Recent Synthetic Advancement and Medicinal Applications of Asymmetric Cyclic Pyrazoline-based Hydrazine Derivatives: A Review.

Chemistry is one of the eldest and basic sciences. The technological progress is depending on progress in chemistry. Without evaluation of nature and preparation of a pure substance, it is not imaginable existence of modern biology, medicine, metallurgy and physics. All kind of existing technologies needs distinct in nature and pure in quality substances for existence and further progress. RG aims to bring together leading academic scientists, researchers and research scholars to exchange and share their experiences and research results on all aspects of chemistry and related fields. It also provides an interdisciplinary platform for researchers, practitioners and educators to present and discuss the most recent innovations, trends, and concerns as well as practical challenges encountered, and solutions adopted in the fields of chemistry. One of the nearly developed concepts in liquid chromatography is described in [1], which is a new type of liquid chromatography, the new technology as the Colloidal High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (CHPLC). This type of new technological approach in high-performance liquid chromatography is a simple time- and labor-saving one-step procedure suitable for analytical-, semipreparative-, and preparative-scale preparation of bacteriocins and other cationic antibacterial peptides as well as other cationic small molecular weight species. It allows to suspensions of bacterial cells, other colloidal and fast-particle materials, and dissolved anionic molecules passed through the column; however, cationic bacteriocins, small cationic peptides, organic cationic molecules and metal cations were separated by chromatography. The purity of the target substance generally at more than 95% was achieved by the judgment of spectral, chromatographic, and antimicrobial activity. In [1] was described the preparation, purification and chromatography of bacteriocin, bacitracin and lysozyme. It is my pleasure to invite all the great scientists, academicians, young researchers, students and everyone who is interested in Science, especially in chemistry from all over the world to attend the RG. All who are interested in theoretical and applicational aspects in Chemistry, New Materials Research and Nanotechnology will find them in RG. The topics as: Organic Chemistry and Advances in Organic Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, Medicinal Chemistry, Clinical Chemistry, Forensic Chemistry, Industrial Chemistry and Occupational Chemistry, Food Chemistry, Green Chemistry and Chemical Renewable Resources, Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, Biological Chemistry, Marine Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, Environmental Chemistry, Nanoscience and Technology, Polymer Chemistry, Material Chemistry, Natural Resources Chemistry and Natural Products Chemistry, Electrochemistry, Geochemistry, Radio and Nuclear chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Theoretical Chemistry, Space (Interplanetary) Chemistry and many more are present on the pages of RG. At RG you will find the state-of-the-art research and cutting-edge theoretical and applicational technologies. The RG is covering a number of global aspects in Chemistry, New Materials Science and Nanotechnology from purely fundamental research up to practical applications.

Traditionally, there have been two important media of academic publishing: scholarly journals and scholarly books. The first scholarly journal, the Journal des Sçavans, was founded by Denis de Sallo, appeared already in January 1665 in Paris, reappeared after the French Revolution as the Journal des Savants, and still exists as a leading journal in the humanities. Only a few weeks later, Henry Oldenbourg, the first secretary of the Royal Society of London, established a second scholarly journal, the Philosophical Transactions, with a focus on science. The purpose of these journals was to formalize the extensive correspondence between philosophers and scientists.1 In the 18th and the 19th century, more specialized journals gained in importance, most of which were published by learned societies. At the end of the 19th century, university presses too began to publish scholarly journals. Another traditional means of academic publishing are the various types of scholarly books, in particular monographs, edited volumes, reference works (specialist dictionaries, encyclopedias, and specialty reference manuals), and technical handbooks.2 A narrow definition of academic works would exclude textbooks and books for the broader public. Shavell (2010, 337–39) employs four criteria to determine whether a journal or book is academic in nature: (1) the authors and/or the publisher are usually academics; (2) the readers are mainly academics; (3) the content is academic in character; (4) only low royalties are paid, if any. As of today, scholarly journals are the preferred mode of academic publishing in particular in the sciences and some social sciences (e.g., economics), whereas scholarly books still play an important role in the arts, the humanities, and part of the social sciences. Whereas scholarly books are published by a large number of small national publishers in a multitude of languages, the most important scholarly journals are typically in English language and published by a few large commercial publishers. Until the mid-20th century, the most important journals were published by learned societies, before commercial publishers began to enter the academic publishing market in the 1960s and 1970s by launching new titles or acquiring existing ones. This development has led to a significant concentration of (commercial) publishers in the academic journal market.3 It is difficult to say for sure how many scholarly journals are available around the world. Some sources speak of more than 100,000, others of 87,000 or 73,000.4 In August 2018, Ulrich's Web Directory listed 33,119 active scholarly peer-reviewed English-language journals with about 3 million articles a year, complemented by an additional 9,372 journals in other languages. As an important subset, 11,655 journals with 2.2 million articles were included in the Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports (STM, 2018, 25–26). The Web of Science (WoS) database counted almost 12,500 journals in 2019 (see below, Section 2.2.1). With the mass expansion of academic education and the increasing size of faculty after World War II, publications in peer-reviewed, highly ranked journals have become an important precondition for academic careers in many disciplines, in particular in the sciences, economics, and partly in the other social sciences. In 1964, Eugene Garfield launched the Science Citation Index to calculate the impact factors of journals in science, medicine, and technology. This index was later followed by the Social Sciences Citation Index in 1973, the Arts & Humanities Citation Index in 1978 (Regazzi, 2015, 86–88), and the Emerging Sources Citation Index in 2015. These indices led to the development of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), a metric that serves to rank a scholarly journal based on the number of citations to articles in that journal by articles in other indexed journals within a certain time period. During the same time, commercial publishers have increased their market shares to