Treatment Case Studies and Emissions Analysis of Wood in Yagya

The mantra becomes more powerful when that sound is chanted in front of purified fire and light; sound and heat energy mixtures are converted into high level of energy and spread around the atmosphere. Through this paper, the well experienced author team of various domains is continuously working in experimenting in joint collaboration with different GoI departments. They have observed the slow but continuous progress in different ails on many subjects through scientific study and approach. The main case studies where the patients got significant benefits through this alternate therapy have been systematically presented here. The power of yajna and mantra has attracted the intellectuals of this era. In the future, we may expect some automated intelligent healthcare expert system using this way of life. Yagya science and its treatment power of different diseases is surprising; the need is that current science should accept it logically with an open mind and heart and let the humanity take the complete benefit of it.

I, We, and They: A Linguistic and Narrative Exploration of the Authorship Process

Introduction: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency--a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context--to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines, and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. Method: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate, and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a "moral" and "title" for each account; and (3) integration of (1) and (2). Results: Participants narrated other authors most frequently as main clause subjects (n = 191), then themselves (I; n = 151), inanimate nouns (it, the paper; n = 146), and author team (we; n = 105). Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four sub-types, e.g., supported, contested, task-based, negotiated. Discussion: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point--the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step--the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

20:30 BRUXSELS TALKS

On the 23rd of January 2020, a radio talk show of the future, 20:30 Bruxsels Talks, took place in Brussels. With guests and artists from the year 2030, it discussed how the transition to a climate-proof city had happened since 2019. In this article, we present and frame the development of the show and provide insight into the participative creation process. The radio show exemplifies (a) how future fiction can be used as a tool to evoke change and (b) how the participatory development of futurist fiction can be used as a method to trigger imagination and conversation on what citizens want for our cities. We argue that there is an opportunity for researchers to explore fiction as a method, as a format and as a space. Foresight practitioners who want to create engaging stories may find inspiration in the body of knowledge of arts-based research and the arts. Note: This article should be read in conjunction with 20:30 Bruxsels Talks: A Script for a Future Fiction Radio Show, in this issue, written by the same author team and published in this volume.

20:30 BRUXSELS TALKS

On the 23rd of January 2020, a radio talk show of the future, 20:30 Bruxsels Talks, took place in Brussels. With fictional guests and artists from the year 2030, it discussed how the transition to a climate-proof city had happened since 2019. The body of this article is the script of this fiction piece, produced by BrusselAVenir and BNA-BBOT. In the introduction we explain the relationship between the field of futures studies and fiction, we frame 20:30 Bruxsels Talks within futures studies, and highlight the potential of fiction for knowledge creation and dissemination. By publishing the script, we hope to inspire researchers, changemakers and artists to explore fiction as a method, as a format and as a space, to trigger conversation and imagination, and engage citizens to take up a role in shaping the cities they live in. Note: This article should be read in conjunction with “20:30 Bruxsels Talks: Fiction as a Method, Fiction as a Format, Fiction as a Space,” written by the same author team and published in this issue.

Answers to 10 Questions About “Generations” and “Generational Differences” in the Workplace

When seeking information about the influence of generations, policy makers are often faced with more questions than answers. One reason for this is the nearly ubiquitous nature of generations. Generations have been used to explain everything from shifts in broadly defined social phenomena (e.g., anti-war movements; Dunham, 1998) to the demise of marmalade (Gough, 2018). Likewise, owing to the fact that the modern workplace offers increasing opportunities for interactions among (relatively) older and younger co-workers, generations and especially generational differences have been used to describe a number of work-related phenomena, processes, and policies (see Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015 for reviews). Despite these attributions, most generations research is suspect, and many supposed generational effects are likely not generational at all. Collectively, our author team has been studying the idea of generations for over 25 years. Over time, we have been asked numerous questions about what impact generations and generational differences have, especially in the workplace and for work-related policies adopted by organizations. In the present manuscript, we have collected the most common, policy-relevant questions regarding generations and generational differences, and attempted to answer them. Our goal in doing so is to “clear the air” about generations and generational differences in a way that informs better policy making regarding complex processes associated with age(ing) at work.

