It is even better. This prouves that your work is original. It must be something done differently. Try to find the differences. You could also check again your own results. Searching for the thruth and being honest are keys for success in any field including scientific research.

My advice is to cite the article and mention the differences in hypothesis or metodology or results.

Dear Sir Zin

Even if the results are 100% contrary. 180 ° opposite

Thank you sir for you answer. I 'll think about it.

It is even better. This prouves that your work is original. It must be something done differently. Try to find the differences. You could also check again your own results. Searching for the thruth and being honest are keys for success in any field including scientific research.

No action required:

Let another researcher conduct research on it. He/she will prove, who is right.

In my opinion, in recent decades, the culture of discussion in science has completely disappeared. This does not bode well. Everyone writes about his own results, mentions any previous work...

In my opinion, if you are sure that you are right, then you should publish your results, indicating in which points these contradict to previously published ones. But... "measure it seven times - cut it once", I would start by stating a problems at a strong seminar or conference.

Talk to a peer-viewed journal editor to see what his or her recommendations would be.

What I did in one the similar situation, Compared the techniques applied, and generated regression model of variations in the results Discussed the causes of change.

No problem, cite the paper having contrary results, and incorporate its findings in discussion section of your paper, and submit it to any suitable journal for publication.

This happened with me also. I have measured nutrient resorption efficiencies in some tropical trees planted on nutrient deficient habitat mine spoil. In my study, I have reported greater nutrient resorption efficiencies in trees growing on mine spoil. However, contrary to the result of my study, several eminent workers have reported lower resorption efficiencies in trees growing on nutrient deficient habitats.

With your article you have come across another similar article reflecting the similar views . In this cases you should study his article in scrutiny & this will help you to carry out your introspection with your ideas & if you find something new in his thinking line you should give your thinking in his views & it is very likely that something new thinking phase may come to your mind.

This is my personal opinion

Probably, you have not seen the paper before you start the work. Based on the results, you have written the paper, so not to be worried. If there is scope , you can mention the previous article in your manuscript indicating the difference in results.

I thank everyone for their opinions, Zin Eddine Dadach, Ajit kumar Roy, Nafees Mohammad, Vadim S. Gorshkov, Dennis Mazur, Jahangir Khan, Arvind Singh, Rohit Manilal Parikh, Asit Kumar Batabyal,

You should publish your results

Dear brother abderrahmane

Sometimes when one tries to copy past good results he/she copy past wrong ones.

You do better contact them, and ask him/her about his/her results.

Regards.

I think you have to mention this article in your discussion section and compare the method or instrument used or anything to observe the differences and them try to explain and justified your findings

Thank you Felix Nwafor, Hima Abdelkader and Lamia Al-Naama

You must go ahead with publishing your article especially that results are contrary. Cite the article and try and find other articles also supporting your findings

Scopus or not there is one very important thing called the anteriority of the idea or the discovery. The other gay overtook you. Nevertheless, you must go ahead and publish your work and compare it with all others works.

No matter! Often researchers replicate studies and the results as in your case might be different.

Thanks for you answer Dr Borden Mushonga , Dr Djallel Zebbar , dr Abdullah Noori