The modern plagiarism has been enhanced to very sophisticated forms as ‘logical copying’ (see more at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/harvard_mit) and ’symmetrical copying’ (see more at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/sussextable). This swindlings are widely spread in such famous institutions as Harward & Cambridge Univ. (see more at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/synapticfethighl & issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/fem respectively), whose glory is based mostly on them. Moreover, that neither COPE, nor the ‘research Ombudsman’ (see more at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/lettersl__wer) have not any care about the numerous violations (see more at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/visualpromising or issuu.com/r_sklyar/stacks/16dfc909e0574a7d9b0c4e1666eb21b6).
Table 1 should be finalized by the results of two relevant projects of a former Soviet Union which was developed at Ukrainian NAS (see doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23934.05442 ). Because this my know-how is still of paramount tradeoff between NEMI and the mass/dimensional parameters. The complete description is available in my recent translations of two respective papers 'Wide band induction transducers ...' and 'Sensitivity level and noise ...' at doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31270.65606 .
The pairs of Index Terms 'bidirectional interface'&'brain–machine interface' and 'intracortical microstimulation'&'neural prosthesis' are synonymical. On the other hand, the core method 'Active exploration' was not anyhow emphasized. However, a brain–machine–brain interface with a bidirectional neuroprosthesis was originally advanced in my papers at publons.com/publon/4049017 and publons.com/publon/32215199. The imported single equation was plotted and has been never used further.
The keyword fingerprinting is too general and figurative. Instead, a couple of them are necessary for '4.2. Offline Training Phase' section on the several pages! 'Using the magnetic field alone for indoor location [10]' was advanced by me several years before at publons.com/publon/11089887. The acquired numerical results should be summarized in '6. Conclusions', for example to justify 'good robustness and accuracy for buildings with low magnetic field variability'.
The references in Abstract is unacceptable. However 'a ferroelectric memristor' was already invented by me at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/fem. The fraction of switched domains ruled by the Kolmogorov-Avrami-Ishibashi model in Egs. 1&2 were duplicated in 'Methods'.
'Demonstrate that conductance variations can be modelled by the nucleation-dominated reversal of domains' and 'arrays of ferroelectric nanosynapses can autonomously learn to recognize patterns in a predictable way' in Abstract should be validated by the acquired numerical results. However application of polarization switching in ferroelectric memristor for artificial neural networks was invented by me at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/fem. An explanation of BFO in the caption for Fig. 1b is excessive, because it was done in the text. Also Fig. 1d and the inset in Fig. 4d are poor visible.
This journal has published in 2012 the plagiarized paper 'Outside Looking In: Nanotube Transistor Intracellular Sensors' by R. Gao at al., doi: 10.1021/nl301623p (explore further at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/-nwintracellsens12). My immediate respective complaint was decisively rejected by the editorial officials.
The keywords nanobioelectronics, nanoelectronic device, and nanosensor are almost the same. The fabrication of nanotube transistor probes was carried out according to the known procedures. The demonstrated biochemical transducer was advanced in my papers at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/-nwintracellsens12. Moreover, the results in figures were mainly reported before.
This journal has published in 2010 the plagiarized paper 'New perspectives on the dialogue between brains and machines' by S. Mussa-Ivaldi at al., doi: 10.3389/neuro.01.008.2010 (explore further at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/sklyarvsmussaivaldi). My immediate respective complaint was decisively rejected by the editorial officials.
The keywords security and telehealth are mentioned in Abstract only. However, the method of orientation in an EM field was invented in my papers at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/sklyarvsprance. The equations should be numbered as (1), (2), etc. More circuit parameters should be defined in Fig. 1, at least the input and output values. The abscissa axis in Fig. 2 should be marked in meters, according to SI requirements. Also the plot in Fig. 2b is so precise that must be constrained by the measurement errors. The same is for 'Four identical sensors were constructed, and mounted on tripods at a height of 1 m.' which have both the circuit and geometrical errors. Fig. 3a&b could be combined, because of the common signal processing arrangement. The 'optical tracking techniques' in Fig. 5 do not mentioned in Abstract. Also stressing on 'position in metres' is excessive, because this is shown in Fig. 5.
This journal has published in 2012 the plagiarized paper 'Position and movement sensing at metre standoff distances using ambient electric field' by H Prance at al., doi:10.1088/0957-0233/23/11/115101 (explore further at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/sklyarvsprance). My respective complaint several years ago was decisively rejected by both the editorial and university officials at https://issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/sussextable.
The title does not consistent with the aim 'a three-terminal rare-earth nickelate thin-film transistor that mimics a biological synapse'. Because a nickelate thin-film transition is described in the references provided and it 'can potentially simulate synaptic analogue action with reasonable switching speed' (1s + 10 ms)x 1500 = 1500s + 15s = 25.5 min, according to Fig. 5. The same is for Abstract where 'Results' section on four and a half pages (until 'Synaptic properties simulated ...') was mentioned in a couple of phrases! The main idea in generating of nerve impulses by FET devices was originally invented by me at issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/synapticfethighl. Moreover, such a device is extensively investigated: 'Non-volatile memory and history-dependent analogue-like states are two elemental characteristics for synapse-simulating devices [14]–[16]', 'Three-terminal synaptic devices, being able to realize both functions simultaneously, therefore offer a promising solution for efficient synapse simulation [23]–[28]', and 'As correlated oxides with sharp thermally driven insulator–metal transition, nickelates are of interest in areas spanning from physics to electronics [29], [30]'. But the emulated neural stimulation in Fig. 5 does not compared neither with a real one, nor with previously acquired results.
The stimulation frequency does not specified in Fig. 2e. Also Fig. 2d presents two values of 'Percent correct' - 6 and 80 only, any 's.e.m' and 'two rats' do not defined. Suddenly, 'intensity of air pressure applied to whiskers' appears in the end of the paper for some mysterious '16 channels' in Fig. 3e. Moreover, the 'Results' section, which occupies main part of the paper does not reflected in Abstract at all! On the other hand, the conclusion in Abstract 'sensory cortical prostheses, in addition to restoring normal neurological functions, may serve to expand natural perceptual capabilities in mammals' and the ending of Discussion - 'One potential application of the technology used in this study is in the design of a new generation of motor neuroprostheses ...' are advanced before in my papers at https://issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/invisible_light-
论文