Search

Purpose The aim of this work is to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings potential in magazine paper production through the application of the innovative manufacturing strategies using advanced sheet structure design and fibre modifications. Methods The study applies Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to two different magazine paper products: supercalendered (SC) paper and light-weight coated (LWC) paper. A cradle-to-gate approach is used aiming to assess the environmental benefits gained through the implementation of new manufacturing strategies in both products. The functional unit of the system was defined as the production of one square meter of finished paper for printing magazines. Conventional and new production processes have been compared. Results and discussion The strategies applied to SC paper resulted in reduction of GHG emissions by 22.9%, with a total of 10.7 gCO 2 eq emissions saved per square meter of SC paper. In the case of LWC paper, GHG emissions are reduced by 20.3%, which are equal to a total of 19.7 gCO 2 eq saved per square meter of LWC paper. The influence of certain methodological approaches -functional unit, electricity mix and avoided impacts- in the final results is also discussed in the paper. Conclusions The manufacturing strategies implemented show a remarkable potential for reducing GHG emissions. Taking into account that the pulp and paper industry is a very energy-intensive sector and one of the main GHG emitters, the potential of the strategies for the improvement of the environmental performance of the papermaking processes is significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• It is shown that the commented paper has severe errors. • The analysis of the diffraction pattern was made without success. • The chemical composition of the studied crystals is unknown. My comments concern the errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. Moreover, the true chemical composition of the studied sample is different than BaNaFeWO 6 as proposed by authors. Therefore, the subsequent data on other measurements may have no scientific value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• It is shown that the commented paper has severe errors. • The analysis of the diffraction pattern was made without success. • The chemical composition of the studied crystals is unknown. My comments concern the errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. Moreover, the true chemical composition of the studied sample is different than BaNaFeWO 6 as proposed by authors. Therefore, the subsequent data on other measurements may have no scientific value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This communication basically comprise replies to the comments raised by Singh and Rajendran (SR) on our paper Malik et al. (2023) published in Journal of Asian Earth Sciences. We would like to bring to the notice of the readers that our studies and findings are based on a robust methodology towards identification and interpretation of active fault traces. Based on detailed satellite data interpretations, field evidence, paleoseismic studies and GNSS Geodesy data we suggested that Khetpurali Taksal Fault (KTF) is a major fault system with prominent dextral strike-slip motion which marks the segment boundary between the Central and NW Himalaya. Further, an attempt was also made to understand the role of KTF in regional context. We disagree with the claims made by SR. The quires raised by SR are completely baseless and expose their lack of experience and understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: We propose to look at the quality of performance metrics reporting in papers comparing two or more treatments. Our goal is to provide additional context in the focus on evidence-based medicine. Methods: We reviewed papers (1082 papers with 98 papers meeting the inclusion criteria) from four important orthopaedic journals published in 2009 to quantify and analyse the quality of papers reporting performance metrics, defined as (1) radiographic evidence; (2) training/experience of surgeon(s); and (3) intra-operative measurements. Results: Our research revealed that only 32 papers (33%) reported performance metrics. There were no significant differences in the rate of performance metrics reporting amongst the journals included or amongst the different orthopaedic subspecialties topics; however, papers from South Korea and China reported both performance metrics in general and radiographic measurements specifically at a higher rate than papers from the western world. Conclusions: The low rate of performance metric reporting could have an impact on the reader''s ability to determine the reproducibility of the results published. We propose a new section on performance metrics reporting for editors to include in their instructions to authors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: In 2007, the European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM) established the European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Journal Network (EPRMJN) with a view to increase scientific knowledge among physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) specialists and to foster collaboration among the national, regional (multinational) and European PRM journals. In this connection, this paper gives the readers of national and regional, and European PRM journals a complete overview of the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM), the official ESPRM journal, and a review of the papers published in 2008. Methods: The evolution of the EJPRM in the last five years was analyzed, and the papers published in 2008 were systematically reviewed and classified by content and discussed. Results: The EJPRM is listed in PubMed and Current Contents; at now the unofficial 2008 Impact Factor is 1.14, like the Impact Factor, also the independent SCImago Journal Rate and Cites per Doc (two years) have increased steadily since 2005. The EJPRM published 72 papers in 2008, with a well balanced coverage of different rehabilitation topics. The rejection rate is around 40%; the review and publication times are 1.2 and 10.0 months, respectively. The published papers are presented here by topic, highlighting multi-journal initiatives (such as the EPRMJN and the Euro-American Focus with the American Journal of PRM), monographic Special Sections, systematic Cochrane PRM reviews, original papers and case reports, and other contents including the Internet Bookshelf. Conclusion: This paper represents the start of the EPRMJN collaborative efforts to increase scientific knowledge among PRM specialists in Europe, independently of the language in which papers are published. