Search

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Every year the scientific sessions of Annual National Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society (ANCIPS) are marked by presentation of free papers, posters, and award paper sessions, which are usually meant for presentation of new research which is not yet published. Hence, it is expected that these papers will be published in near future so that the scientific literature is distributed and shared with wider audience. Aim: This paper aims to evaluate the abstract to publication rate of papers presented during ANCIPS in the years 2012–2014. Materials and Methods: For this study, all the free papers, posters, and award papers presented during the ANCIPS of 2012–2014 were listed, and electronic searches were carried out to search for published articles. In addition, one of the authors of papers not found in the electronic searches were contacted through E-mail. Results: A total of 1081 papers were presented during the ANCIPS in the 3 year period under study. Of these, 64 were award papers, 622 were free papers, and 395 were posters. Majority (n = 807; 74.6%) of these could be categorized as research data-based presentations; this was followed by case reports/series (203; 18.8%), review of literature (n = 35; 3.3%), and others (n = 36; 3.3%). Overall, only 27% of the papers were published after at least 5 years of the presentation. Of all the award papers, 69.6% of papers were published, whereas only 26.8% of free oral papers and 22.5% of free posters were published. About half (45.6%) of the papers were published in national journals. In terms of indexing, among those which were published, 62.8% were published in Medline-indexed (PubMed-listed) Journals with a mean impact factor of 1. Conclusion: The present study shows that only 27% of the abstracts presented during the ANCIPS are ultimately published as full text articles in the next 5 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the factors influencing the future citations of conference papers. We concentrated on the explanatory power of early attention on conference papers for citations collected from Google Scholar and Scopus. The early attention data includes users' online activities in a conference support system: CN3. Bookmarks from the bibliographic management system, Citeulike, were used as a collateral source of early attention. To examine the chronological contributions of 13 factors on citations, a multiple sequential regression analysis was conducted for three timepoints of the publication cycle—paper submission, time of conferences, and months after conferences. Our results illustrate that online readers' early attention of Citeulike bookmarks were found to have the most influence on the future impact of the conference papers. The early attention records from CN3 made noteworthy improvements to explaining both the Google and Scopus citations as well. We also found that the type of papers the number of papers presented at a conference, and the best article award records were significant factors influencing future citations. However, the magnitude of the effects made by online readers' early attention from both sources appears to be larger than these three traditional factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The ENT Scotland society (formerly known as the Scottish Otolaryngological Society) has two meetings a year and accepts oral presentations from trainees. This study aimed to identify publication rates from these meetings. Methods: Abstracts of the presentations are published in The Journal of Laryngology and Otology. A structured search on PubMed and Google Scholar was undertaken to identify which presentations from the 2005 to 2014 meetings have been published. Results: Of the 145 abstracts found, 60.7 per cent were presenting clinical research and 44.1 per cent were related to the head and neck subspecialty. Seventy-three abstracts (50.3 per cent) were associated with publication as a peer-reviewed article; otology papers were more likely to be published than those focusing on other subspecialties (64.3 per cent, p = 0.036). No correlation was found between publication and other factors. Conclusion: Presentations at the ENT Scotland meetings undergo unbiased peer review and are as likely to be published as those of other conferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on examining the research impact of papers written with and without funding. Specifically, the citation analysis method is used to compare the general and funded papers published in two leading international conferences, which are ACM SIGIR and ACM SIGKDD. Design/methodology/approach – The authors investigate the number of general and funded papers to see whether the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. In addition, the total citations and the number of highly cited papers with and without funding are also compared. Findings – The analysis results of ACM SIGIR papers show that in most cases the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. Moreover, the total captions, the average number of citations per paper, and the number of highly cited papers all reveal the superiority