Hypocrisy 2
虚伪 2
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
“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.“
“… 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09日 07:45 (星期一)
Dear Editor,
We write to inform the editorial office of a public methodological commentary we have recently published, which addresses an issue relevant to the journal’s role in maintaining scientific self-correction and transparency.
When Silence Replaces Refutation: An Open Critique of Editorial Non-Engagement and the Erosion of Scientific Self-Correction
Our commentary concerns the 2025 article “On the Quality Criteria for Microwave Absorbing Materials” published in Advanced Electronic Materials. As detailed in the public letter, the paper adopts several positions that closely align with criticisms we have previously published regarding reflection loss, impedance matching, and the distinction between films and bulk materials, yet none of these prior analyses are cited or substantively addressed.
We emphasize that our concern is methodological rather than personal or accusatory. In scientific practice, previously published theoretical criticism should be either explicitly refuted or appropriately acknowledged. The absence of both creates ambiguity regarding the standards by which conceptual disagreements are evaluated and resolved.
We are sharing this communication in the interest of scholarly transparency and editorial awareness. No immediate response is required. We simply wish to ensure that the editorial office is aware of the public record and the methodological questions it raises.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Yue Liu
(on behalf of co-authors)
When Silence Replaces Refutation: An Open Critique of Editorial Non-Engagement and the Erosion of Scientific Self-Correction
https://yueliusd.substack.com/publish/post/187261422
On the Quality Criteria for Microwave Absorbing Materials, Adv. Electron. Mater. 2025, 11, e00239, Volume11, Issue14, September 4, 2025,e00239，https://doi.org/10.1002/aelm.202500239
2026年02月09日 07:47 (星期一)
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 act as if they care about novelty, but when a real problem is raised, they keep silent with no response, even though they promised that they would respond within 3 working days.
“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.“
“… our current response time is no sooner than 3 working days.”