Fourteen Recommendations to Create a More Inclusive Environment for LGBTQ+ Individuals in Academic Biology

This essay highlights recommendations to make academic biology more inclusive of LGBTQ+ individuals. These recommendations are drawn from the literature and the collective experience of the 26-member author team.

Answers to 10 Questions About “Generations” and “Generational Differences” in the Workplace

When seeking information about the influence of generations, policy makers are often faced with more questions than answers. One reason for this is the nearly ubiquitous nature of generations. Generations have been used to explain everything from shifts in broadly defined social phenomena (e.g., anti-war movements; Dunham, 1998) to the demise of marmalade (Gough, 2018). Likewise, owing to the fact that the modern workplace offers increasing opportunities for interactions among (relatively) older and younger co-workers, generations and especially generational differences have been used to describe a number of work-related phenomena, processes, and policies (see Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015 for reviews). Despite these attributions, most generations research is suspect, and many supposed generational effects are likely not generational at all. Collectively, our author team has been studying the idea of generations for over 25 years. Over time, we have been asked numerous questions about what impact generations and generational differences have, especially in the workplace and for work-related policies adopted by organizations. In the present manuscript, we have collected the most common, policy-relevant questions regarding generations and generational differences, and attempted to answer them. Our goal in doing so is to “clear the air” about generations and generational differences in a way that informs better policy making regarding complex processes associated with age(ing) at work. We start here by asking and answering a broad question: “What are generational differences?” Then, to help parse truth from fiction, we offer answers to 10 common questions about generations and generational differences, with a specific focus on how these assumed differences manifest in the workplace and affect work-related policies. These 10 questions are classified as addressing two overarching questions: (1) What issues surround research and methodology for understanding generational differences at work? and (2) What are the policy and practice issues concerning generational differences in the workplace and beyond?

AAAJ, thematic special issues and research innovation: revisiting the next decade

Purpose Expanding upon the special issue entitled “The special issue: AAAJ and research innovation”, published in 2012, this introduction to the second special issue of the genre is concerned with selected thematic special issues of AAAJ appearing during the second decade of publication from 1998 to 2007. The paper explores research innovation by means of the thematic issues addressed from this decade. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides a background to this special issue and an outline of the articles included. The issue features seven retrospective/prospective articles written by the guest editors of special thematic issues published during 1998 to 2007, supplemented where appropriate by other co-authors or, in one instance, by a new author team. Findings The guest editors and other contributing authors sought to identify and discuss the progression of each field since the AAAJ special issue was published, and to assess the impacts of the special issues to this progression, and to propose future research developments in the designated fields. Research limitations/implications This commentary on articles published is no substitute for carefully reading these contributions. The papers provide a comprehensive review of key developments in the literature until most recently and explore the opportunities for further innovative interdisciplinary accounting research. Originality/value This AAAJ special issue, and the earlier 2012 prototype, constitute a different approach to producing special issues, where the original special issues are revisited with a view to assessing research trends and impacts and to identifying research developments which are ripe for pursuing in each of these interdisciplinary accounting fields.

A Guide for Many Authors: Writing Manuscripts in Large Collaborations

Writing manuscripts collaboratively affords both opportunities and challenges: Collaborative papers can benefit from the expertise, perspectives, and collective effort of the group but can lack coherence or be produced inefficiently. When collaborations are large, involving ten or hundreds of researchers, there are more and different opportunities and challenges, like appropriately crediting the contributions of many people. This paper is a practical guide for authors writing collaborative manuscripts, particularly those working in large collaborations. We emphasize the importance of deliberate leadership and describe four general strategies that lead authors should employ to maximize opportunities and navigate challenges: they should take care in crediting the author team, communicate clearly and frequently, organize materials, and make decisions deliberately and early. For each, we offer specific tips in line with these strategies (e.g., use collaboration agreements, leverage Open Science practices). We then suggest how lead authors can structure the writing and revising process to produce a coherent manuscript and offer tips for submitting papers and responding to peer-reviews. A repository of resources for people writing manuscripts in collaborations is available at osf.io/dzwcn.