EDITORIAL STATEMENT IN HONOR OF PROFESSOR MICHAEL MCALEER

Author(s):  
MOAWIA ALGHALITH ◽  
NORMAN SWANSON ◽  
ANDREY VASNEV ◽  
WING-KEUNG WONG

It is with profound sadness that we write this statement for the former editor of this journal, our colleague and friend, Michael McAleer. Mike passed away peacefully on July 8, 2021, and he will be sorely missed by his vast number of colleagues and friends. Mike served on the editorial board of the Annals of Financial Economics (AFE) for more than 16 years and was the Editor-in-Chief since 2016. Mike was a wonderful friend, colleague, and mentor to all that knew him, and provided countless hours of service to AFE. He touched our lives deeply and was ever ready to lend a hand in any way he could, whether through his vast knowledge of econometrics, his willingness to work together on research projects, his efforts on behalf of this journal, or his contagious joie de vivre. We will miss him greatly. In the remainder of this editorial, we include a short biography, as well as a number of statements from co-authors, colleagues and friends of Mike.

2015 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 51-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Andrikopoulos ◽  
Labriana Economou

2006 ◽  
Vol 05 (04) ◽  
pp. E
Author(s):  
Pietro Greco

One can no longer rely on the presumption that scientists comply with the Mertonian value of disinterest and assume that they always tell the truth when spreading the results of their research projects. This can be rightly considered as the gist of the four-page report submitted to the board of the American journal Science by the committee chaired by the chemist John Brauman, from the Stanford University, and comprising three members from the Senior Editorial Board of the same journal, two eminent biologists specialised in stem cell research and a top editor from the other major general press medium of the Republic of Science, the British journal Nature.


1971 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-119
Author(s):  
T. W. M.

Patient and unobtrusive service, faithfully rendered year by year, often by reason of its very familiarity receives less than its merited meed of recognition, but we are happy here to pay all honour to one of the editors of Greece & Rome, who, after twenty-five years' loyal service to this journal, must now on medical advice relinquish his post. A glance at the list of books reviewed, for example, in one year in vol. xvii, numbering 102 in all, is eloquent testimony to the impressive role so long sustained by the man to whom we gratefully dedicate this issue, Mr. E. R. A. Sewter. His many brief reviews, while making their point, have ever given illumination to senior scholars, schoolmasters, and others, who sought to know more of some classical publication than its title might well convey. A measure of Mr. Sewter's quality is to be seen in the gap he leaves behind him. Scarce twelve men nowadays could sustain the weight this rugged Ajax so lightly wielded. Mr. Sewter, as he withdraws into retirement, takes with him the gratitude, not only of the Press and Editorial Board, but also of the vast number of his readers who have benefited from his services. Once more we are given occasion to reflect upon that grand Shakespearian phrase—‘The constant service of the antique world’.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Svec ◽  
Lisa Koops

In response to COVID-19, various resources were disseminated to the music education community regarding research, practice and policy. Few of those resources, however, included implications for early childhood music learners and educators. Therefore, the purpose of our piece was to describe how a group drawn from the leadership boards of NAfME’s Early Childhood Music Special Research Group, Early Childhood Music & Movement Association and the editorial board of the International Journal of Music in Early Childhood gathered, created resources and participated in ongoing research projects.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  

With the sixth volume, Spora is entering its next phase. The Editorial Board is happy to expand the journal's role in disseminating work conducted by research groups with at least one student author. With the new emphasis on student-driven research, Spora welcomes submissions related to Ph.D. dissertations, master's theses, and undergraduate research projects.


2016 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-375

Many papers submitted to the Edinburgh Journal of Botany are reviewed by members of the Editorial Board and Editorial Advisory Board. The members of both Boards wish to express their thanks to the following, who have also kindly reviewed papers during the preparation of this volume.


1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document