Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTrends of Papers Published from 2006 to 2010 in Journals Nature and Science
118
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Sang Chul Kim
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We present an analysis of the papers published in the journals Nature and Science in the years from 2006 to 2010. During this period, a total of 7788 papers were published in the two journals. This includes 544 astronomy papers that comprise 7.0% of the papers in `all research fields and 18.9% of those in the fields of `physical sciences. The sub-fields of research of the astronomy papers are distributed, in descending order of number of papers, in Solar System, stellar astronomy, galaxies and the universe, the Milky Way Galaxy, and exoplanets. The observational facilities used for the studies are mainly ground-based telescopes (31.1%), spacecrafts (27.0%), and space telescopes (22.8%), while 16.0% of papers did not use any noticeable facilities and 1.7% used other facilities. Korean scientists have published 86 papers (33 in Nature and 53 in Science), which is 1.10% of all the papers (N=7788) in the two journals. The share of papers by Korean astronomers among the scientific papers by Koreans is 8.14%, slightly higher than the contribution of astronomy papers (7.0%) in both journals.
rate research
Read More
We have inspected all supernova discoveries reported during 2010 and 2011 (538 and 926 events, respectively). We examine the statistics of all discovered objects, as well as those of the subset of spectroscopically-confirmed events. In these two years we see the rise of wide-field non-targeted supernova surveys to prominence, with the largest numbers of events reported by the CRTS and PTF surveys (572 and 393 events in total respectively, contributing together 74% of all reported discoveries in 2011), followed by the integrated contribution of numerous amateurs (184 events). Among spectroscopically-confirmed events the PTF (393 events) leads, followed by CRTS (170 events), and amateur discoveries (144 events). Traditional galaxy-targeted surveys, such as LOSS and CHASE, maintain a strong contribution (86 and 61 events, respectively) with high spectroscopic completeness (~90% per cent). It is interesting to note that the community managed to provide substantial spectroscopic follow-up for relatively brighter amateur discoveries (<m>=16.5 mag), but significant less help for fainter (and much more numerous) events promptly released by the CRTS (<m>=18.6 mag). Inspecting discovery magnitude and redshift distributions we find that PS1 discoveries have similar properties (<m>=21.6 mag, <z>=0.23) to events found in previous seasons by cosmology-oriented projects (e.g., SDSS-II), while PTF (<m>=19.2 mag, <z>=0.095) and CRTS (<m>=18.6 mag, <z>=0.049) populate the relatively unexplored phase space of faint SNe (>19 mag) in nearby galaxies (mainly PTF), and events at 0.05<z<0.2 (CRTS and PTF). Examining the specific question of reporting channels over the previous dozen years, we find that traditional reports via CBET telegrams now account only for a minority of SN discoveries.
This study aims to analyze 343 retraction notices indexed in the Scopus database, published in 2001-2019, related to scientific articles (co-)written by at least one author affiliated with an Iranian institution. In order to determine reasons for retractions, we merged this database with the database from Retraction Watch. The data were analyzed using Excel 2016 and IBM-SPSS version 24.0, and visualized using VOSviewer software. Most of the retractions were due to fake peer review (95 retractions) and plagiarism (90). The average time between a publication and its retraction was 591 days. The maximum time-lag (about 3,000 days) occurred for papers retracted due to duplicate publications; the minimum time-lag (fewer than 100 days) was for papers retracted due to unspecified cause (most of these were conference papers). As many as 48 (14%) of the retracted papers were published in two medical journals: Tumor Biology (25 papers) and Diagnostic Pathology (23 papers). From the institutional point of view, Islamic Azad University was the inglorious leader, contributing to over one-half (53.1%) of retracted papers. Among the 343 retraction notices, 64 papers pertained to international collaborations with researchers from mainly Asian and European countries; Malaysia having the most retractions (22 papers). Since most retractions were due to fake peer review and plagiarism, the peer review system appears to be a weak point of the submission/publication process; if improved, the number of retractions would likely drop because of increased editorial control.
In the next decade Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) will be used to test theories predicting changes in the Dark Energy equation of state with time. Ultimately this requires a dedicated space mission like JDEM. SNe Ia are mature cosmological probes --- their limitations are well characterized, and a path to improvement is clear. Dominant systematic errors include photometric calibration, selection effects, reddening, and population-dependent differences. Building on past lessons, well-controlled new surveys are poised to make strides in these areas: the Palomar Transient Factory, Skymapper, La Silla QUEST, Pan-STARRS, the Dark Energy Survey, LSST, and JDEM. They will obviate historical calibrations and selection biases, and allow comparisons via large subsamples. Some systematics follow from our ignorance of SN Ia progenitors, which there is hope of determining with SN Ia rate studies from 0<z<4. Aside from cosmology, SNe Ia regulate galactic and cluster chemical evolution, inform stellar evolution, and are laboratories for extreme physics. Essential probes of SNe Ia in these contexts include spectroscopy from the UV to the IR, X-ray cluster and SN remnant observations, spectropolarimetry, and advanced theoretical studies. While there are an abundance of discovery facilities planned, there is a deficit of follow-up resources. Living in the systematics era demands deep understanding rather than larger statistics. NOAO ReSTAR initiative to build 2-4m telescopes would provide necessary follow-up capability. Finally, to fully exploit LSST, well-matched wide-field spectroscopic capabilities are desirable.
AIMS: Nova Cyg 2006 has been intensively observed throughout its full outburst. We investigate the energetics and evolution of the central source and of the expanding ejecta, their chemical abundances and ionization structure, and the formation of dust. METHOD: We recorded low, medium, and/or high-resolution spectra (calibrated into accurate absolute fluxes) on 39 nights, along with 2353 photometric UBVRcIc measures on 313 nights, and complemented them with IR data from the literature. RESULTS: The nova displayed initially the normal photometric and spectroscopic evolution of a fast nova of the FeII-type. Pre-maximum, principal, diffuse-enhanced, and Orion absorption systems developed in a normal way. After the initial outburst, the nova progressively slowed its fading pace until the decline reversed and a second maximum was reached (eight months later), accompanied by large spectroscopic changes. Following the rapid decline from second maximum, the nova finally entered the nebular phase and formed optically thin dust. We computed the amount of formed dust and performed a photo-ionization analysis of the emission-line spectrum during the nebular phase, which showed a strong enrichment of the ejecta in nitrogen and oxygen, and none in neon, in agreement with theoretical predictions for the estimated 1.0 Msun white dwarf in Nova Cyg 2006. The similarities with the poorly investigated V1493 Nova Aql 1999a are discussed.
The commented manuscript was submitted for publication without informing at least four of the other authors, viz. N. Severijns, O. Zimmer, H.-F. Wirth and D. Rich. This violates our rights as collaborators. The analysis presented and the manuscript itself have not been discussed and have also not been approved by the entire collaboration prior to submission. Besides this formal incorrectness, we also criticise the content of the paper.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
