scholarly journals Megataxa for big science questions in taxonomy

Megataxa ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZHI-QIANG ZHANG
Keyword(s):  
High Impact ◽  
Theory Method ◽  
Big Science ◽  
Taxonomic Significance ◽  
General Journal

I am delighted to announce the inaugural issue of Megataxa, a new journal designed for large monographic reviews and highly significant original papers reporting major advances in taxonomy. Megataxa aims to be a premium journal of high impact to encourage most important works in taxonomy. As a general journal of taxonomy, Megataxa will also include an editorial/correspondence section to allow announcements of major news, debates of highly significant issues, theory/method papers of general taxonomic significance, and biographic profiles for recently passed eminent taxonomists. 

Postmortem and in situ TEM methods to study the mechanism of failure in controlled-morphology high-impact polystrene resin

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 178-179
Author(s):  
R. C. Cieslinski ◽  
M. T. Dineen ◽  
J. L. Hahnfeld
Keyword(s):  
Poisson Ratio ◽  
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene ◽  
High Impact ◽  
In Situ Tem ◽  
Styrene Copolymers ◽  
Controlled Morphology ◽  
Point Bend ◽  
Mechanism Of Failure ◽  
Impact Energies

Advanced Styrenic resins are being developed throughout the industry to bridge the properties gap between traditional HIPS (High Impact Polystyrene) and ABS (Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene copolymers) resins. These new resins have an unprecedented balance of high gloss and high impact energies. Dow Chemical's contribution to this area is based on a unique combination of rubber morphologies including labyrinth, onion skin, and core-shell rubber particles. This new resin, referred as a controlled morphology resin (CMR), was investigated to determine the toughening mechanism of this unique rubber morphology. This poster will summarize the initial studies of these resins using the double-notch four-point bend test of Su and Yee, tensile stage electron microscopy, and Poisson Ratio analysis of the fracture mechanism.

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.

The Collaborative Network Approach: a model for advancing patient-centric research for Castleman disease and other rare diseases

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Mary Zuccato ◽  
Dustin Shilling ◽  
David C. Fajgenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Castleman Disease ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Collaborative Network ◽  
Network Approach ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Novel Strategy ◽  
Patient Centric

Abstract There are ∼7000 rare diseases affecting 30 000 000 individuals in the U.S.A. 95% of these rare diseases do not have a single Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy. Relatively, limited progress has been made to develop new or repurpose existing therapies for these disorders, in part because traditional funding models are not as effective when applied to rare diseases. Due to the suboptimal research infrastructure and treatment options for Castleman disease, the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN), founded in 2012, spearheaded a novel strategy for advancing biomedical research, the ‘Collaborative Network Approach’. At its heart, the Collaborative Network Approach leverages and integrates the entire community of stakeholders — patients, physicians and researchers — to identify and prioritize high-impact research questions. It then recruits the most qualified researchers to conduct these studies. In parallel, patients are empowered to fight back by supporting research through fundraising and providing their biospecimens and clinical data. This approach democratizes research, allowing the entire community to identify the most clinically relevant and pressing questions; any idea can be translated into a study rather than limiting research to the ideas proposed by researchers in grant applications. Preliminary results from the CDCN and other organizations that have followed its Collaborative Network Approach suggest that this model is generalizable across rare diseases.

Pelvic Impairments

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
James Talmage ◽  
Jay Blaisdell
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Ring ◽  
Reproductive Organs ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Pelvic Fractures ◽  
Motor Dysfunction ◽  
Impact Event ◽  
Concomitant Injuries ◽  
Rating Process ◽  
Pass Through ◽  
A Minor

Abstract Pelvic fractures are relatively uncommon, and in workers’ compensation most pelvic fractures are the result of an acute, high-impact event such as a fall from a roof or an automobile collision. A person with osteoporosis may sustain a pelvic fracture from a lower-impact injury such as a minor fall. Further, major parts of the bladder, bowel, reproductive organs, nerves, and blood vessels pass through the pelvic ring, and traumatic pelvic fractures that result from a high-impact event often coincide with damaged organs, significant bleeding, and sensory and motor dysfunction. Following are the steps in the rating process: 1) assign the diagnosis and impairment class for the pelvis; 2) assign the functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies grade modifiers; and 3) apply the net adjustment formula. Because pelvic fractures are so uncommon, raters may be less familiar with the rating process for these types of injuries. The diagnosis-based methodology for rating pelvic fractures is consistent with the process used to rate other musculoskeletal impairments. Evaluators must base the rating on reliable data when the patient is at maximum medical impairment and must assess possible impairment from concomitant injuries.

Repräsentanz von Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen und Pflegewissenschaftlern aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor

Pflege ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Hirt ◽  
Christian Buhtz ◽  
Benedikt Mersdorf ◽  
Gabriele Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Citation

Zusammenfassung.Hintergrund: Die Häufigkeit pflegewissenschaftlicher Beiträge aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor gibt Hinweise auf die Teilhabe der Disziplin am internationalen Diskurs. Bisherige Analysen beschränken sich auf pflegewissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Diese konstatieren eine Unterrepräsentanz experimenteller Studien und klinischer Themen. Ziel: Identifikation und Analyse der Publikationen von im deutschsprachigen Raum ansässigen Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen/Pflegewissenschaftlern in internationalen pflegerelevanten High Impact Journals. Methode: Mittels Journal Citation Reports wurden pflegerelevante Zeitschriftenkategorien identifiziert, in denen die nach dem 5-Jahres-Impact-Factor höchsten 10 % der Zeitschriften der Jahre 2010 bis 2014 ausgewählt wurden. Der Einschluss der Publikationen und die Datenextraktion erfolgten durch zwei unabhängige Personen. Ergebnisse: Durchsucht wurden 106939 Publikationen aus 126 Zeitschriften. Eingeschlossen wurden 100 Publikationen, an denen 114 Pflegewissenschaftler/-innen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum insgesamt 229 Mal beteiligt sind. Insgesamt 42 % sind Beobachtungsstudien, 11 % sind experimentelle Studien. Die berichteten Themen sind mehrheitlich klinisch orientiert (55 %). Über 50 % sind in den letzten zwei Jahren publiziert worden. Schlussfolgerungen: Das pflegewissenschaftliche Publikationsaufkommen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in High Impact Journals ist gering. Eine Zunahme über den Beobachtungszeitraum ist zu verzeichnen. Im Gegensatz zu früheren Analysen zeigt sich ein höherer Anteil klinischer Forschung.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document