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Pino et al. (2021, hereinafter PIN2021) commented on the paper by Barreca et al. (2021, hereinafter B2021) titled: " The Strait of Messina: Seismotectonics and the source of the 1908 earthquake ", which was published in the journal Earth-Sciences Reviews in May 2021. PIN2021 argued both on the " source model of the 1908 EQ ", as proposed by B2021, and on the existence of the newly discovered causative fault (i.e. the B2021W-Fault). Based on " objective reading of achieved results along with other existing geophysical information... ", PIN2021 conclude: " the source mechanism for the 1908 EQ is based on incorrect assumptions, while their results are internally inconsistent and with other independent observations ". According to PIN2021, the inconsistency of the proposed " source mechanism ", which foresaw the possibility of an aseismic slip on a low-angle discontinuity preceding the 1908 mainshock (see B2021), would be mainly demonstrated by " the lack of significant variations of the relative sea level in the Messina harbor area, in the time period relevant for the levelling data (1907-1908) ....... and at least for the decade preceding the event ". Moreover, to demonstrate that the deformation is mostly coseismic, PIN2021 proposes a sea level diagram based on unreliable data from the Messina tide gauge. In this paper, we demonstrate that the comments by PIN2021 are unfounded. We strongly confirm the scientific validity of the model proposed in B2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Author lists should inform readers about who did a piece of research. If authorship attribution is incorrect, the wrong people may take the credit or the blame. Correct authorship of medical papers is also important because the research and publication process relies on trust. If scientists or clinicians are prepared to lie about who was involved with a research project why should we believe their findings? Groups of journal editors, notably the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, have tried to establish criteria for authorship but these are not universally accepted. Despite the lack of agreement, authorship of journal articles continues to be the basis for academic appointments and is used to measure the research output of departments and therefore determine future funding. Some journals have started to use contributor lists, indicating the role of each individual, in place of, or in addition to, traditional lists of authors. However, problems about the threshold of involvement that merits authorship, and the order of listing remain unresolved. Journal editors are usually unable to adjudicate on authorship disputes since detailed, local knowledge is required. Institutions might therefore play a greater role in setting and enforcing authorship policies. Disputes could be reduced if authorship criteria were agreed, in writing, among all contributors at the start of a research project. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Cold fusion phenomenon means the nuclear reactions in solids with hydrogen isotopes. • Nuclear reactions occur in solids without any acceleration mechanism. • Excess energy accompanied to the nuclear reaction is useful for an energy source. The paper "Mechanism of Thermal Runaway as a Cause of Fleischmann-Pons Effect," by N.E. Galushkin, N.N. Yazvinskaya, D.N. Galushkin, published in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry , 870 , pp. 114,237 – 114,246 (2020), ISSN 0022-728, does not contain enough data on the study of nuclear reactions in CF materials that accompany the Fleischmann-Pons effect. Therefore, it is necessary to add an overview of these studies based on the data written in the papers by Fleischmann et al. and data including the paper by Morrey et al. and others obtained in these about 30 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: An integrated model for ranking scientific publications together with authors and journals recently presented in [Bini, Del Corso, Romani, ETNA 2008] is closely analyzed. The model, which relies on certain adjacency matrices and obtained from the relations of citation, authorship and publication, provides the ranking by means of the Perron vector of a stochastic matrix obtained by combining and . Some perturbation theorems concerning the Perron vector previously introduced by the authors are extended to more general cases and a counterexample to a property previously addressed by the authors is presented. The theoretical results confirm the consistency and effectiveness of our model. Some paradigmatic examples are reported together with some results obtained on a real set of data. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Medical science is rapidly evolving and an incredible number of publications are being published. Are they all worth reading? Authors are deemed responsible for what they put down in writing; whether they are first or corresponding author, it really makes no difference. Editors of peer-reviewed international journals have agreed to share their views with the readership, in order to optimise the quality of contributions as well as to assist junior colleagues in their editorial efforts. Starting from an historical perspective, ethical issues in publishing are discussed and technical suggestions on how to get the final draft accepted for publication are outlined. Contributing towards medical science is a great pleasure to be experienced and shared. