Talk:Marin Soljačić

Hidden away

Why is this hidden away with Marin Soljacic, the spelling on his faculty page, a redlink? Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. SWik78 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marin Soljačić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619111514/http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.4537289/ to http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.4537289/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nature Nanotechnology paper

Regarding the Soljacic's role in the Nature Nanotechnology paper discussed in the article, there are two supporting reliable sources:

• news.mit.edu lists Soljacic is one of the three primary authors, while Ognjen Ilic is just given a mention. The article also quotes Soljacic on the subject matter.
• economist.com also says something to that effect (I can't access it now due to free article limit there)

Please provide evidence, using reliable secondary sources, that Soljacic is indeed not one of the primary authors. In that case, we might discuss the alternatives to the current text. GregorB (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"[...] it is stupid to set this paper apart because there are a dozen more important papers"[1] No, it's not stupid. For this particular paper, there are two very solid sources which focus on it (rather than e.g. just mentioning it in passing), which tells me this is not some obscure work and is important enough to be given two sentences in one's bio. I'm not aware of any of these "more important papers", but if indeed there are some, of course they could be mentioned in the article - surely everyone is free to do so.

A number of claims have been made (Soljacic not a primary author, a dozen or so more important papers), but no evidence has been provided. Please discuss here, with concrete evidence, otherwise your edits can (and likely will) be reverted again. GregorB (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, what the article says ("A prototype bulb achieved light efficiency of 6.6%, far above conventional incandescent bulbs.") should at least reasonably imply this is something both novel and important. GregorB (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already given you a source when I edited the article. Check for a corresponding (senior) author. There is only one.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2015.309

Corresponding author <> senior author: "The corresponding authors of a paper are those to whom readers can address questions, requests for materials, or even suggestions for further work."[2] These are usually, but not always, senior authors. Moreover, there can be only one corresponding author, even when there are multiple senior authors, so having a person listed a a corresponding author does not imply he or she is the only significant contributor. See also e.g. [3].

The question still remains as to why these two sentences are unimportant for Soljacic's bio. It may be unimportant if:

1. Soljacic's role in the paper is marginal, and/or
2. The paper's importance is marginal.

I don't think #2 is a reasonable claim, so I'll try to find more evidence (dis)proving #1. GregorB (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me why some paper with 23 citations according to Nature is so important it needs to be written down? Don't tell me newspaper articles give that impression.

Are you in any way connected to the paper or its authors? GregorB (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.146.229 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not.

Here, O. Ilic is described as the "lead author", but the "team" is generally credited for the work ("a team of MIT researchers describes", "the team solved the problem"). As I already noted, someone's primary authorship does not nullify the contributions of others who have been listed as the main authors, and - unless one implies Soljacic and others are blatantly piggybacking on Ilic's work - I still don't see how the relevance of the paper in Soljacic's bio can be entirely dismissed. That being said, I don't see it as particularly important either, so that's it, I'm leaving it for other editors to decide. GregorB (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)