Hypocrisy 1
虚伪 1
Mainstream scientists profess to value novelty, yet they fall silent when confronted with a real issue, failing to respond despite their promise to do so within three working days
“… our current response time is no sooner than 3 working days.”
The Hypocrisy of Modern Academia: When Serious Problems Are Silenced
The Polished Façade and the Silent Fire Brigade: On the Hypocrisy of Modern Academia
When Silence Replaces Refutation: An Open Critique of Editorial Non-Engagement and the Erosion of Scientific Self-Correction
A list of papers for wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption film
Rejection Letters as Data (Journal of Electronic Materials 4): The Author’s Questions
On the Quality Criteria for Microwave Absorbing Materials
2026年02月07日 08:35 (星期六)
The UK government’s Metascience Unit and the University of Sussex are keen to receive your expert assessments on the novelty of selected publications within your expertise.
We have matched your work (Fundamental theory of microwave absorption for films of porous nanocomposites: role of interfaces in composite fillers (DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-323-90035-5.00013-1)) as relevant to at least one publication in our project, which we would like you to assess.
Sharing your expertise is quick (the median time is 6 minutes per publication), and is crucial to our research project. Your responses will be combined with those of other experts to create a major repository of novelty evaluations at unprecedented scale. Findings will be presented only at the aggregate level and will help inform the development of policy on research evaluation. We hugely value your contributions via this personalised link.
Follow this link to the survey:
Contribute here
Or copy and paste the URL below into your Internet browser:
https://universityofsussex.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3I46GHCmgVsRm18?Q_DL=K3a8QjyFVGfiG7K_3I46GHCmgVsRm18_CGC_9X8gr6VVesRJzhx&Q_CHL=email
Yours faithfully,
The Metascience Novelty Indicators Challenge research team, metascience@sussex.ac.uk
SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), University of Sussex Business School
For further information on this project please visit our website.
2026年02月07日 10:01 (星期六)
On the Quality Criteria for Microwave Absorbing Materials
https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aelm.202500239
My conlcusions are based on:
A list of papers for wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption film
Specifically:
…
2026年02月07日 12:54 (星期六)
When Silence Replaces Refutation：An Open Critique of On the Quality Criteria for Microwave Absorbing Materials (Adv. Electron. Mater., 2025) and a Methodological Diagnosis of Contemporary Academic Avoidance
It quietly adopts several of our core criticisms of RL while systematically refusing to cite
On the Quality Criteria for Microwave Absorbing Materials, Adv. Electron. Mater. 2025, 11, e00239, Volume11, Issue14, September 4, 2025,e00239
Related Papers:
S. Zhang, T. Wang, M. Gao, P. Wang, H. Pang, L. Qiao, et al. Strict proof and applicable range of the quarter-wavelength model for microwave absorbers, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2020 Vol. 53 Issue 26 Pages 265004, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/ab79da
T. Wang, R. Han, G. Tan, J. Wei, L. Qiao and F. Li. Reflection loss mechanism of single layer absorber for flake-shaped carbonyl-iron particle composite, Journal of Applied Physics 2012 Vol. 112 Issue 10 Pages 104903, DOI: 10.1063/1.4767365
T. Wang, H. Wang, G. Tan, L. Wang and L. Qiao. The Relationship of Permeability and Permittivity at the Perfect Matching Point of Electromagnetic Wave Absorption for the Absorber Filled by Metallic Magnetic Particles, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 2015 Vol. 51 Issue 6 Pages e2800405, DOI: 10.1109/tmag.2014.2382071
…
At 2026-02-07 10:07:42,
“Metascience” <metascience@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
Thank you for your e-mail and interest in the Metascience Novelty Indicators Challenge. At this stage of the project, our current response time is no sooner than 3 working days. Below our signature are answers to some frequently asked questions which may address your query. If your query is not answered by these, we will endeavour to respond to you as above.
With thanks for your engagement,
The Metascience Research Team
FAQs:
Why did I get this e-mail?
Using a referee matching tool, similar to those used by academic journals to find paper reviewers, we identified that you have expertise associated with publications in our sample. You received this invitation to participate based upon this association.
How did you get my e-mail address?
You are listed as corresponding author on an Open Access publication in our corpus. Your e-mail was gathered from here and/or other open sources of information (e.g. ORCID).
Is there a participation fee/honorarium?
No, there is neither a cost to you nor a fee payable for your contribution.
This paper does not match my expertise.
We apologise for any mismatches. The referee matching tool is still in development. If you would like to opt-out of the study, please see below.
How can I withdraw from the study?
Unless you have completed the survey’s consent questions, you are not included within this study.
If you have completed the survey and wish to withdraw your data, please e-mail metascience@sussex.ac.uk within two weeks of your completion of the survey.
We will ensure your responses are removed and destroyed.
Mainstream scientists profess to value novelty, yet they fall silent when confronted with a real issue, failing to respond despite their promise to do so within three working days
“… our current response time is no sooner than 3 working days.”