Hello!
I'm really please to joint the powder diffraction mailing group. I have already recieved more than twenty mails within the short period of three days I have been with the group, but up to now I still more strange about the topic of discussion. I will greatly appreciate if somebody can give
>E. K. Akdogan, Ph. D.
>Research Associate
>
>Center for Ceramic Research
>Rutgers University
>607 Taylor Road
>Piscataway, NJ 08854-8065
>Phone: (732)-445 5614
>Fax: (732)-445 5577
>E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>-----Original Message-
>From: Da
Dear Powder friends,
There appears to be a distinction in the arguments put forward between using
powder diffraction as a tool and powder diffraction in itself as a science.
I would put forward that some of the most elegant powder diffraction work
that I have read or I am familiar with had to do
8, 2001 9:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
I agree on Alan's remark Armel,
and also on superconductor-related papers that could have artificially high
levels of citation. It will be very hard however to satisfy everybody
without putting all the cita
I agree on Alan's remark Armel,
and also on superconductor-related papers that could have artificially high
levels of citation. It will be very hard however to satisfy everybody
without putting all the citations about crystallography ! There are so many
fields and so many interests.
We may have
Armil,
the Jorgensen paper is mostly about powder diffraction, and I'm sure the
word is in the abstract, but unfortunately abstracts are not available on
WOS for older papers. For other papers like the one mentioned by Alan, I'm
a bit puzzled. There is more: the following paper:
SIMULTANEOUS S
>>The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring
>>either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere.
>
>Seems a pretty restrictive criterion, and likely to favour papers on technique rather
>than science (though I note that Rietveld's paper's do not qu
At 14:14 28/03/2001, you wrote:
>The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring
>either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere.
Seems a pretty restrictive criterion, and likely to favour papers on
technique rather than science (though I note that Ri
Paolo,
>What criterion was adopted in the search? The following famous paper,
>clearly of structural subject, is not on your list, but has 768 citations:
The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring
either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere.
Armil:
What criterion was adopted in the search? The following famous paper,
clearly of structural subject, is not on your list, but has 768 citations:
STRUCTURAL-PROPERTIES OF OXYGEN-DEFICIENT YBA2CU3O7-DELTA
JORGENSEN JD, VEAL BW, PAULIKAS AP, NOWICKI LJ, CRABTREE GW, CLAUS H, KWOK
WK
PHYSICAL
10 matches
Mail list logo