the detriment of non-for-profit publishers, such as learned societies and universities, becoming the dominant players in the market for scholarly journals. Today, the "big five" commercial academic publishers—Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Sage—cover more than half of the market for scholarly journals. Since the 1980s, we have seen a sharp increase not just in the number of journals but in particular also in journal subscription prices, forcing many academic libraries to cancel serials subscriptions and to cut back on new monographs (the so-called serials crisis, cf. Eger & Scheufen, 2018, 23–29). These developments induced an increasing number of scholars, initially in the United States, to promote open access (OA) to scholarly articles as a replacement of or an addendum to the subscription model. After some individual initiatives in the late 1980s, the early 2000s saw the emergence of a global movement by scholars, librarians, and research sponsors, resulting in the "Budapest Open Access Initiative" (February 2002), the "Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing" (June 2003) and the "Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities" (October 2003).7 Two roads to OA can be distinguished8: First, gold OA refers to electronic journals with OA for all readers, often based on creative commons licenses. The publishers' costs are covered not by subscription fees but from other sources, such as article-processing charges (APCs)9 paid by authors, libraries, learned societies, or research sponsors, or subsidies from learned societies and other sources. Hybrid OA journals, whose numbers are rising fast, allow the authors to choose between paying an APC, thereby granting the reader OA, or not paying an APC and requiring the reader to pay for access to the article.10 A special branch of gold OA is mega-journals, the first one of which, PLOS One, was first published in 2006. In these journals, the peer review is restricted to examining only the soundness of the submitted articles but not their broader interest or impact. Also, mega-journals are not oriented towards a specific subject matter. The second road, green OA, refers to authors self-archiving pre-prints or post-prints of their papers on so-called OA repositories, potentially in addition to publication in traditional subscription-based journals. OpenDOAR listed 5,713 repositories in July 2021, of which 5,073 were classified as institutional repositories managed by universities, faculties, or other academic institutions, 364 as disciplinary (subject) repositories which aggregate research papers in specific disciplines (e.g., PubMed Central, arXiv, SSRN, and RepEc), 138 as aggregating repositories (including Academia and Scielo), and 139 as governmental repositories.11 Whereas institutional and disciplinary repositories generally respect the authors' or publishers' copyright, so-called Robin Hood or Pirate OA repositories do not. The most prominent example is Sci-Hub, founded in 2011 by Alexandra Elbakyan, a young scholar from Kazakhstan, which made over 60 million journal articles publicly available. Due to complaints by academic publishers, Sci-Hub had to switch domains several times.12 Recent years have seen the emergence of academic social networks such as Research Gate and Mendeley, as well as a stream of new forms of disseminating scientific content, including blogs, podcasts, and Facebook posts by prominent scholars. Regarding OA books, the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) in June 2021 listed 43,036 academic peer-reviewed books from 621 publishers.13 The number of academic journals, as listed in the WoS database, has been growing steadily over the past two decades, from around 5,000 in 2000 to almost 12,500 in 2019 (Figure 1).14 Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) The academic journal market is dominated by a few large commercial publishers, with the "big five" accounting for more than half of the academic journals listed by the WoS in 2019: Elsevier (1,754 journals), Springer (1,406), Wiley Blackwell (1,242), Taylor & Francis (1,199), and Sage (642).15 However, due to a downturn by Elsevier that began around 2006, this dominance has declined from around 60% in 2000 to around 51.7% in 2019 (Figure 2). Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) Coupled with the advent of the internet and the concurrent increasing digitization of academic works, which through the bundling of different journals and/or formats ("big deals") facilitated second-degree price discrimination, this dominance has led to a drastic increase in subscription prices since the early 1990s (Bergstrom, 2013; Eger & Scheufen, 2018; Ramello, 2010). The resulting serials crisis—with academic libraries having to cut their journal portfolio—gave rise to a new publishing regime that offers OA to journal content. The share of pure (i.e., non-hybrid) OA journals as listed by the Directory of Open Access Journals (2021) has been increasing steadily, from around 3% of all WoS-listed journals in 2000 to more than 10% in 2019 (Figure 3). Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) and DOAJ (2021) Interestingly, pure OA journals also gained ground in terms of quality. Figure 4 shows boxplots of the impact factors16 of closed access (CA) versus OA journals over time. While CA journals enjoyed an impact factor advantage over OA journals for a long time—all location scales of the impact factor for CA journals being above the ones for OA journals—OA journals are nowadays of the same quality, notwithstanding considerable differences between disciplines (see the contribution by Eger et al. to this issue). In 2019, impact factor distributions of both OA and CA journals are at the same level. Thus, advancing both in quantity and in quality, OA journals are becoming ever more relevant. The literature has identified the following advantages of an OA regime for academic works: (1) OA publications are likely read and therefore (2) cited more widely,17 which in turn (3) raises the incentives for academic authors to publish their research results as citations increase their reputation. These observations led to a broad discussion in academia as to whether the copyright regime may impede the evolution towards a universal OA regime, with very different conclusions being drawn regarding the impact of OA from a social welfare perspective (Scheufen, 2015; Shavell, 2010). Source: Author's calculations based on data from Web of Science (2021) and DOAJ (2021) The growing relevance of academic OA publishing warrants a closer look at the development of pure OA journals as the gold road towards OA. Figure 5 shows the number of newly launched OA journals from 2002 to 2020. Following relatively slow growth from 2002 to 2014, with fewer than 500 new OA journals per year (except 2013), the number has exceeded 1,000 in every year since, peaking in 2017, when more than 2,000 new OA journals were added to the DOAJ database. Today, the DOAJ database counts more than 16,000 OA journals in many different fields of research, published in 80 languages by publishers from 126 countries.18 Source: Author's calculations based on data from DOAJ (2021) Notwithstanding this impressive development, the relevance of OA journals varies substantially across academic disciplines (Figure 6).19 The research field with the largest attributed number of OA journals is Social Sciences (3,817), followed by Health Sciences (2,785), Technology