https://www.qeios.com/read/9P8Q56
https://doi.org/10.32388/9P8Q56
文章标题：Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism
for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935]
Supplementary data
https://www.qeios.com/work-supplementary-data/9P8Q56/supplementary-material.pdf
=============================================================================
See the paper on X (formerly Twitter): https://x.com/qeios/status/1786663717087613005
New insights challenge established theories in #ElectromagneticWave absorption! 
Hou et al. face scrutiny for outdated models in #MicrowaveAbsorption. How can the scientific community correct these oversights? #ResearchDebate-----------谷歌翻译-----------学术争鸣新见解挑战微波吸收中的公认理论！学界采用的现行主流理论已经过时，需要重新审视。科学界应该如何面对被广泛使用的错误理论？From qeios.com12:46 AM · May 4, 2024·76 Views
Featured on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7192429544069357569
==================================================================
摘要中的句子摘要：
However, papers using these wrong theories are continuing to be published in huge quantities without mentioning the opposite views, and further works on the subject have often been rejected even without external review. Thus, a commenting letter is necessary to draw attention.
前言的第一段摘录如下：
A huge number of papers have been published [1]. Different from textbooks where correctness is essential, journals encourage new ideas since innovative ideas are healthy for the progress of science, whether they are correct or wrong, and science is not afraid of errors because questioning established conclusions is a characteristic of science. Thus, it is estimated that 90% of journal papers are incorrect [2][3], which necessitates reviews of published results. However, it has become a hidden rule that manuscripts questioning established theory cannot be acceptable for publication [4]. As a result, review papers seldom point out serious mistakes in publications even though a great number of reviews were written by eminent people. Reviews should not just be a survey and a list of published results. They should find the main problems in publications and reveal insights from published data that others have not seen, such as those that occurred in the history of the proposal of the atomic theory from the law of definite composition, the law of multiple proportions, and the law of combining volumes of gases, and the proposal of the Balmer formula from published spectra data of hydrogen, and the revealing of theoretical logic in the formula.
参考文献摘录
References
Y. Akinay, U. Gunes, B. Çolak, T. Cetin, Recent progress of electromagnetic wave absorbers: A systematic review and bibliometric approach, ChemPhysMater, 2 (2023) 197-206.
^J.P. Ioannidis, Why most published research findings are false, PLoS Med, 2 (2005) 124.
^Nobe_laureate_Tasuku_Honjo, 90% of the opinions of the top journals of CNS are incorrect, in, https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112613&version=1.1#
^S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, "Last month, I got a private Twitter message from a postdoc bruised by the clash between science as it is and how it should be. He had published a commentary in which he pointed out errors in a famous researcher’s paper. The critique was accurate, important and measured — a service to his field. But it caused him problems: his adviser told him that publishing the criticism had crossed a line, and he should never do it again.", Nature, 577 (2020) 9.
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自刘跃科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1432534.html?mobile=1
收藏
