Lucas Teunissen’s Post

See how Nikon #Microscopy products are used in research 📄 🔬 PubScope is a database of over 125,000 peer-reviewed journal publications that utilize Nikon products. You can filter by product, author, publication year, as well as scientific topic. Click here to check it out: https://bit.ly/4fd6ohS P.S. Make sure to check back regularly as the database is updated frequently!

Today, I finished my 25th paper review of the year (yes, and it is the middle of May). On this occasion, it was a paper submitted to the prestigious Journal of Business Research (Elsevier)! It's a pleasure to work as a reviewer for such reputable journals because you learn a lot from the review process. #reviewprocess #science

Are you have a bad research day? You are not alone, you are not the first one ‼️ this is one of my favorite papers as first author, just look at how many versions I had to work on before it was finally published, Oftentimes people only see the products and not the amount of effort or amount of tears, or sweat you had to go through to get it done, so keep your eyes on the end product not the process, it may distract you. Keep going it shall be well 💪🏽 🙏🏾 For my birthday month, I am going to revive research corner, the first topic will be the Journey of publishing in a scientific journal. We gonna do it on the 24th April 2024, 18h00, will share registration link soon. #ResearchcornerwithDrJossy

Dive Deep into Scientific Peer Review: Uncover the intricate evaluation process manuscripts undergo, shedding light on the multifaceted outcomes in scientific publishing. Elevate your comprehension of the scholarly journey with Chisquares. #Chisquares #PeerReview #ScientificPublishing #ResearchInsights

Don't let your llm's ingest bad science I've written about the problems of paper mills, faux journals, and junk science before, but recent advancements in #genAI have turbo-charged these problems. Another example of the scope of the problem comes recently from John Wiley & Sons.  A new detection service from Wiley flagged between 10-13% percent of submitted manuscripts that were sent for review to 270 journals during a pilot phase. Wiley is a top tier, respected publisher. What do you think the percentage will be for less rigorous, less respectable outlets?? #CaveatLector   https://lnkd.in/eSQTXtHY

🔗 Why do we recommend "linking peer-reviewed articles"? Preprints.org encourages authors to connect their preprint papers with the peer-reviewed versions for mutual benefits. Once linked, citation formats of peer-reviewed articles appear on preprint pages, means: 🔹 Stay Updated: Readers track research progress from preprint to publication. 🔹 Wider Reach: Peer-reviewed versions reach broader audiences, offering reliable references. 🔹 Enhanced Citations: Links prompt citing peer-reviewed versions, boosting citations and impact. It's a win-win for authors and readers alike! https://brnw.ch/21wLiBF

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫! Don't complicate the process. Here are the essential steps for crafting a compelling scientific manuscript: #Title: Grab attention with a concise and informative title. #Abstract: Summarize the entire paper, highlighting key points. #Introduction: Provide context, state the research question, and emphasize significance. #Literature Review: Review existing research to contextualize your study. #Methods: Describe the research design and methodology in detail. #Results: Present findings objectively using tables, figures, and statistics. #Discussion: Interpret results, compare with existing literature, and discuss implications. #Conclusion: Summarize main findings and their significance. #Acknowledgments: Thank individuals or organizations who contributed to the research. #References: List all cited sources following a specific citation style. #ResearchPaper #ScienceWriting #AcademicWriting #Publishing #ResearchMethods #ScientificCommunication #LinkedInLearning #AcademicTwitter

How to write Discussion in a Research paper.

🧐 1 in 7 scientific papers is fake, suggests a new study! A recent analysis published by Retraction Watch reveals that approximately 1 in 7 scientific papers may be fabricated. The study’s own author even describes the methodology as 'wildly nonsystematic,' raising significant concerns about the quality control in academic publishing. 😮 In an era where research credibility is paramount, this report highlights the growing issue of paper mills, fake authorship, and the need for stronger peer-review mechanisms. 🔗 Read more: https://lnkd.in/dwBmkeeu #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicPublishing #FakeScience #RetractionWatch #ResearchVisibility #ResearchImpact Thanks, Afshin Abbaspour (ABBAS POUR) MEng for suggesting the article.

Thanks to this course, I am able to understand how reviewer assess a research paper. I am eager to implement it to boost my rate of publication.