and Engineering (1,416), and Language and Literature (1,153). By contrast, the natural science fields of Mathematics & Statistics (341), Physics & Astronomy (274), and Chemistry (181) feature only few OA journals.20 Source: Author's calculations based on data from DOAJ (2021) Remarkable differences also exist regarding a variety of OA journal characteristics (Table 1).21 Most (52%) OA journals leave the copyright of published works with the author, whereas the traditional CA regime demands that the exploitation rights are transferred to the publisher. Moreover, only around 28% of all OA journals charge APCs—a remarkable finding, as the OA regime implies the transition from a "reader pays" to an "author pays" model. Other fees (e.g., a submission fee to cover the review process) are charged by only around 2% of all OA journals. Nevertheless, author fees may constitute a significant obstacle for authors to publish in an OA venue, especially for non-tenured researchers seeking to publish in highly ranked journals, which are most likely to charge APCs (Budzinski et al., 2020). This obstacle also applies in particular to many researchers from developing countries, whose institutions rarely cover such costs. Yet 18% of OA journals provide for the possibility to waive such author fees. OA publishing may indeed be considered a form of development aid, for two reasons: First, few institutions in the developing world have so far been able to subscribe to academic journals. The OA regime can thus promote scientific participation and thereby foster the global evolution of science as a "trial and error" process. Free or cheaper access to literature for researchers in the developing world tends to increase both their output (number of publications) and input (number of references) (Mueller-Langer et al., 2020). Second, an OA regime grants access to the latest results in science for groups who were previously excluded because they are not "club" members of a university library. This includes, e.g., corporate researchers, physicians, or farmers. Notwithstanding all the changes discussed above, scholarly journals remain the most important medium of communication in many disciplines. For more than 300 years, they have been fulfilling the four key functions of registration (attribution), certification of articles (peer review), dissemination (distribution, access), and preservation (scholarly memory and permanent archiving). In recent decades, a fifth function must be added: the evaluation of researchers and their institutions.22 The increasing importance of OA articles in scholarly journals has triggered some controversial discussions, in particular regarding the questions as to whether OA negatively affects the quality of journal articles, whether OA improves the dissemination of research results, and how OA affects the competition between academic publishers as well as the distribution between academics and non-academics, between poor and rich universities, and between poor and rich countries. We shall discuss each of these questions and some related points in more detail below. In times when "alternative facts" tend to trump sound research results, academia must provide the public with reliable information. The users of this information should be sufficiently certain that the results are based on proper methods, reflect the state of science in the specific field, and were obtained independently, e.g., of any political or commercial interests.23 For that reason, strict and continuous quality control of research results is a "conditio sine qua non" for academic publishing. Facilitating the communication of content from authors to readers, the academic journal market may be characterized as a two-sided market (Rochet & Tirole, 2003). While readers look for the most important research results in their fields by top authors, the latter are interested in the journal's reputation, in wide readership, and in citations. Thus, journals with high impact factors hold the greatest attraction to both sides. With this in mind, the crucial question arises what effect, if any, OA is likely to have on the quality of academic articles. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, is very skeptical regarding the quality of OA articles, especially those that are financed by APCs: "By adding a financial component to the front end of the scholarly publishing process, the open-access movement will ultimately corrupt scholarly publishing and hurt the communication and sharing of novel knowledge" (Beall, 2013, 590). A weak form of "corruption" would to OA publishers' incentives to peer review and to more submitted papers in to increase from However, the commercial publishers' incentives to increase the number of articles to the detriment of the journal's quality at the the quality the APCs that the journal is able to as well as A form of "corruption" refers to the of some OA journal publishers have been to in particular young and who on publications for their or to allow authors to publish articles in OA journals, by articles with or peer academics on their the or of journals, and so In established a of publishers, which was in January in to not only from the publishers but also from OA who that the to to OA. this quality to be a one which exists only in some disciplines (e.g., economics), whereas in other disciplines, such as some OA journals are the ranked journals and there is of a quality researchers their and if academic institutions and research to the APCs for articles by journals, this is to A by is that OA may new and will new and of their will remain (Beall, 2013, 590). However, this is a of the process, of whether the was submitted to a traditional or an OA and many prominent which that articles are generally more likely to the review than and creative but ones. In their contribution to this special & in a two-sided that OA can be a feature of journals. The have seen an increasing both of data on any subject and of that serves to that data almost there has been a of articles in every For such articles, the peer for quality A can be made between pure the same data and the same are as in the and scientific which (1) different data but the same (2) the same data but new methods, or (3) new data and new A to a on (1) the of an or in previously published (2) the impact of the (3) the of and (4) the of to publish Whereas some years when data were on the of mainly of technical copyright and data are the of Regarding the first journals in have already been including an OA journal by University with a focus on Technology and and the Journal for in by Springer the years or a number of in several disciplines have that the results of many when published in highly ranked journals, not be many academics to speak of a The is to the quality of research by access to data so as to be able to results of and or the incentives to the in the first Another important question is whether digitization and the internet have facilitated the quality of of their scholarly and and of their the quality of academic researchers and of is based on which were to provide a metric for journals with each 2019, being a of the citations to all articles in a journal but not of the citations to the individual articles. In a few articles are cited and many articles are not cited at Moreover, an may also many citations for being and citations are 2018, For some journals the authors of submitted papers to related papers that were previously published in the same