Also, I observed some papers which are published in low impact factor journal (lower SJR also) were cited around 0.1 million times... Its surprising me !!!

The impact factor of a journal is not always related to the quality of the research published on it. IF is just a librarian's number to assess the number of citations of the journal against their number of papers. Good science and papers will always be found, even in low IF journals (probably up to some threshold level). IF is not a measure of the quality of the paper.

"Real science" as you name it, should always be reproducible, and possible to explain through the simplest explanation (Occam's razor).

Scientific community should never be "easily accepting", that is the main idea of peer review, letters and comments on paper. Scientific community should be all the opposite of easily accepting; and good science should pass the test of the peer review of scientific community.

If I submit a paper, I want it tested under the highest degree of scrutiny. If the paper and its explanations are correct, it must pass all the tests from the scientific community.

Dear SKumar

You may be partly true but not in most of cases,

Real Science has nothing to do anything with IF. A report which might not be appear phenomenal at time of invention/publication e.g., Berry Phase (proceeding paper), Mott transition (JNCS), Curie Wiess law (ferroelectrics) all these journal are low impact. But with the time they proved true and get in the practice become science. Most of Physical Review has low impact than many chemistry journal publishing physics/Material Sc.

On lighter note, it is the analogous difference between popular persons viz., Bollywood actors and real hero viz., soldier or even good people in our research community.

I hope it will cool down you.

Do your research honestly and with dedication, it will give fruit sooner or later. Stunt men are not require in real Science (recall controversy of 'hahnium').

Emmanouil Markoulakis

What about experiments that outright reject accepted physics.

It wold be nice to get someone interested in repeating the experiments - but that doesn't happen - at least not yet. I'm puzzled by this because the experiments I've done are really simple. So, these experiments are not a matter of having an experiment with an accepted model and only the model is different. Ah. Well.

Being some experienced professor I will try to express my opinion to this question.

The basic feature is the reproducibility of some phenomenon made in one laboratory at different variations of external factors and then in other laboratories. Only after that it becomes possible to think what is happened.

Now I am working with nano-noises in electrochemistry in the presence of unremovable artifacts. The explanation of these experiments was a real challenge for me. However, the final result was successful and this paper will be published soon in New Journal of Chemistry.

I think that now we found all possible deterministic laws and deal with strong correlations. However, the "correlation" laws are not so clear for interpretation as the deterministic ones. That is why more delicate and fine mathematical tools are required in order to discover the desired laws. "Fractional" laws related to the fractional calculus are good examples for that.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

You are truly right about the idea of scientific progress, and Einstein's relativity proves your point. Everybody believed Newton was precise however, reviewing Newton's mechanics in the broad range of relativity has proved that we must always repeat the previous experiments and allow more explanations taking into consideration the opposite explanations because this is how induction works and how science progresses. However these explanations must not be accepted easily and must be forced to contribute to the explanation of the different aspects of the scientific query so that they can considered to became eligible for more scientific experiments.

Finally we must always remember that we are only solving the puzzle of understanding the universe which is more to be compared to trials and errors simply because the range of our observation to the nature is not absolute.

In general I completely agree with this general comment. from my side Im trying to improve the different statistical methods in order to increase the sensitivity and reproducibility the measured data. Experiment is our main toll in understanding of the surrounding Reality, Her Highness "Theory" is trying to collect reliable data and discover the deterministic laws that are hidden from us.