何妨吟嘯且徐行 Dedicate to life

这个星期二还真是多事之秋。但这里的多事指的也并非坏事，只是当事情太多，而无法将之部落劲（blogging），对于渐渐养成重度部落瘾（也是blogging乎，哈）的我，的确是很pek chek的事。 但对于拥有多元关怀多样才华多重身份（人瑞级研究生+假文艺青年+假热血青年+失恋重伤男）的我来说，这是无可厚非，也无可避免。其实我也相当珍惜这个几乎可以酿成情绪和精神分裂的阶段，正如狄更斯在其《双城记》的开篇名句一样（虽然已经被泛滥引用，我还是忍不住要再次引用）。

这些句子在任何时候，都适用于描写当代的社会，因为天使与魔鬼同时存在，光明和黑暗的辩证关系，正是敦促人类追求真善美的力量，无论在如何恶劣的情况底下，就如顾城的那一首诗《一代人》：“黑夜给了我黑色的眼睛，我却用它寻找光明。”。然而此刻，这些名句也适用于描绘我内心里对于自我安身立命前路茫茫的嘈杂状态。如何利用正面积极的力量和方法，导引自己走入台湾文化评论家杨照所谓的“Renaissance Man”的成长方向，而不是黑暗的地狱，当是首要的关怀。

那是最好的时代，那是最坏的时代；
那是智慧的年头，那是愚昧的年头；
那是信仰的时期，那是怀疑的时期；
那是光明的季节，那是黑暗的季节；
那是希望的春天，那是失望的冬天；
我们全都在直奔天堂，我们全都在直奔相反的方向……

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us, we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way……
——A Tale of Two Citys (by Charles Dickens) (more…)

那一次，研讨会一隅。

大部分的时候，我都是聚精会神的在听其他人的演说。

当然有些时刻，昏昏欲睡是免不了的。

一天之计在于晨，分享一点知识。然后就要让几天前的无心向学终止，开始冲、冲、冲……当然，吃了早餐再说。

沸石最早发现于1756年。瑞典的矿物学家克朗斯提（Cronstedt）发现有一类天然硅铝酸盐矿石在灼烧时会产生沸腾现象，因此命名为“沸石”（瑞典文zeolit）。在希腊文中意为“沸腾”（zeo）的“石头”（lithos）。此后，人们对沸石的研究不断深入。

1932年，McBain提出了“分子筛”的概念。表示可以在分子水平上筛分物质的多孔材料。虽然沸石只是分子筛的一种，但是沸石在其中最具代表性，因此“沸石”和“分子筛”这两个词经常被混用。（Source)

Dear participant,

It is less than two weeks before the SKAM19 and MyCat2 will start. We hope you have made the necessary arrangement for your stay at the Riviera Bay Resort, Melaka (Please reconfirm your booking with the hotel) or any place nearby. If you had yet to pay the registration fee please do so as quickly as possible.

On Wednesday, 23 August 2006 the conference dinner will be held. All participants are invited. This year the commitee feels a more relaxed, less formal dinner will be fun so we decided on a BBQ dinner by the poolside of the resort (if weather permitting). (more…)

[C&EN August 29, 2005]

   INORGANIC MENAGERIE

  Unusual properties of nanotubes made from inorganic materials offer intriguing possibilities for applications

Although the investment in financial and human resources devoted to inorganic nanotubes lags behind that of carbon nanotubes, a number of reviews suggest that inorganic nanotube research is increasing rapidly (Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1497; Dalton Trans. 2003, 1; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 2446).

READ MORE on ACS >>

July 2005

  </td>
  <td>
  <div align="center"><b>Source</b></div>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>1. Journal of Biological Chemistry</td>
  <td>American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America</td>
  <td>National Academy of Sciences</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>3. Nature (London)</td>
  <td>Nature Publishing Group</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>4. Science (Washington, D.C.)</td>
  <td>American Association for the Advancement of Science</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>5. Journal of the American Chemical Society</td>
  <td>American Chemical Society</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>6. Physical Review Letters</td>
  <td>American Physical Society</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>7. Journal of Chemical Physics</td>
  <td>American Institute of Physics</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>8. Cell (Cambridge, Massachusetts)</td>
  <td>Cell Press</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>9. The Journal of Physical Chemistry (A and B)</td>
  <td>American Chemical Society</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>10. Physical Review B: Condensed Matter and Materials Physics</td>
  <td>American Physical Society</td>
</tr>

JAN/FEB 2005

Two years ago, these pages featured journals ranked by impact (citations per paper) in 11 broad fields of science, based on data from the Thomson Scientific web-based evaluation tool ISI Essential Science Indicators (see Science Watch, 14[3]: 1-2, May/June 2003). That survey employed the standard 10-year set of publication and citation figures featured in Essential Science Indicators (at the time, the moving 10-year window, with its regular bimonthly additions of data, covered January 1992 to December 2002).