journal have this by the of several journals this focus on and their to their and the of to these and to with for the quality of research & in with a a to be a (STM, 2018, are induced to the but the The on research which from the on Science and Technology in 2014, is of the existing to research output and to research evaluation in the et al., the question whether the new and the and (OA) of academic publishing to and their Some authors the in OA publishing with a broader of readers and open For of the in the focus on a small number of highly ranked journals, for a all articles that a journal's criteria should be published and made financed by APCs or other This is the of mega-journals such as PLOS a who the 2000 in and & the between of publications in the top journals in and of in a of the top which over the the crucial question is how to articles at low especially in a OA the of available articles to choose journal of costs to some However, the of the as a of quality has been Thus, an important to academic publishing is to provide reliable on the quality of journal articles that are of the journal that published the the internet and for research evaluation also how research results are Regarding scholarly by other researchers, there is an discussion as to whether OA articles more or fewer citations than those with a to that is in the by & and by Eger et al. to this special Regarding by the broader the mainly is being complemented with which on or in the social reference such as and Mendeley, scholarly blogs, and In the transition from traditional subscription journals to OA, the crucial question is how to the between two the one high subscription fees may be with high journal publishers have to their to the or research the other low APCs may not for publishers to cover their and to a to publish journals. The is to competition to journal publishers to articles of quality at and and to the interested public. The of competition not on the and of OA publishing. there were only pure OA journals, publishers would for all authors had to cover the APCs from their the APCs would tend towards a that the publishers to However, in the publishers of pure OA journals, OA journals and CA journals with OA repositories, and APCs may be by or research these different to foster OA will have specific on the of are some (1) green OA is or an to as has been the in since January 2014, publishers of subscription journals difficult to increase their fees. This also the publishers of OA journals from increasing their In any a must be is too will the publishers' to publish the journal in the first if is too the on subscription fees will be A for gold OA by research the of the publishers of OA journals and thereby increase (2) the of new OA journals, this foster competition publishers of OA journals for Yet this the that many years to a and to Until the new journal will have on the fees of the journals. (3) of academic libraries can constitute a to the journal publishers, potentially the of example is the in which so far two between a of most academic libraries in on the one and Wiley and Springer as publishers of scholarly journals in all disciplines on the other is a controversial discussion whether such impede competition on the journal market to the detriment of small publishers or indeed In any such to promote the of traditional CA journals OA OA publishing may several and the from "reader pays" to "author pays" can for researchers, for in developing countries. As we have 18% of OA journals APC for such Second, or to foster OA, such as the above, may to the of researchers who to the detriment of those who do not. Moreover, publishers may be to papers from researchers from that author fees specific e.g., by authors an of gold and/or green OA may due to that from incentives such as the in science or especially for non-tenured researchers, gold OA may their careers in fields OA with and CA example for due to may be the e.g., in the field of In this a green OA publication may with a publication of a in a journal since the that a journal works that have been published In the transition to OA journals implies that authors or their pay for the of readers from all over the world to access the articles. This may be poor authors for rich the global that is available to academic articles is in which the transition to OA may the number of articles The is when many of the readers are of we can that whose faculty publish many articles also for a large share of the readership, in which any between authors and readers their as a of the transition to OA should be A number of and developments since the second half of the have the academic publishing market and triggered about the very of academic publishing. journals, which in most disciplines to be the most important medium of academic are by commercial publishers, with the top publishers more than of all journals. and the advent of the internet have these publishers to in "big with academic libraries, of which the libraries to access a wide of journals at a price per As a journal subscription prices and academic on academic journals have been increasing to the detriment of publishers and on books with these a number of national and initiatives triggered the development towards OA, a new of academic publishing. Today, a growing number of pure and OA journals are financed by subscription fees but by publication fees paid by the authors or their Moreover, institutional and disciplinary OA repositories have been established and the traditional of academic communication have been with social blogs, Another of digitization and the internet has been the facilitated and of research in many disciplines. The of this development is an increasing number of the results of be this would with copyright and and academic authors to in The discussion as to how these developments the quality control of academic journal articles, the evaluation of and their institutions, and the size and of financial means for academic publishing. This special to the discussion a of articles with some of including the evaluation of by indices & welfare of open access & the impact of OA & & access to research data & to OA in and the to OA in & We would to for The authors also open access by

Over the last decade, researchers have become increasingly interested in students' beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how these beliefs develop. Although initial psychological accounts portrayed epistemic development as a domain-independent process of cognitive maturation, recent studies have found trajectories of epistemic development to vary considerably across contexts. However, few studies have focused on cultural context. This article examines the role community values and practices play in fostering particular epistemological orientations by comparing the epistemological beliefs of 5th, 8th, and 12th graders (N = 200) from General and Religious schools in Israel regarding 2 controversies: belief in God and punishment of children. In both controversies, older participants were less likely than younger participants to consider the controversy rationally decidable. However, this shift emerged earlier in the God controversy than in the punishment controversy. In the God controversy, General pupils were less likely than Religious pupils to consider the question rationally decidable or their own beliefs infallible. But no such school differences were observed in the punishment controversy. Qualitative and quantitative