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In the above paper the first Rivlin-Ericken parameter is dimensional, not dimensionless as the authors claim. In addition, although the problem is non-similar, the authors used the similarity method of solution which is not accurate. • The comment concerns a paper published in Journal of Molecular Liquids. • The first Rivlin-Ericken parameter is dimensional, not dimensionless as the authors claim. • The similarity method used for the non-similar problem is not accurate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Richard H. Day was a renaissance man and a difference maker. This essay honors the life and scholarly work of Dick Day, expressed mostly through those who knew him as colleagues and students. It also provides an introduction to this special issue, which honors Professor Day with papers of the type he founded this journal to publish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent paper in this journal, M.Y. Abyaneh, M. Fleischmann, and M.H. Mehrabi claimed to have developed a novel approach towards the derivation of the current-time profile of a single hemispherical crystal growing under mixed kinetic-diffusion control. The authors also claimed to have derived a number of asymptotic results that differ significantly from the standard results in the scientific literature. In a radical re-appraisal of older publications, they reached the startling conclusion that "none of the previous works are capable of providing correct solutions even for the steady-state approximation". In this short communication, we dispute this claim. In particular, we identify multiple incorrect boundary conditions in the work of Abyaneh et al. which fatally compromise their analysis. • A brief summary of the theory of nucleation of nanoparticles is presented. • A recent claim of a novel approach is refuted. • The long-established results of Fletcher (1983) are confirmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A carotid-cavernous fistula (CCF) is an abnormal communication between arteries and veins within the cavernous sinus and may be classified as either direct or indirect. This bibliometric analysis summarizes the most-cited articles on CCFs and highlights the contributing articles to today's evidence-based practice. In the execution of this bibliometric-based review article, the Scopus database was used to perform a title-specific, keyword-based search for all publications until June 2022. The keyword "carotid cavernous fistula" was used. Our results were arranged in descending order based on the article's citation count. The 100 most-cited articles were selected for analysis. Parameters such as title, citation count, citations per year, authors, specialty of first author, institution, country of origin, publishing journal, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, and Hirsch index were collected. The keyword-based search showed that 1832 articles were published between 1963 and 2022 on CCFs. The top 100 articles were published between 1963 and 2018. The top 100 most-cited articles collected a total of 8797 citations with an average of 88 citations per paper. The rate of self-citations accounted for an average of 4.71% of the total number of citations. The bibliometric analysis provides a quantitative overview of how medical topics and interventions are analyzed in academic medicine. In the present study, we evaluated the global trends in CCFs by finding the top 100 most-cited papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the rapid development of electronic journals, selecting appropriate journals to publish research papers has become a significant challenge to researchers. Sometimes, even a high-quality paper may get rejected from the editor due to the mismatch between the topic of the paper and the scope of the journal. To address this issue, we present a framework of learning to recommend journals for submission based on embedding models to assist researchers in journal selection. Specifically, the journal recommendation problem is formulated in the context of multi-class classification, where the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) is deployed to extract the text-level features of representing papers and the AutoEncoder (AE) network is adopted to obtain the feature representation of each journal from the relationship matrix of the paper-journal bipartite graph. The final recommendation of journals is made by using a scoring function and a Softmax classifier. Experimental results obtained on the closed dataset of 10 different journals and the DBLP dataset indicate that we proposed method outperforms several classical approaches in terms of accuracy, F1, MRR, etc. Furthermore, we introduce information entropy as an evaluation index and analyze the model performance from the perspective of prediction uncertainty. This study provides a new approach to the journal recommendation task, and researchers can choose the appropriate embedding methods according to the actual problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents five key questions that should be considered by researchers and librarians who develop or use survey-based (stated preference) journal rankings. Many of the distinctions among the various rankings—their attributes, strengths, and weaknesses—are captured in the responses to these five questions: What construct is being measured? How are differences in the construct expressed and recorded? Who are the respondents? Which journals are included in the rankings? How is respondents' familiarity with the journals taken into account? The paper also summarizes the problems that may require attention when survey-based rankings are used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research in medicine is an indispensable tool to advance knowledge and improve patient care. This may be particularly true in the field of human reproduction as it is a relatively new field and treatment options are rapidly evolving. This is of particular importance in an emerging field like 'human reproduction', where treatment options evolve fast.The cornerstone of evidence-based knowledge, leading to evidence-based treatment decisions, is randomized controlled trials as they explore the benefits of new treatment approaches. The study design and performance are crucial and, if they are carried out correctly, solid conclusions can be drawn and be implemented in daily clinical routines. The dissemination of new findings throughout the scientific community occurs in the form of publications in scientific journals, and the importance of the journal is reflected in part by the impact factor. The peer review