宜宾哪里可以永久脱毛宜宾割双眼皮开眼角要多钱,宜宾瘦身,宜宾一般双眼皮多少钱,宜宾哪家医院能做激光脱毛,安徽哪里隆鼻好,宜宾光子嫩肤美容哪家医院好,宜宾自体脂肪丰胸的效果

SAN FRANCISCO, July 28 (Xinhua) -- Global marketing and advertising research company Nielson on Thursday said in its latest survey that Google's Android operating system (OS) continued to dominate the U.S. smartphone market in June.According to Nielson's June survey of mobile consumers, the Android OS claims the largest share of the U.S. consumer smartphone market with 39 percent. Apple's iOS is in second place with 28 percent while RIM Blackberry is down to 20 percent.Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 OS had a 9 percent share of the market while HP webOS (Palm) accounted for 2 percent as did Nokia' s Symbian.In Nielson's May survey, 38 percent of smartphone consumers had a device powered by Android, compared to 27 percent for Apple's iOS for iPhones and 21 percent for RIM Blackberry.Talking about the manufacturer share, Apple is the No.1 in the U.S. as it is the only company manufacturing smartphones with the iOS, said the report.Other leading manufacturers include HTC, whose Android phones represents 14 percent of the smartphone market and whose Windows Mobile/WP7 devices accounted for 6 percent of the market.Motorola's Android devices are owned by 11 percent of smartphone consumers. Samsung's Android devices are used by 8 percent of smartphone consumers and its Windows Phone 7 devices take a 2 percent share, said Nielson.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (Xinhua) -- Black scientists were significantly less likely than their white counterparts to receive research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), according to an analysis of data from 2000 to 2006.University of Kansas Professor of Economics Donna Ginther was the lead author on the study commissioned by the NIH, which will appear Friday in journal Science.The researchers found a 10 percentage point gap in research funding -- even after taking into consideration demographics, education and training, employer characteristics, NIH experience and research productivity. For example, for every 100 grants submitted to NIH, 30 grants from white applicants were funded, compared to 20 grants for black applicants.Applications for NIH funding go through peer review that considers the significance, innovation and approach of grant applications, the investigator(s) and the research environment. About half of the applications are determined to be worth scoring. Among those scored, budgets and NIH Institutes priorities determine which applications are funded. Priorities can vary by year and by Institute.The study found that applications from black researchers were less likely to be scored and on average had worse scores. After controlling for the score of the grant, there were no race or ethnicity differences in funding.Applicants self-identify race, ethnicity and gender, but that information is not available during the peer review. However, biographical facts that are included in the review materials can provide clues to the identity of the applicants.The research suggests it is possible that cumulative advantage may explain the funding differences."Small differences in access to research resources and mentoring during training or at the beginning of a career may accumulate to become large between-group differences," the paper says.Additionally, the paper suggests further research is needed to determine why black researchers are less likely to be funded.NIH Director Francis Collins and Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak call the findings unacceptable and commit to immediate action by the NIH."NIH commissioned this study because we want to learn more about the challenges facing the scientific community and address them head on. The results of this study are disturbing and disheartening, and we are committed to taking action," said Collins in an accompanying commentary. "The strength of the U.S. scientific enterprise depends upon our ability to recruit and retain the brightest minds, regardless of race or ethnicity. This study shows that we still have a long way to go."NIH initiated the study in 2008 to determine if researchers of different races and ethnicities with similar research records and affiliations had similar likelihoods of being awarded a new NIH research project grant.