analyses linked these differences to divergent discourse practices at General and Religious schools, suggesting that the relations between learning and epistemic development are more intricate than has been assumed hitherto. Epistemology is an area of philosophy concerned with questions of what knowledge is and how it is justified. Although few people give these questions such detailed and sustained attention as professional philosophers, anyone attempting to acquire, produce, or evaluate knowledge relies, at least implicitly, on some set of epistemological beliefs. Such beliefs are of obvious interest to educators. To understand how students acquire, evaluate, and justify knowledge, we need to understand what they consider knowledge to be. And to help students become discerning consumers and responsible producers of knowledge, we need to understand how people learn to exercise reflective judgment in the face of competing claims. The psychological study of epistemic development is undergoing something of a renaissance. Interest in this area can be traced back to Piaget (1970) Piaget, J. 1970. Genetic epistemology New York: Columbia University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], Dewey (1933) Dewey, J. 1933. How we think Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], and beyond (e.g., Plato's Theaetetus). But only recently have psychologists begun to draw together hitherto disparate strands of empirical inquiry to chart in detail the course of epistemic development from infancy to adulthood (see, e.g., Hallett, Chandler, & Krettenauer, 2002 Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J. and Krettenauer, T. 2002. Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3): 285–307. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000 Kuhn, D. 2000. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5): 178–181. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wainryb, Shaw, Langley, Cottam, & Lewis, 2004 Wainryb, C., Shaw, L. A., Langley, M., Cottam, K. and Lewis, R. 2004. Children's thinking about diversity of belief in the early school years: Judgments of relativism, tolerance, and disagreeing persons. Child Development, 75(3): 687–703. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Initial research in this field was conducted largely within a neo-Piagetian paradigm. Epistemic development was characterized as a progression through discrete stages or levels of epistemological understanding, each following the other in invariant sequence and constituting a comprehensive transformation of the individual's conception of knowledge (see, e.g., Chandler, 1975 Chandler, M. J. 1975. Relativism and the problem of epistemological loneliness. Human Development, 18(3): 171–180. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kitchener & King, 1981 Kitchener, K. S. and King, P. M. 1981. Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2: 89–116. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Perry, 1970 Perry, W. G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [Google Scholar]). Researchers differed somewhat in their nomenclatures and in their criteria for distinguishing levels of epistemological sophistication, but they concurred broadly in positing at least two major shifts in epistemological understanding (for recent reviews, see Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 1997. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 88–140. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2002 Hammer, D. and Elby, A. 2002. "On the form of a personal epistemology.". In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing Edited by: Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 169–190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]). Initially, the individual subscribes to an objectivist conception of knowledge, in which every question is believed to have a single, correct answer that is knowable with absolute certainty. Subsequently, in a radical shift, objectivism is abandoned in favor of subjectivism, and the individual equates all knowledge claims with matters of personal taste or preference. Finally, a balance is achieved in which objective and subjective aspects of knowing are coordinated. At this "evaluativist" stage (cf. Kuhn, 1991 Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument Cambridge, , England: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), the individual sees knowledge as something that is constructed tentatively by evaluating the evidence for and against competing beliefs and points of view. There was some debate about the precise relations of these stages to Piaget's stages of intellectual development (see, e.g., Boyes & Chandler, 1992 Boyes, M. C. and Chandler, M. 1992. Cognitive development, epistemic doubt, and identity formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21(3): 277–304. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). However, they were viewed by most researchers as a kind of "post-formal operations" taking up the formal operational attainments of hypothetical thinking and perspective-taking and applying them wholesale to knowledge claims as such, in a form of meta-metacognition (see, e.g., Kitchener, 1983 Kitchener, K. S. 1983. Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26: 222–232. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kuhn, 2000 Kuhn, D. 2000. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5): 178–181. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Moshman, 2003 Moshman, D. 2003. Intellectual freedom for intellectual development. Liberal Education, 89(3): 30–38. [Google Scholar]). Empirical support for this model of epistemic development came from several parallel research programs. Overall, these studies provided substantial evidence of development in the hypothesized direction (Hallett et al., 2002 Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J. and Krettenauer, T. 2002. Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3): 285–307. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 1997. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 88–140. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; King & Kitchener, 1994 King, P. M. and Kitchener, K. S. 1994. Developing reflective judgment San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]). However, the ages at which the key shifts in epistemological understanding were observed varied enormously from program to program. As Hallett et al. (2002) Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J. and Krettenauer, T. 2002. Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3): 285–307. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] noted regarding the emergence of subjectivism, "one could read selectively from the literature and, with good reason, conclude that such abilities put in their appearance at either 4 or 6 or 8 or 12 or 16 or 20, or in receipt of a Ph.D." (p. 289). These vast discrepancies have led researchers to reexamine some of the assump-tions underlying their models and measures of epistemic development. In particular, researchers have begun to question the comprehensiveness of shifts in epistemological understanding and to attend more closely to the variety of contexts within which epistemic beliefs are held, employed, and articulated (cf.Elby&Ham-mer, 2001 Elby, A. and Hammer, D. 2001. On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5): 554–567. