The VIEW PUBLICATION module of microsoft.com has an error; arbitrarily combines 2 different publications' outer microsoft.com sources. The error module bearing microsoft.com URL should be deleted. RRS feed

  • Question

  • How to correct the error in VIEW PUBLICATION module of microsoft.com? There is not any guide to edit this module of microsoft.com, the error microsoft.com module can not be deleted. An URL of microsoft.com is created in error arbitrarily combining two different paper sources under VIEW PUBLICATION module. The module misleadingly combines the outer microsoft.com full-text sources of 2 different publication (One is from DIABETES journal, the other is a PHYSICS journal) under only one module. These full-text links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Research. There is no way to delete this error module. Since there are other microsoft.com URLs for both this specific DIABETES and the PHYSICS publications, deleting this error URL will not remove any publication titles/abstracts from microsoft.com search engine database, but further reuploads of outer microsoft.com PDF files to correct microsoft.com URLs might be needed. There is no way to upload the correct PDF sources to correct VIEW PUBLICATION module; a microsoft.com search engine prompt says that microsoft.com already associated the outer microsoft.com files with some microsoft.com fabricated URLs/module. 
    Microsoft.com declares that VIEW PUBLICATION module will reach to the full-text publications of a single specific article/abstract. Any listed URL under VIEW PUBLICATION module must associate with a single specific article DOI or description. To delete the error in VIEW PUBLICATION module, the error module bearing URL should be deleted. 
    In conclusion, the View Publication Module of research.microsoft.com misuses outer microsoft.com URLs for wrong publications.  
    My copyrighted article URL from outer Microsoft.com sources is not listed with its own copyrighted title, but listed under an unknown abstract/unknown title (Determinantal solu....) by Microsoft.com search engine fabricated error. (The exact error URLs all have been reported to microsoft.com by a detailed e-mail. ) 

    Let's say one PubMed author decides not to be a member of Microsoft.com to solve the problems fabricated by microsoft.com. Such approach will never prevent microsoft.com from misusing an author copyrighted content what is maintained on an outer microsoft.com domain. Removing profile never will mean that microsoft.com will stop misusing your outer microsoft.com domain URLs on some incorrect microsoft.com featured publication URLs. Microsoft.com will still take outer microsoft.com URL, and arbitrarily, abusively will list it under an incorrect publication title featured on microsoft.com. It is not that current search engine flowcharts, technologies could not solve such problem of microsoft.com; I believe much more respect to author copyrights required. It is illegal taking an article title arbitrarily and linking it  to an entirely different journal article PDF file from outer microsoft.com domain; but, unfortunately microsoft.com is doing that with 'view publication' module errors. The VIEW PUBLICATION module should be editable by the copyright owner authors, or should be removed till the required technology developed. Google.com scholar might need to improve further, but never ever such arbitrary links occur on google.com scholar search engine at least till today. This problem of microsoft.com is ridiculous.
    Never ever forgivenable error of microsoft.com is that at present Microsoft.com errors merge 2 different publications to mislead science history, nothing is worse than merging 2 wrong publications as if a single publication. Merging wrong author profiles also was a problem, but such error merges seems editable if needed.

    The cost of hiring an intelligent flowchart engineer to prevent wrong publication merges; or, removing VIEW PUBLICATION is not really that much for such a big company. 

    The microsoft.com support unfortunately seems totally illegitimate or ignorant to their microsoft.com technology problems that violates legal rights. Microsoft.com failed technology vandalizes outer Microsoft.com copyrighted sites; Microsoft.com, violating copyrights, fabricates weird URLs linking to outer Microsoft.com URLs/files. Contrary to microsoft.com support team insufficient ignorant explanations, when an illegal weird/incorrect URL of microsoft.com incorrectly already linked to an outer microsoft.com copyrighted URL/file, the correct owner of the outer microsoft.com URL/file can not upload the file to the correct microsoft.com place any longer, using some upload methods of microsoft.com. If an illegal weird/incorrect profile which is fabricated by failed technology of microsoft.com is already associated with a copyrighted outer microsoft.com file there can be no further upload of such a file to microsoft.com, there is a copyright violation by microsoft.com failed technology.

    Microsoft.com technology illegally links weird profiles to outer Microsoft.com files, violates copyrights, but there is nobody in Microsoft.com support team to understand problems of Microsoft.com technology. Microsoft.com never replies any important support request, never reads any complaint. It should be microsoft.com itself who could find out such a big technical failure of microsoft.com technology.

    Microsoft.com so far instead of any help, rather wasted so much valuable scientific times on microsoft.com's weird technical failures, violations.


    Friday, November 22, 2013 6:48 PM


  • Hello,

    Thank you for your feedback. The content in Microsoft Academic Search is based on the tens of millions of articles indexed from leading scholarly publishers. Articles are grouped by author profiles, which are created algorithmically. It is possible for users to submit changes to records in Microsoft Academic Search. Detailed instructions can be found in our help documentation. Please note that it can take time for submitted changes to be processed in the database.

    Best regards,

    Thomas, Academic Search Editor

    Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:51 PM