of funded papers over general papers. However, the findings are somewhat different for the ACM SIGKDD papers. This may be because ACM SIGIR began much earlier than ACM SIGKDD, which relates to the maturity of the research problems addressed in these two conferences. Originality/value – The value of this paper is the first attempt at examining the research impact of general and funded research papers by the citation analysis method. The research impact of other research areas can be further investigated by other analysis methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this note we want to show that the PCR6 fusion rule works and redistributes the conflicting mass properly, contrarily to the authors' assertion that "he focal element {v3} absorbs almost all of the conflicting mass (the majority)."We also question the validity of the new CREC rule of combination presented by the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) congress is an important venue, and the research presented can be a critical source of information used to impact clinical decisions and health policies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of evidence of clinical free papers presented at the ESSKA congress from 2008 to 2016. Moreover, this study evaluated whether there were any changes in the distribution of level of evidence over time.Methods: Two reviewers screened the free papers presented at the ESSKA biannual congresses 2008-2016 for clinical evidence. Clinical papers included observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects. Biomechanical studies, technique demonstrations, cadaveric studies, and panel discussions were excluded. The reviewers independently graded their level of evidence from level I (e.g. high-quality randomized trials) to level IV (e.g. case series and reports) using the classification system published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.Results: Of 1036 free papers that were identified, 729 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Overall, 18% of studies were level I, 24% level II, 25% level III, and 33% level IV evidence. There was a significant improvement in level of evidence over time (p < 0.0001), with the proportion of level I studies increasing most dramatically (9% in 2008, 20% in 2012, 24% in 2016). Free papers studying the knee had higher levels of evidence than those evaluating other joints (p = 0.002).Conclusion: The level of evidence of clinical free papers presented at the ESSKA congress between 2008 and 2016 is high relative to other orthopaedic meetings. Moreover, there has been a significant improvement in the level of evidence over time.Level Of Evidence: Systematic review, Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors present guidelines for nursing professionals in converting their conference presentation into a manuscript for submission to the journal. Considerations as outlined by the Medical Librarians association are its purpose, content and organization, style and conversion of the presentation. The authors also advises about the possible outcomes of a submission like the difficulty of a paper to get accepted and the need to respond to suggestions and comments by editors and reviewers.

This article is a report on the XXIII International Congress of the AILC-ICLA, a hybrid event dedicated to researching various aspects of world literature that was held in Tbilisi in July 2022. It evaluates the keynote papers presented by Irma Ratiani (Georgia), Marko Juvan (Slovenia), Toshiko Ellis (Japan) and Jennifer Wallace (UK). The main lecture on Central and East European literatures, Juvan's keynote "How to Think World Literature from its Edge?" examined worldliness as both a global system based on international authorities and prestigious publishing houses and as a capillary worlding that, due to its minority character, popularizes the activities of lesser-known writers. The Congress's viewpoint not from the perspective of the Anglophone "centers", but from its margins, enabled the reflection of a number of other subtopics such as the issue of so-called minor literature, gender, postcolonialism, digital culture, intermediality, interculturality, etc. The general conclusions reached at the Congress can be formulated as follows: 1. the reinterpretation of comparative literature from institutional and thematic perspectives, 2. the point of view of so-called small literatures, and 3. the revitalization of the term "national literature". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) have evolved enormously as interrelated research areas and disciplines. Many researchers interested in these areas may wonder why there are two different communities, whether they are the same concept or not, and the differences between them, which is key information for designing their research and publication strategies. