A great pioneer of clinical science remembered: Introduction to the special issue in honor of Paul E. Meehl

2005 ◽  
Vol 61 (10) ◽  
pp. 1201-1207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott O. Lilienfeld ◽  
Niels G. Waller
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Science ◽  
Special Issue

Reshaping clinical science: Introduction to the Special Issue onPsychophysiology and the NIMH Research Domain Criteria(RDoC)initiative

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Patrick ◽  
Greg Hajcak
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Science ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Research Domain

Introduction to special issue on contributions of mathematical psychology to clinical science and assessment

2010 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. Townsend ◽  
Richard W.J. Neufeld
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Science ◽  
Mathematical Psychology ◽  
Special Issue

Clinical Science in the 1990s

1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Clinical Science ◽  
Molecular Medicine ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Real Progress ◽  
General Journal

From this issue, Clinical Science will increase its page numbers from an average of 112 to 128 per monthly issue. This welcome change — equivalent to at least two manuscripts — has been ‘forced’ on us by the increasing pressure on space; this has led to an undesirable increase in the delay between acceptance and publication, and to a fall in the proportion of submitted manuscripts we have been able to accept. The change in page numbers will instead permit us now to return to our exceptionally short interval between acceptance and publication of 3–4 months; and at the same time we shall be able not only to accept (as now) those papers requiring little or no revision, but also to offer hope to some of those papers which have raised our interest but come to grief in review because of a major but remediable problem. Our view, doubtless unoriginal, has been that the review process, which is unusually thorough for Clinical Science, involving a specialist editor and two external referees, is most constructive when it helps the evolution of a good paper from an interesting piece of research. Traditionally, the papers in Clinical Science have represented some areas of research more than others. However, this has reflected entirely the pattern of papers submitted to us, rather than any selective interest of the Editorial Board, which numbers up to 35 scientists covering most areas of medical research. Arguably, after the explosion during the last decade of specialist journals, the general journal can look forward to a renaissance in the 1990s, as scientists in apparently different specialities discover that they are interested in the same substances, asking similar questions and developing techniques of mutual benefit to answer these questions. This situation arises from the trend, even among clinical scientists, to recognize the power of research based at the cellular and molecular level to achieve real progress, and at this level the concept of organ-based specialism breaks down. It is perhaps ironic that this journal, for a short while at the end of the 1970s, adopted — and then discarded — the name of Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine, since this title perfectly represents the direction in which clinical science, and therefore Clinical Science, is now progressing.

Special Issue Tackles SLI

ASHA Leader ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 14-14
Keyword(s):  
Special Issue

John A. Pople Special Issue

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (5) ◽  
pp. 775-775
Keyword(s):  
Special Issue

ANNOUNCEMENT: John A. Pople Special Issue

1996 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 1155-1156
Keyword(s):  
Special Issue

John A. Pople Special Issue

1997 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-337
Keyword(s):  
Special Issue
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document