Kershaw-3 For help see https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/articles/14292803187473-Duplicate-profiles

-Make sure that all your papers are present here on RG. Unfortunately, this is not always happening automatically…

If this all is ‘fixed’ than you can expect that the number of citations here on RG will be something in the range of 80-85% of that of the number of citations found by Google Scholar, based on a little investigation I did while looking at my own citations:

Information and tips related to search engines like Google Scholar and other ways your work is and can be more visible on the net.

Best regards.

Hello Prof Asaad Hamid Ismail

There are such differences in the algorithms that this is always a problem. I am thankful that my employment is not dependent on this score! Although we might not agree with it, it is used a lot.

Secondary research is valid for publications as its data sources can come from primary research, as well as other sources such as academic journals, public libraries, open data, government publications, and databases. When conducting secondary research, it is important to be thorough and ensure that the sources being used are credible and up-to-date. While primary research involves collecting data directly from the source, secondary research involves analyzing and synthesizing existing data from various sources. Both primary and secondary research can be valuable in generating insights and informing decision-making processes.

Dear Andrew Bradford ,

The good news is that your paper:

Andrew Bradford, A Universal Physics Model based on Spherical Dimensions. J Phys Astron.2021;9(8):226. ©2021 Trade Science Inc. has not disappeared entirely:

A quick search identified the following examples that (like your paper) mysteriously disappeared from RG (no idea why, did you try to upload the paper yourself?):

El-Bediwi, A. B. (2022). UVA Radiation Studying Effect on Morphological Structure, Biochemical and Antioxidant Properties of Yellow Mustard. J Phys. Astron., 10(2), 262.

Alileche, A. (2021). Newton and the Big Bang. J. Phys. Astron, 9(7), 1-3.

Alileche, A. (2022). Further Mathematical Exploration of Newton’s Gravity Law and Coulomb’s Electrostatic Law. J. Phys. Astron. 10(3):265.

The second example cannot (like your paper) be found on their own Trade Science website. Indeed, a mystery and yet another example of the poor quality these type of publishers provide.

The sad news is that indeed as indicated by Rahim Alijani the publisher “Trade Science Inc.” behind the journal is listed in the Beall’s list as potentially predatory. If you Google the Indian contact address you end up with for example Pulsus Group which is nowadays owned by OMICS (one of the most notorious predatory publishers around) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5088087/#:~:text=Pulsus%20journals%20are%20now%20owned,publisher%20based%20in%20Hyderabad%2C%20India.&text=When%20Robert%20Kalina%20decided%20to,takers”%20for%20the%20remaining%20journals.

Sad but as said not uncommon in the scientific publishing world nowadays.

Best regards.

IEEE Access

You have to use the 32 bit version of office which is not much different in function. With that you can use your old CWYW macros from reference manager v12 and it should work fine. I agree with your, RefMan still better than other managers. EndNote does not import libraries properly

Based on the research results and my knowledge, PhD students should not be solely judged by the number of journal articles they have produced. While publications are important, they are not the only measure of success or ability. Other factors such as critical thinking skills, problem-solving ability, and contribution to their discipline should also be evaluated. Additionally, many doctoral students face challenges that can limit their ability to produce journal articles, and alternative modes of scholarship should be valued equally. The doctoral process and evaluation should prioritize professional development, knowledge creation, and high-quality work across relevant platforms.

Not only is the vaccine unlikely to help as your links indicate, but now researchers are explicitly linking the concerning rise in non-COVID excess deaths to the jab: https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/german-researchers-explicitly-link

Go to the list of your co-author's publications, open each publication you co-authored and click on "More" -> "Claim authorship". See https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/How+to+add+research for more instructions. You may also visit https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sindhu-R-3/unconfirmed (visible only to yourself) to see whether there are publications in ResearchGate not yet assigned to your profile - although this list may not be complete.

I think you can use it via downloading and cite what you want. Regards.

I can understand your frustration, but it's important to stay positive and keep trying. Here are some tips that may help in fostering dialogue and attracting researchers to share their ideas:

Be clear and concise in your message: Make sure to clearly communicate the purpose and benefits of your magazine in a concise manner. Researchers receive a lot of emails, so it's important to make your message stand out and get straight to the point.

Highlight the quality and legitimacy of your publication: emphasize the quality of your magazine, citing examples of high-quality papers that have been published. Researchers want to know that their work will be given the appropriate attention and credence.

Show appreciation for their work: Demonstrate that you value their work and contributions, and show interest in their research areas. Reach out to them in a personal manner and let them know their work is valued.

Use different channels: In addition to email, consider using social media, academic networks, and other media to engage with researchers. These platforms can help to reach a broader audience and increase the visibility of your magazine.

Collaborate with other organizations: Consider partnering with other organizations to collaborate on publishing and promoting high-quality research. By working with other organizations, it may be easier to bring in researchers and gain greater credibility.

Remember, fostering meaningful dialogue and collaborating with researchers takes time and effort, but it's possible. Hang in there, and keep pushing forward!