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of academic papers about the differences between LA and EDM following the Preferred Reporting Method for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. We selected 10 research works and identified 11 differences. Our conclusions are that, although both use the same data and share similar goals and interests, EDM and LA are different research communities with different origins and focuses, with their respective conferences and journals. However, there is active collaboration between the two communities and their members often tend to publish in both fields' conferences and journals. Additionally, none of the differences are apparently large enough to conclude that LA and EDM follow different paths for improving the teaching-learning process, but rather the opposite. Following a common future line, it seems that the two "sister" communities are working together with the same perspective, along with some "cousin" communities such as AIED (Artificial Intelligence in Education), L@S (Learning at Scale), Learning Science (LS), etc. in the same area that could be called Educational Data Science (EDS). We propose using the term EDS to integrate both LA and EDM with all these related communities. [Display omitted] • Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) are interrelated and sometimes interchanged terms. • Five original differences between EDM and LA have been identified. • Other six new differences have emerged since these initial five differences. • The term Educational Data Science (EDS) is proposed to integrate EDM and LA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Congresses are important for physicians to access up-to-date information. The papers presented in congresses provide access to current research topics in the field in a short time. In this study, we aimed to investigate the contribution of oral presentations (OP) that were presented at the Turkish National Neurology Congress (TNNC) organized by the Turkish Neurological Society to the literature. Materials and Methods: OP presented in TNNCs between 2000-2017 were reviewed. The distribution of papers in terms of the main headings and their institutions were determined. Then, the names and presentation titles of the researchers were searched in PubMed and Google Scholar databases in Turkish and English and their publication rates were determined. Results: In 17 years, a total of 1682 oral and 8065 poster presentations were accepted. Fourteen OPs were withdrawn. Of the OPs, 318 were in the field of demyelinating diseases (DMD), 305 on cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), 205 on epilepsy, 202 on neuromuscular diseases (NMD), 199 on headache, 183 on movement disorders, 112 on behavioral neurology, 20 on sleep disorders, 13 on pediatric neurology, and 119 on other diseases. Of the studies, 1253 were clinical studies, 226 were case reports, 130 were basic science studies, 84 were questionnaire studies, 70 were genetic studies, and 852 were prospective studies. One thousand two hundred eighty-six were from university hospitals and 338 from training and research hospitals. Six hundred six were published as articles. One hundred seventy-one were published in Turkish journals and 416 were published in SCI-E journals. Of the publications, 481 were presentations from university hospitals. Comparing the 2000-2009 and 2010-2017 presentations, presentations of NMD and sleep disorders increased, and the highest number of presentations were in the CVD and DMD groups in both periods. Presentations of headache and epilepsy were mostly published in journals. Conclusion: To our knowledge, our study is the first to analyze neurology congress presentations in Turkey. It is noted that such analyses are performed in the literature mostly for 1-5 years, and our results are similar to those of other disciplinary studies conducted in our country and lower than those of international meetings. Incentive methods should be developed to increase the number of publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI mixed methods systematic review with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Introduction: Mixed methods systematic reviews provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although mixed methods systematic reviews are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance formixedmethods systematic reviews; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology. Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field, and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results: The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a mixed methods systematic review recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of questions that are posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski's typology on mixed methods systematic reviews. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. Conclusions: The updated guidance on JBI mixed methods systematic reviews provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods reviews offer an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with health care quality and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on predatory journals emerging for taking money from all the academics desperate having COVID-19 related papers published. Topics include showing continuum of thinking, knowledge, and continued intellectual development; and undergraduate earning the own PhD and having the skills and resources for leading the own international research group.