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Hammer&Elby, 2002 Hammer, D. and Elby, A. 2002. "On the form of a personal epistemology.". In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing Edited by: Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 169–190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar], 2003 Hammer, D. and Elby, A. 2003. Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1): 53–90. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This attention to context has taken several forms. One line of research has sought to show that epistemic development is a some-what domain-dependent process that occurs with respect to some kinds of knowledge claim before others. For example, it has been proposed that subjectivism emerges in relation to aesthetic claims before it emerges in relation to claims about the physical world (e.g., Hallett et al., 2002 Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J. and Krettenauer, T. 2002. Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3): 285–307. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kuhn et al., 2000 Kuhn, D. 2000. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5): 178–181. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wainryb et al., 2004 Wainryb, C., Shaw, L. A., Langley, M., Cottam, K. and Lewis, R. 2004. Children's thinking about diversity of belief in the early school years: Judgments of relativism, tolerance, and disagreeing persons. Child Development, 75(3): 687–703. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Another line of research has sought to show that epistemological beliefs are multi di-mensional rather than unitary. For example, it has been proposed that people's beliefs about the complexity of knowledge develop more or less independently of their beliefs about its certainty (e.g., Schommer, 1990 Schommer, M. 1990. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3): 498–504. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 1993 Schommer, M. 1993. Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning amongst post-secondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34(3): 355–370. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Although the accumulated empirical evidence is as yet suggestive rather than conclusive (see Elby&Hammer, 2001 Elby, A. and Hammer, D. 2001. On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5): 554–567. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Hallett et al., 2002 Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J. and Krettenauer, T. 2002. Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3): 285–307. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], pp. 303–304; Kuhn et al., 2000 Kuhn, D. 2000. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5): 178–181. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], pp. 321–322), both research programs hold out the possibility of disentangling the course of epistemic de-velopment by identifying elements of epistemological understanding that emerge at different points in the lifespan(cf.Hallett et al.,2002 Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J. and Krettenauer, T. 2002. Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3): 285–307. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 290; Wainryb et al. 2004 Wainryb, C., Shaw, L. A., Langley, M., Cottam, K. and Lewis, R. 2004. Children's thinking about diversity of belief in the early school years: Judgments of relativism, tolerance, and disagreeing persons. Child Development, 75(3): 687–703. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). However, "domains" and "dimensions" are not the only contexts within which epistemic beliefs are situated. Just as people's epistemic beliefs may be affected by the particular content of the knowledge claims being evaluated, so too may they be affected by the particular procedures of knowledge evaluation practiced in, and sanctioned by, the communities in which they participate (cf. Hammer & Elby, 2003 Hammer, D. and Elby, A. 2003. Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1): 53–90. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Few studies have directly examined cross-cultural variation in epistemological beliefs. And those that have done so have tended to focus on comparisons between U.S. and East Asian college students (e.g., Chan & Elliott, 2002 Chan, K. and Elliott, R. G. 2002. Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students' epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefs research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3): 392–414. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2004 Chan, K. and Elliott, R. G. 2004. Epistemological beliefs across cultures: Critique and analysis of beliefs structure studies. Educational Psychology, 24(2): 123–142. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001 Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I. and Norenzayan, A. 2001. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2): 291–310. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Zhang, 1999 Zhang, L. F. 1999. A comparison of U. S. and Chinese university students' cognitive development: The cross-cultural applicability of Perry's theory. Journal of Psychology, 133(4): 425–439. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Nonetheless, the findings of such studies are highly suggestive. Especially striking is Zhang's finding that Chinese students' epistemological beliefs shifted over the college years in exactly the opposite direction to those of their U.S. counterparts. Specifically, rather than moving from objectivist to subjectivist conceptions of knowledge, similar to their peers at U.S. universities, Chinese students appeared to shift from more subjectivist conceptions of knowledge to more objectivist ones. Such findings raise intriguing questions about the relations between culture and epistemic development, and about the relations between learning and epistemic development more generally. For a field of inquiry dominated by educational psychologists, remarkably little is known about these relations. As Hofer and Pintrich(1997) Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 1997. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 88–140. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] noted, "there is little empirical evidence for precisely what fosters epistemological development or how epistemological beliefs are altered" (p. 123). Research has shown that schooling makes a difference(e.g. Bell&Linn, 2002 Bell, P. and Linn, M. C. 2002. "Beliefs about science: How does instruction contribute?". In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing Edited by: Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 321–346. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]; King&Kitchener, 1994 King, P. M. and Kitchener, K. S. 1994. Developing reflective judgment San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]), but it has yielded little insight into how or why it makes a difference. Moreover, researchers have tended to equivocate between viewing epistemological beliefs as causes and effects of learning—as age-dependent constraints on instruction on one hand andasoutcomesof instructionon the other hand (cf. Kuhn, 1991 Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument Cambridge, , England: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 2003 Kuhn, D. 2003. Understanding and valuing knowing as developmental goals. Liberal Education, 89(3): 16–22. [Google Scholar]; Schommer, 1990 Schommer, M. 1990. