Website © 2018 AIP Publishing LLC. Article copyright remains as specified within the article.

Once you complete CAPTCHA, you will be proved himself and you will be able to access the web properties in the rest of the session.

If you are using a personal connection at home, you can run antivirus scanning on the device so that it is not infected with malware.

If you are on an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to perform a scan on the network to find configuration errors for infected devices. Alternatively, you can ask the network administrator to contact Scitation for permanent IP unblocking.

Of course, it is very important to understand the meaning of copyright and copyright protection. So I added some useful URLs at the end of this article. But in reality at least one image is stolen at some point and will be reclaimed without our knowledge or permission. It is therefore necessary to pay attention as much as possible to the fact that the image we steal is not the most valuable and / or the most valuable image for us. I have heard you saying that you are right. But as a logical it makes sense

Edit: Wednesday, February 7, 2018, 6:09 PM Margot Black sent me an e-mail with the subject "original sentence". Because PTU has an unconditional allegation, she published an original article containing an explanation of Margot's aversion, she proved that she did not edit this Chinese article since the release date of January 3 I asked for a screenshot. The language was later edited. I sent a screenshot of this article's edit history request, but Margot did not think that the evidence was enough. She edited a few of my articles and asked me to re-release it to show that I did not hide obnoxious women and uncomfortable words about Margot and other PTU members. So this is a small editor

However, in Elsevier's opinion, since the paper provided by our News Reporting (AiP) service is not in the same status as the officially published article, we deleted the problem paper from AiP. Or by employees of ScienceDirect. In principle, all substantive editorial ethics complaints related to the editor need to be investigated. This is because the complainant may want to maintain reasonable justification for his confidentiality. However, according to our experience, many of the recent anonymous complaints are unclear about the specific misbehavior that has been claimed, and it is difficult for the editor to consider the complaint in a serious way.