Background: Scientific results as presented at conferences need to be published in journals so that the scientific community can become aware of the results. The aim of our study was to analyze the peer-review publication rate of abstracts presented at two German Cancer Congresses, based on various factors. Methods: We investigated 1,086 abstracts published by the German Cancer Congress in 2000 and 2010 in relation to the publication in peer-reviewed journals (PubMed publication) within the subsequent 6 years. Furthermore, we studied potential determinants of PubMed publications. For statistical analysis we used Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression (hazard ratios, HR, and 95% confidence intervals). Results: Overall 456 abstracts (42%) were published as PubMed publications, 86 (8%) before the congresses and 370 (34%) after the congresses. The median time to PubMed publication was 16.2 months among 370 post-published abstracts. Abstracts presented as oral presentations had a shorter time to PubMed publication than abstracts presented as posters (14.2 months vs. 16.8 months respectively). In comparison to cell experiments, randomized controlled trials and animal experiments had a higher PubMed publication rate (HR=2.2, 95%CI 1.4--3.4 and HR=2.6, 95%CI 1.6--4.4 respectively). In comparison to abstracts including work in progress, abstracts that included finalized study results had a higher publication rate (HR=1.6, 95%CI 1.2--2.3). Discussion: Our study is the largest study of oncology congresses examining the publication rates and associated determinants. The publication rate was similar to other congresses. There is a considerable potential of publication bias as 58% of congress abstracts were not followed by a peer-reviewed full paper publication within 6 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine factors and barriers associated with scholarly activity among faculty members at urology residency programs in the United States.Methods: An online survey was sent to all 134 urology residency program directors. The survey assessed program characteristics including size, location and definition of scholarly activity. It assessed available support for and barriers to resident scholarly activity, faculty participation in scholarly activity and mentorship of residents. Linear regression analysis was used.Results: We had a 40% response rate (N = 40). Faculty attitudes toward conducting scholarly activity (P < .001) and lack of a research curriculum (P = .05) were barriers to the outcome 'participation in scholarly activity'. Faculty attitudes toward conducting scholarly activity was also a barrier to the outcomes 'mentorship of residents' (P = .004) and 'publication of at least 1 paper' (P = .004). Available statistician was positively associated with the outcomes 'publications' (P = .062) and 'presentations' (P = .032). A minimum requirement of a local presentation (P=0.04) and chairman support (P = .015) were positively associated with the outcome 'presentation at a conference.'Conclusion: Training residents in research matters for the resident, the institution and future generations of surgeon scientists. Higher levels of faculty scholarly activity were associated with a minimum requirement for residents to submit a manuscript for publication, strong chairman support for resident research, and the availability of a statistician. A common barrier to faculty scholarly activity, publications, and resident mentorship was faculty attitudes toward resident scholarly activity. Urology residency programs seeking to prioritize scholarly activity among faculty should consider these factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During May 12–14, 2018, the International Conference for the Decade Memory of the Wenchuan Earthquake, in connection to the 4th International Conference on Continental Earthquakes (4th ICCE) and the 12th General Assembly of the Asian Seismological Commission (ASC), was held in Chengdu, China. There have been several outcomes of the Conference (for example, the book published jointly by Higher Education Press and Springer) as well as the present special issue. Among the 58 submissions, 34 have been accepted after peer review. Some of the papers came from the presentations during the Conference, but with additional submissions, the scope of this special issue is far beyond that of the proceedings of the meeting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aims of this paper were to explicate clinical scholarship as synonymous with the scholarship of application and to explore the evolution of scholarly practice to clinical scholarship. Background Boyer contributed an expanded view of scholarship that recognized various approaches to knowledge production beyond pure research (discovery) to include the scholarship of integration, application and teaching. There is growing interest in using Boyer's framework to advance knowledge production in nursing but the discussion of clinical scholarship in relation to Boyer's framework is sparse. Design Discussion paper. Data sources Literature from 1983-2015 and Boyer's framework. Implications for nursing When clinical scholarship is viewed as a synonym for Boyer's scholarship of application, it can be aligned to this well established framework to support knowledge generated in clinical practice. For instance, applying the three criteria for scholarship (documentation, peer review and dissemination) can ensure that the knowledge produced is rigorous, available for critique and used by others to advance nursing practice and patient care. Understanding the differences between scholarly practice and clinical scholarship can promote the development of clinical scholarship. Supporting clinical leaders to identify issues confronting nursing practice can enable scholarly practice to be transformed into clinical scholarship. Conclusion Expanding the understanding of clinical scholarship and linking it to Boyer's scholarship of application can assist nurses to generate knowledge that addresses clinical concerns. Further dialogue about how clinical scholarship can address the theory-practice gap and