process before publication is fundamental in preventing flaws in the study design. Thus, readers of journals with a high impact factor usually rely on a thorough peer review process and therefore might not question the published data. However, even papers published in high-impact journals might not be free of flaws, so the aim of this paper is to encourage readers to be aware of this fact and critically read scientific papers as 'the devil lies in the details'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying the relationships among port competition, cooperation and competitiveness is critical for both port operations and public interests. Although the number of studies on these three topic areas increased significantly in the recent decades, the relationships among them have not been sufficiently clarified. This study attempts to identify their relationships based on a comprehensive literature review of 210 journal papers published from 1970 to 2019 on these three topic areas, and the studies with overlapping topics. While many studied port competition, cooperation and competitiveness, very few studies exist with overlapping topic areas. Current research on the relationship of port competition and cooperation is mainly from the perspective of ports, few evaluated the implication of these strategies from different perspectives, especially from social point of view. On the relationship of port competition and competitiveness, many considered that intra-port competition can increase port competitiveness. However, both inter-port competition and cooperation are found to have positive or negative impacts, depending on the perspective of the study and the geographical location of the ports in question. • We review the relationships among port competition, cooperation and competitiveness. • 210 papers from 1970 to 2019 are collected and overlapping topics identified. • Both competition and cooperation can improve port competitiveness. • Society prefers competition while business likes cooperation for market power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the policies followed by the Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI), a peer-reviewed journal, regarding the publication of research articles. Topics discussed include future research to focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety; need to follow the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines in order to meet high standards; and suggests that the measures should be clinically relevant.

In this paper, by using nonnegative regular summability methods we improve and generalize the approximation properties of max-min operators which have been investigated systematically in our recent paper published in 2020 in this journal. We also discuss the rate of convergence in the approximation. Applications and concluding remarks at the end of the paper explain why we need such summability methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are productivity differences among academic fields. Researchers who work in academic fields that have low productivity are pressured to publish more, and this policy may cause researchers to publish more in journals that have lenient standards and publish articles that are not necessarily valuable for their academic field. The problem is not solved by normalizing journals' impact factors by the subjects because the normalized impact factors do not reflect the difficulty of publication in that subject. In this paper, we propose an evaluation method –Reference Group Similarity Index-that addresses the productivity differences issue. The method uses the publications of a reference group of departments that are believed to have the right publication incentives. Then, other departments are evaluated to the degree that their publications are similar to that of the reference group. We apply the method to the top 50 economics departments according to USNews rankings and show that the department rankings that we get from the Reference Group Similarity Index are largely consistent with the USNews Rankings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This paper aims to address the issue of predatory publishing, sensu lato. To achieve this, we offer our perspectives, starting initially with some background surrounding the birth of the concept, even though the phenomenon may have already existed long before the popularization of the term "predatory publishing". The issue of predation or "predatory" behavior in academic publishing is no longer limited to open access (OA). Many of the mainstream publishers that were exclusively subscription-based are now evolving towards a state of complete OA. Academics seeking reliable sources of journals to publish their work tend to rely on a journal's metrics such as citations and indexing, and on whether it is blacklisted or whitelisted. Jeffrey Beall raised awareness of the risks of "predatory" OA publishing, and his blacklists of "predatory" OA journals and publishers began to be used for official purposes to distinguish valid from perceived invalid publishing venues. We initially reflect on why we believe the blacklists created by Beall were flawed, primarily due to the weak set of criteria confusing non-predatory with true predatory journals leading to false positives and missing out on blacklisting true predatory journals due to false negatives. Historically, most critiques of "predatory publishing" have relied excessively on Beall's blacklists to base their assumptions and conclusions but there is a need to look beyond these. There are currently a number of blacklists and whitelists circulating in academia, but they all have imperfections, such as the resurrected Beall blacklists, Crawford's OA gray list based on Beall's lists, Cabell's new blacklist with about 11,000 journals, the DOAJ with about 11,700 OA journals, and UGC, with over 32,600 journals prior to its recent (May 2018) purge of 4305 journals. The reader is led into a discussion about blacklists' lack of reliability, using the scientific framework of conducting research to assess whether a journal could be predatory at the pre- and post-study levels. We close our discussion by offering arguments why we believe blacklists are academically invalid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]