BEIJING, Sept. 25 (Xinhua) -- As China's economy has soared to the second place in the world, the country's scientific strength has also surged -- if only measured by the numbers.Chinese researchers published more than 1.2 million papers from 2006 to 2010 -- second only to the United States but well ahead of Britain, Germany and Japan, according to data recently published by Elsevier, a leading international scientific publisher and data provider. This figure represents a 14 percent increase over the period from 2005 to 2009.The number of published academic papers in science and technology is often seen as a gauge of national scientific prowess.But these impressive numbers mask an uncomfortable fact: most of these papers are of low quality or have little impact. Citation per article (CPA) measures the quality and impact of papers. China's CPA is 1.47, the lowest figure among the top 20 publishing countries, according to Elsevier's Scopus citation database.China's CPA dropped from 1.72 for the period from 2005 to 2009, and is now below emerging countries such as India and Brazil. Among papers lead-authored by Chinese researchers, most citations were by domestic peers and, in many cases, were self-citations."While quantity is an important indicator because it gives a sense of scientific capacity and the overall level of scientific activity in any particular field, citations are the primary indicator of overall scientific impact," said Daniel Calto, Director of SciVal Solutions at Elsevier North America.Calto attributed China's low CPA to a "dilution effect.""When the rise in the number of publications is so rapid, as it has been in China -- increasing quantity does not necessarily imply an overall increase in quality," said Calto.He noted the same pattern in a variety of rapidly emerging research countries such as India, Brazil, and earlier in places like the Republic of Korea."Chinese researchers are too obsessed with SCI (Science Citation Index), churning out too many articles of low quality," said Mu Rongping, Director-General of the Institute of Policy and Management at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China's major think tank.SCI is one of the databases used by Chinese researchers to look-up their citation performance. The alternative, Scopus, provides a wider coverage worldwide."Chinese researchers from a wide range of areas and institutions are vying for publication, as it is a key criterion for academic appraisal in China, if not the only one. As a result, the growth of quality pales in comparison to that of quantity," said Mu, an expert on China's national science policy and competitiveness.On the other hand, China also falls behind the United States in multidisciplinary research, which is a core engine for scientific advance and research excellence.From 2006 to 2010, China published 1,229,706 papers while the United States churned out 2,082,733. According to a new metric introduced by Elsevier's Spotlight research assessment solution, China generated 885 competencies while the United States had 1,817.In other words, China's total research output is more than half that of the United States, while the number of competencies showing China's strength in multidisciplinary research is less than half that of the United States.Cong Cao, an expert on China's science and technology, put it more bluntly in an article he wrote: "When the paper bubble bursts, which will happen sooner or later, one may find that the real situation of scientific research in China probably is not that rosy."China has been investing heavily in scientific research and technological development in recent years to strengthen its innovative capacity, The proportion of GDP spent on R&D grew from 0.9 percent in 2000 to 1.4 percent in 2007, according to the World Bank.An IMF forecast in 2010 says China now ranks second globally in R&D spending. The IMF calculates China's R&D expenditure at 150 billion U.S. dollars when based on Purchasing Power Parity, a widely used economic concept that attempts to equalize differences in standard of living among countries.By this measure, China surpassed Japan in R&D spending in 2010.Many see China's huge investment in R&D as the momentum behind the country's explosive increase in research papers."Getting published is, in some ways, an improvement over being unable to get published," Mu said. "But the problem is, if the papers continue to be of low quality for a long time, it will be a waste of resources."In China, academic papers play a central role in the academic appraisal system, which is closely related to degrees and job promotions.While acknowledging the importance of academic papers in research, Mu believes a more balanced appraisal system should be adopted. "This is a problem with science management. If we put too much focus on the quantity of research papers, we leave the job of appraisal to journal editors."In China, the avid pursuit of publishing sometimes gives rise to scientific fraud. In the most high-profile case in recent years, two lecturers from central China's Jinggangshan University were sacked in 2010 after a journal that published their work admitted 70 papers they wrote over two years had been falsified."This is one of the worst cases. These unethical people not only deceived people to further their academic reputations, they also led academic research on the wrong path, which is a waste of resources," Mu said.A study done by researchers at Wuhan University in 2010 says more than 100 million U.S. dollars changes hands in China every year for ghost-written academic papers. The market in buying and selling scientific papers has grown five-fold in the past three years.The study says Chinese academics and students often buy and sell scientific papers to swell publication lists and many of the purported authors never write the papers they sign. Some master's or doctoral students are making a living by churning out papers for others. Others mass-produce scientific papers in order to get monetary rewards from their institutions.A 2009 survey by the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) of 30,078 people doing science-related work shows that nearly one-third of respondents attributed fraud to the current system that evaluates researchers' academic performance largely on the basis of how many papers they write and publish.Despite rampant fraud, China will continue to inject huge money into science. According to the latest national science guideline, which was issued in 2006 by the State Council, the investment in R&D will account for 2.5 percent of GDP in 2020."If China achieves its stated goal of investing 2.5 percent of its GDP in R&D in 2020, and sustains its very fast economic growth over the next decade, it would quite likely pass the U.S. in terms of total R&D investment sometime in the late 2010s," said Calto, adding that it is also quite likely that at some point China will churn out more papers than the United States.According to Calto, China does mostly applied research, which helps drive manufacturing and economic growth, while basic research only accounts for 6 percent, compared with about 35 percent in Germany, Britain, and the United States, and 16 percent in Japan."In the long term, in order to really achieve dominance in any scientific area, I think it will be necessary to put significant financial resources into fundamental basic research -- these are the theoretical areas that can drive the highest level of innovation," Calto said.

BEIJING, Sept. 20 (Xinhuanet)-- Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt is to face a Senate hearing on whether the company is abusing its dominance in Internet search, according to media reports on Tuesday.At the Wednesday's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel, Schmidt will argue that critics are wrong to say Google gives preference to its own products, instead, Google is just trying to deliver the best-cultivated search results for users. The issue of search ranking is a touchy subject with Google, which says its algorithm is devised to give users the most useful result so they will come back.Another focal point of the hearing, which Schmidt concerned most is "scrapers", those who game its search algorithm, for example, taking commonly searched words, combine them into a nonsensical block of text and throw it up on the Web to grab eyeballs and advertising dollars.Google believes that, if scrapers succeed too often, consumers will lose confidence in search and turn to other resources, thus posing an existential threat to the company.Regulators in the U.S. and abroad have been looking into various aspects of Google's business practices since the company's 2007 purchase of ad firm DoubleClick. At the moment, European regulators are conducting an antitrust inquiry into Google's search business while the Federal Trade Commission is doing likewise. Google relies overwhelmingly on its core product, Internet search, and dominates the market for that product. It handles around two-thirds of U.S. Internet searches and more than 80 percent in many European countries, according to comScore Inc.