how publication of clinical scholarship could be expanded given the goals of clinical scholarship is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of which type of computer science (CS) publication-0conference or journal-0is likely to result in more citations for a published paper is addressed. A series of data sets are examined and joined in order to analyze the citations of over 195,000 conference papers and 108,000 journal papers. Two means of evaluating the citations of journals and conferences are explored: h5 and average citations per paper; it was found that h5 has certain biases that make it a difficult measure to use (despite it being the main measure used by Google Scholar). Results from the analysis show that CS, as a discipline, values conferences as a publication venue more highly than any other academic field of study. The analysis also shows that a small number of elite CS conferences have the highest average paper citation rate of any publication type, although overall, citation rates in conferences are no higher than in journals. It is also shown that the length of a paper is correlated with citation rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To determine a direct measure of publication bias by determining subsequent full-paper publication (P) of studies reported in animal research abstracts presented at an international conference (A). Methods: We selected 100 random (using a random-number generator) A from the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. Using a data collection form and study manual, we recorded methodology and result variables from A. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to June 2015, and DOAJ and Google Scholar to May 2017 to screen for subsequent P. Methodology and result variables were recorded from P to determine changes in reporting from A. Predictors of P were examined using Fisher's Exact Test. Results: 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of studies described in A were subsequently P after a median 19 [IQR 9-33.3] months from conference presentation. Reporting of studies in A was of low quality: randomized 27% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), blinded 0%, sample-size calculation stated 0%, specifying the primary outcome 26%, numbers given with denominators 6%, and stating number of animals used 47%. Only being an orally presented (vs. poster presented) A (14/16 vs. 48/84, p = 0.025) predicted P. Reporting of studies in P was of poor quality: randomized 39% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), likely blinded 6%, primary outcome specified 5%, sample size calculation stated 0%, numbers given with denominators 34%, and number of animals used stated 56%. Changes in reporting from A to P occurred: from non-randomized to randomized 19%, from non-blinded to blinded 6%, from negative to positive outcomes 8%, from having to not having a stated primary outcome 16%, and from non-statistically to statistically significant findings 37%. Post-hoc, using publication data, P was predicted by having positive outcomes (published 62/62, unpublished 33/38; p = 0.003), or statistically significant results (published 58/62, unpublished 20/38; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of animal research A are subsequently P; this was predicted by oral presentation of the A, finally having positive outcomes, and finally having statistically significant results. Publication bias is prevalent in critical care animal research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2014 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium brought together researchers and scientists from academia and industry to present cutting-edge advances in ultrasonic research and inspire new ideas and collaborations between scholars. This symposium took place in the magnificent and worldclass city of Chicago from September 3?6, 2014. The symposium consisted of 938 contributed presentations, 24 invited talks including the plenary speaker, 12 short courses, and 18 student paper competition finalists. A total of 642 manuscripts were accepted for publication in the conference proceedings in the following major topics: ? Medical ultrasonics; ? Ultrasonic nondestructive testing and imaging; ? Industrial ultrasound; ? Physical acoustics; ? SAW, FBAR, and MEMS; and ? Ultrasonic sensors, transducers, and actuators. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose: To determine the percentage of abstracts presented at the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) annual scientific meetings that go on to publication. Methods: Records of previous CAR meetings from the years 2005-2011 were obtained. An Internet search was performed to determine which abstracts went on to publication. Abstracts were assessed according to exhibit category (Resident Award Papers), educational institution, publishing journal, and time to publication. Results: Of the 402 abstracts presented, 112 (28%) were published. Overall, an average of 37% of Radiologists-In-Training Presentations, 34% of Scientific Exhibits, and 20% of Educational Exhibits went on to publication. The University of British Columbia and University of Ottawa published the largest number of abstracts (66 and 62, respectively) from the years 2005-2011. The University of Montreal had the largest percentage of abstracts published (42%). The range of publishing journals was wide, but the top publisher was the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (27%). Eighty-three percent of abstracts were published within 3 years of being presented. Conclusion: In total, 28% of all the abstracts presented at the CAR conferences between 2005 and 2011 were published. Further exploration into the reasons and barriers for abstracts not being published may be a next step in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on how the work contributes to disciplinary or interdisciplinary knowledge. It mentions that papers that seem to practicing a method, but lacking the appropriate depth; and also mentions that background and implications are essential to any paper, and the implications section may warrant a stand alone paper as well.