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3): 498–504. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 1993 Schommer, M. 1993. Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning amongst post-secondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34(3): 355–370. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Cross-cultural studies of age trends in epistemological belief are one way to investigate systematically the relations between age, learning, and epistemic development. If the nature and timing of age-related shifts in epistemological belief vary cross-culturally, then this is presumably because participants in different cultures learn, through participation in practices particular to their respective communities, to treat knowledge claims in different ways. To the extent that researchers can pinpoint such practices and measure their impact on individuals' epistemological beliefs, we can begin to characterize more precisely the relations between learning and epistemic development. However, in designing such studies, researchers must take great care to distinguish between reportage and editorial. "Development" is a value-laden term. Theoretical models of psychological development do more than describe a sequence; they attach values to different points along the sequence. Specifically, they define some psychological states or capacities as more mature, adequate, or sophisticated than others. When developmental studies are restricted to homogeneous cultural settings, within which there is little serious disagreement among experts about the relative adequacy of different psychological states or capacities, the risk of bias in diagnosing participants' levels of development is relatively slight. However, as the cultural heterogeneity of the sample increases, so too does the risk that the model on the basis of which participants' development is diagnosed is ethnocentrically biased against a portion of the sample. For example, beliefs that are defined as immature by the developmental model might be considered mature within one of the cultures from which the sample is drawn, or vice versa. These dangers exist to some extent in all cross-cultural studies of psychological development (see Cole & Scribner, 1974 Cole, M. and Scribner, S. 1974. Culture and thought: A psychological introduction New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]; Greenfield & Bruner, 1966 Greenfield, P. M. and Bruner, J. S. 1966. Culture and cognitive growth. International Journal of Psychology, 1: 89–107. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1990 Shweder, R. A., Mahapatra, M. and Miller, J. G. 1990. "Culture and moral development.". In Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development Edited by: Stigler, J. W. 130–204. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). However, in cross-cultural studies of epistemic development the danger is even more clear and present. This is because there are at least four levels at which epistemological judgments can be made, and as one ascends from the first level to the fourth, the value assumptions implicit in these judgments become less visible to the naked eye but never quite disappear. At the first, most basic level, there arejudgments about the epistemic status of par-ticular claims, such as whether a given assertion (e.g., "Eating people is wrong") is known or merely believed (e.g., "John doesn't know that eating people is wrong; he merely believes that eating people is wrong"). At one level of abstraction up from such judgments, there are judgments about the epistemic status of general classes of claim, such as judgments about whether knowledge is possible about, say, matters of aesthetics or morality (e.g., "There are no such things as moral truths or moral knowledge; morality is a question of commitment—not of what is or is not the case"). At yet another level of abstraction up from such judgments, there are further judgments about the criteria by which epistemic states are distinguished one from another, such as judgments about what differentiates knowledge from belief or opin-ion (e.g., "Knowledge is justified true belief;if a belief is true but not justified, or jus-tified but not true, then it isn't known"). And beyond this third level, there is a fourth level of judgments about the relative adequacy of particular criteria for distinguishing between epistemic states, such as judgments about whether the subjectivist equation of knowledge with opinion is less adequate than the evaluativist's insistence that knowledge differs from opinion in being supported by evidence (e.g., "Subjectivism is inferior to evaluativism because it fails to account for our belief that some claims are better supported than others"). According to this analysis, authors of contemporary models of epistemic development are themselves exercising a form of epistemological judgment in articulating their models. Specifically, they are operating at the fourth level (outlined previously), expressing their own beliefs about the relative adequacy of particular epistemological orientations. This is all well and good as long as the beliefs in question are compatible with the epistemological beliefs, values, and practices of the communities to which the model is applied. However, in cross-cultural studies of epistemic development, such compatibility cannot be assumed in advance of the investigation itself. Accordingly, if one wishes to avoid ethnocentrism, one cannot conduct a cross-cultural study of epistemic development without suspending, at least temporarily, one's hierarchical assumptions about the relative adequacy of particular epistemological orientations. This is not to say that researchers are not entitled to opinions of their own about the relative adequacy of particular epistemological beliefs or that all talk of epistemic development is inherently ethnocentric. It is merely to point out that because standards of epistemological maturity may themselves vary across cultures, assumptions about the relative adequacy of particular epistemological beliefs must not be built into the design of cross-cultural studies. This study, therefore, departs from previous studies of epistemic development by dropping the assumption that some epistemological beliefs are inherently more adequate than others. By dropping this assumption, I do not affirm the contrary assumption that all epistemological beliefs are equally adequate. Rather, I adopt a form of methodological agnosticism to reduce the scope for ethnocentric bias in the study'sdesign. In the Discussion section, I return to the question of hierarchy and review the assumptions of contemporary models of epistemic development in light of my findings. This study investigates the relations between age, learning, and epistemic devel-opment by comparing the epistemological beliefs of pupil sat Religious schools and General schools in Israel about two controversies: one religious and the other nonre-ligious. Specifically, this study asks three questions. First, how do beliefs about the nature of religious claims vary with age and school? Second, to what extent are these age and school differences attributable to underlying group differences in religious commitment and general epistemological sophistication? Third, how are variations in epistemological belief across ages, schools, and controversies related to educational practices at Religious and General schools, respectively?

