BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jun Makino

Jun Makino contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.med-phastro-ph.HEphysics.soc-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Comments on "Imaging Reanalyses of EHT Data"

On June 14, 2022, the EHT collaboration (hereafter EHTC) made the web page (https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/imaging-reanalyses-eht-data) with the title "Imaging Reanalyses of EHT Data," in which they made comments on our recent Miyoshi et al .2022 published in the Astrophysical Journal. We investigated the EHTC comments and found that all of the five points raised by the EHTC are subjective and unsubstantiated claims. Thus they do not prove the correctness of the result of EHTC. Sincerely we hope that the EHTC will publish, not a collection of unsubstantiated claims, but a discussion based on scientific arguments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Comment on "Individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of Date City by passive dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): II"

This Letter to the Editor points out several inconsistencies found in the paper written by Makoto Miyazaki and Ryugo Hayano published as J. Radiol. Prot. 37(2017) 623-634. This Letter to the Editor had been in the stage of "is ready to accept" from November 17, 2018 to March 23, 2020 when it has been accepted for publication. Onto this Letter to the Editor, an additional Letter to the Editor on the same paper has been added. The added Letter to the Editor has been provisionally accepted on April 7, 2020.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Further comments on "Individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of Date City by passive dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): 1." : Inconsistencies in Table 1 2014 Q3 and Figure 4f

We point out serious inconsistencies of the first paper of the series, written by Makoto Miyazaki and Ryugo Hayano, which discusses the correlation between the personal doses of the citizens of Date City measured by glass badges with the ambient dose rates measured by six airborne surveys. The last of the six airborne survey was made in the period of 2014 Q3 (from October 2014 to December 2014). The real number of participants of the period is about 14,500; however, in Table 1 2014 Q3 it is written that the number of participants is 21,080 and in Fig. 4f 21,052. We conclude that the analysis of the paper with respect to Table 1 2014 Q3 and Fig. 4f are done without using real correct data and we cannot obtain any meaningful information from the table and figure. Since the period 2014 Q3 is also included in Fig. 5 of the second paper of the series, it is quite possible that Fig. 5 of the second paper is made on the basis of, at least partially, false data and is not reliable.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access