Science Watch now presents an updated collection of journal rankings, based on a special subset of Essential Science Indicators (ESI) data covering the last six years, reflecting papers published and cited in Thomson-indexed journals between January 1999 and August 2004.

This survey, like its predecessor, adheres to the ESI definition of “papers” as regular scientific articles, review articles, proceedings papers, and research notes. Letters to the editor are excluded, as are correction notices and abstracts. The fields covered in ESI (22 in all, half of which are represented here) are defined by groupings of Thomson-indexed journals, with no journal assigned to more than one field.

As was the case last time, Science Watch elected to scrutinize the ESI journal rankings and leave out those journals that exclusively publish review articles. Reviews, of course, as convenient summaries of past research, tend to be highly cited—as is the case, subsequently, with review journals. The present rankings reflect journals that primarily publish discovery accounts and other original research.

The rankings are also confined to journals that published continuously during the six-year period, from January 1999 to August 2004. To ensure that all journals were assessed over the same time span, such journals as Nature Immunology, which began publication in 2000, or Cancer Cell, which dates from 2002, were excluded. In the case of journals that underwent a name change during the period under study (for example, American Zoologist, which became Integrative and Comparative Biology in 2002), impact scores were calculated by combining the publication and citation figures for the old and new names.

ESI, as noted in the previous survey, not only lists the specialty journals in each field but can also assign papers from the multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) to the proper field (based on an algorithmic assessment of each paper’s cited references, as well as of the journals in which each paper has subsequently been cited).

In all 11 of the fields shown here, Nature and Science obviously predominate, with both appearing at either #1 or #2 in each field (although Science claims the slight majority with six #1 showings). In a few instances, as the rounded figures show, the results were virtually identical (in Space Science, for example, where Science squeaked by with 24.06 cites per paper, compared to Nature’s mark of 23.86). PNAS was also in the thick of things, appearing in nine of the rankings, and within the top five in seven.

Today, i had just reviewed the databases of scientific publications that i am using since my undergraduate study on chemical science. After doing postgraduate research for some time, i feel that in fact i don’t really master the skills for searching scientific publications or other related research material. Of course, i did receive database-searching training at the final year of undergraduate and at the early stage of postgraduate study. However, i feel that the training itself is not enough, and the chance to polish the skills is a few too.

Fortunately, i still have the chance and time to learn. At least, now, i know how to search patents, standard methods, journal articles and so on. At least, i know how to differenciate the review papers, communication papers, articles, feature articles and research notes. At least, i know that an exhaustive literature reviews is hardly achived.

Due to the diversity, the central and neutral nature of chemical science, there are a lot of publications and publishers related to chemical science. Furthermore, most scientific journals are now highly specialized and even more specialized from time to time. For instance, a researcher doing on material chemistry and a researcher doing on analytical chemistry may look for different source of publications for their literature survey.

Ironically, the most influential journals of chemistry is not the specialized journals, but it is rather general-purpose multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary journals. The journals named here is Nature, Science and PNAS.

As for convenience, i compiled the databases and put it in my blog. But compilation of all chemistry-related databases is seems unnecessary. This column is for all readers to leaves your comments to share your knowledge and to let me know what i don’t know. This KianKeat-made database will be updated seasonally and there is a link on the “Navigate” sidebar to let me (or let you, perhaps) to achieve anytime.

（在论坛的回应）

我在大学已经五年了。越来越觉得，这些所谓的“教授”，“博士”的称呼是不必要的。或许作为尊重，因此我们会称呼讲师为博士或教授（视讲师的学历或职衔而定）。

但一个讲师的学识，能力，视野，贡献，实力等等，并不能简单的以学历或职衔来分类。一个真正有能力，有才华的讲师，并不会在意这些虚名。反而，越有学识，应该越谦虚，并持续学习，研究。

我有一些在国外求学的朋友，他们的有些教授，吩咐他们说直称他们的名字就可以了（比如John)。在这种方式，教授的定位既是一位传授学识的长者，也是一位互相切磋和学习的伙伴。这种方式不是挺好吗？而且，有洞见的教授，应该意识到自己的学生在将来应该要有比自己更优秀的表现，正所谓青出于蓝而更胜于蓝，真正的学者，会有这样的胸襟。教授与学生，只是闻道先后的分别而已。

学生尊重讲师是应该的，但不必过度的自我矮化。如果一个教授要求学生应该慎重的称呼他为教授，那也无妨，但他为人的胸襟和视野，则不言而喻了。这种教授最多只能是工匠，无法成为大师。

但马来西亚，大师能得几回闻？