S********y
发帖数: 182 | 1 ResearcherID的引用漏的太多，只有150。google上却有200+。用google作油灯图太麻
烦，大伙看看ResearcherID的图够不够用？谢谢 | t******m
发帖数: 2402 | | k********g
发帖数: 1686 | | S*********n
发帖数: 895 | 4 it's better to use objective evidence, not subjective.
acutally in many cases, you don't have to spend too much time on that. paper
and citiations and small percentage are the real thingings we should dig
gl
ResearcherID的引用漏的太多，只有150。google上却有200+。用google作油灯图太麻
烦，大伙看看ResearcherID的图够不够用？谢谢
【在 S********y 的大作中提到】
: ResearcherID的引用漏的太多，只有150。google上却有200+。用google作油灯图太麻
: 烦，大伙看看ResearcherID的图够不够用？谢谢
| R*****u
发帖数: 712 | 5 Thanks
paper
【在 S*********n 的大作中提到】
: it's better to use objective evidence, not subjective.
: acutally in many cases, you don't have to spend too much time on that. paper
: and citiations and small percentage are the real thingings we should dig
: gl
:
: ResearcherID的引用漏的太多，只有150。google上却有200+。用google作油灯图太麻
: 烦，大伙看看ResearcherID的图够不够用？谢谢
|
|