Aim: Publication rate of congress abstracts has gained attention in the recent literature. Our aim was to assess publication rate and the reasons behind publication of abstracts presented at North American Spine Society (NASS) 2009-2012 annual scientific meetings. Methods: We evaluated the abstracts presented at the NASS 2009-2012 annual scientific meetings. We searched abstract titles and author names through the PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Author specialty, origin of the abstract, journal name, time to publication (years) and content change were looked for. Results: The publication rate of the abstracts presented at NASS 2009-2012 was 48%. The 2011 congress was the most successful one at reaching publication compared to other three years. Oral presentation abstracts were more likely to be published than poster abstracts, except the year 2011. Orthopedic surgery was the leading specialty in the number of presented abstracts (70%), while neurosurgery was the most successful specialty in seeing publication of the presented abstracts (58%). Conclusion: The publication rate of presented abstracts of NASS has increased compared to the previous years. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for some presented abstracts that could not have been published in scientific journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2017 Asia-Pacific Microwave Conference (APMC 2017) was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on November 13, 2017–November 16, 2017. The conference was sponsored by the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques (MTT) Society, organized by the Malaysian IEEE AP/MTT/EMC Joint Chapter, and technically co-sponsored by the European Microwave Association and the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society. Out of ~537 papers submitted, ~360 papers were accepted for presentation in the conference and publication in the 2017 APMC proceedings. These papers have also been published online on the IEEE Xplore website. The technical program involved 430 authors coming from 40 different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-021-09793-2 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On behalf of the Publication Committee of the IEEE International Magnetic Conference (Intermag 2015), I am pleased to present a selection of papers from Intermag 2015 held at the China National Convention Center, Beijing, China, on May 11-15, 2015. Among the 1759 oral and poster presentations in Intermag 2015, 1076 papers were submitted for a peer review and possible publication in the present volume of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, covering various aspects of magnetic materials and devices. After a rigorous review process, 590 manuscripts were selected for publication in this issue of the Transactions, strictly following the IEEE rules for conference-related papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On behalf of the Organizing Committee of the International Magnetics Conference 2015 (Intermag 2015), it is our pleasure to present this issue of the IEEE Transactions on Magnetics comprising selected papers from Intermag 2015. These categories this year included: Magnetic Recording, Spintronics and Applications, Sensor/MEMS or RF Materials and Devices, Electric Machines and Power Devices, Life Sciences and Applications, Magnetic Thin Film and Nanostructures, Functional Magnetic Materials, Soft Magnetic Materials, Permanent Magnet Materials, and Microscopy Imaging and Characterization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information about several papers discussed at a symposium held on March 13-16, 2014 sponsored by the Eastern Psychological Association (EPA) is presented. Topics include hidden biases, academic writing and human rights. The symposium featured several psychologists including Nancy Kim, Frederick Bonato and Michael Bernstein.

Prospective authors are requested to submit new, unpublished manuscripts for inclusion in the upcoming event described in this call for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Prospective authors are requested to submit new, unpublished manuscripts for inclusion in the upcoming event described in this call for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prospective authors are requested to submit new, unpublished manuscripts for inclusion in the upcoming event described in this call for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prospective authors are requested to submit new, unpublished manuscripts for inclusion in the upcoming event described in this call for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prospective authors are requested to submit new, unpublished manuscripts for inclusion in the upcoming event described in this call for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prospective authors are requested to submit new, unpublished manuscripts for inclusion in the upcoming event described in this call for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prospective authors are requested to submit new, unpublished manuscripts for inclusion in the upcoming event described in this call for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]