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the research impact of the National Research Foundation (NRF)-rated researchers’ output at the North-West University (NWU), South Africa, from 2006 to 2017. Design/methodology/approach The study used bibliometrics and altmetrics methods to determine the production of research outputs and the impact of NWU’s NRF-rated researchers’ publications. Various tools including Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, ResearchGate (RG) and Mendeley were used to collect data. The citations in the three bibliographic databases were used as proxy for academic impact, while reads and readerships in RG and Mendeley were used to determine societal impact of the researchers. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to test the relationship between citations in the three bibliographic databases and reads and readerships in RG and Mendeley. Findings The main findings were that the majority of NWU’s NRF-rated researchers’ publications emanated from GS, followed by Scopus and then WoS. GS output also had more citations. There were 6,026 research outputs in RG which were read for 676,919 times and 5,850 in Mendeley with 142,621 readerships. Correlations between RG and all three bibliographic databases’ citations were scant. Strong relationships between the three bibliographic databases’ citations and Mendeley readerships were found. Practical implications Academic librarians who interact with researchers who would like to predict future academic impact of their documents can be advised to consider Mendeley readerships with some level of confidence compared to RG reads. These results point to the importance of constant self-evaluation by researchers to ensure that they have balanced profiles across the three main bibliographic databases that are also considered for ratings. These results point to the relevancy of GS to evaluate research beyond the academy. Social implications The fact that researchers are contributing research that seeks to improve the general welfare of the population (beyond the academy) is a positive sign as society look up to researchers and research to solve their socio-economic problems. Social media play an important role as they serve as indicators that indicators point to wider research impacts and wider access by many different groups of people including the members of society at large. They point to research that is accessible to not only researchers and those who have access to their research but also the society at large. Originality/value Although the practice of rating researchers is common in different research ecosystems, the researchers could not find any evidence of studies conducted using a combination of bibliometrics and altmetrics to asses rated researchers’ output. This study covers and compares social impact based on data obtained from two academic social media sites and three main bibliographic databases (GS, Scopus and WoS).

Bibliography of the Publications of R. W. Southern

Recent advances in the synthesis of pyrazoline derivatives from chalcones as potent pharmacological agents: A comprehensive review

Much mainstream legal comment on human rights law presents an unhelpfully crude picture of disagreement concerning the significance that should be attached to human rights in particular cultural co...

Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy

Phosphorus fluoride exchange: Multidimensional catalytic click chemistry from phosphorus connective hubs

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Research for this special edition was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant. We are grateful to Dan Halvorson and Lee Morgenbesser for able research assistance. 2. See Chan (1984 Chan, Steve. 1984. Mirror, mirror on the wall … are the freer countries more pacific?. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(4): 617–48. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Doyle (1983 Doyle, Michael W. 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3): 205–35. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Maoz and Abdolali (1989 Maoz, Zeev and Abdolali, Nasrin. 1989. Regime types and international conflict, 1816–1976. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(1): 3–35. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Moaz and Russett (1993), Rousseau et al. (1996), Rummel (1979 Rummel, R.J. 1979. Understanding conflict and war. Volume 4: war, power, peace, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]) and Weede (1984 Weede, Erich. 1984. Democracy and war involvement. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(4): 649–64. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). On the monadic theory regarding states in transition to democracy, see Rousseau et al. (1996) and Snyder and Mansfield (1995). 3. On the limitations of definitions, see, for example, Kegley and Hermann (1999: 101), who argue that the definition of military intervention is not clear, and Spiro (1994), who makes a similar claim regarding the vagueness of the definition of democracy, liberalism and war. On the merits of various indices, such as the Polity data set and Correlates of War (COW), see Munck and Verkuilen (2002 Munck, Gerardo and Verkuilen, Jay. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1): 5–54. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 4. As Elman (1997 Elman , Miriam 1997 . Paths to peace: is democracy the answer? Cambridge , MA : The MIT Press . [Google Scholar]) argues, part of the problem has been in case selection, with an overemphasis on cases involving the United States and excessive focus on the Fashoda Crisis and the Spanish–American War. 5. On methodological-based critiques, see Gartzke (1998 Gartzke, Erik. 1998. Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1): 1–27. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2000 Gartzke, Erik. 2000. Preferences and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2): 191–212. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]); on substantive critiques, see Copeland (1996 Copeland, Dale C. 1996. Economic interdependence and war: a theory of trade expectations. International Security, 20(4): 5–41. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Farber and Gowa (1997 Farber, Henry S. and Gowa, Joanne. 1997. Common interests or common polities? Reinterpreting the democratic peace. Journal of Politics, 59(2): 393–417. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Gates et al. (1996 Gates, Scott, Knutsen, Torbjørn L. and Moses, Jonathon W. 1996. Democracy and peace: a more skeptical view. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 1–10. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Gowa (1995 Gowa, Joanne. 1995. Democratic states and international disputes. International Organization, 49(3): 511–22. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Kegley and Hermann (1999 Kegley, Charles W. and Hermann, Margaret R. 1999. Putting military intervention into the democratic peace: a research note. Comparative Political Studies, 30(1): 78–107. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Layne (1994 Layne, Christopher. 1994. Kant or cant: the myth of the democratic peace. International Security, 19(2): 5–49. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Mearsheimer (1990 Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. Back to the future: instability in Europe after the cold war. International Security, 15(1): 5–56. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Rosato (2003 Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The flawed logic of democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review, 97(4): 585–602. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Spiro (1994 Spiro, David E. 1994. The insignificance of the liberal peace. International Security, 19(2): 50–86. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Thompson (1996 Thompson, William R. 1996. Democracy and peace: putting the cart before the horse?. International Organization, 50(1): 141–74. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). On how, in the Lakatosian sense, ‘realism and/or neorealism has been “falsified”’, see Ray (2003: 241).

Porphyrin photosensitization and phototherapy.

God and Man at a Southern Appalachian Community College: Cognitive Dissonance and the Cultural Logics of Conservative News Talk Radio Programming

Cochlospermum planchonii Hook.f. ex Planch. and Cochlospermum tinctorium Perrier ex A. Rich. are two wild edible plant species (WEPs), widely used in the West African Sudanian zone. Their parts are used as food additive, fodder, medical-magic and ethnoveterinary purposes, dye and arts. Unfortunately, the overexploitation of their rootstocks constitutes a great threat. While, an increasing number of studies reported on their uses, socio-economic importance, biological properties, and the anthropogenic pressure, knowledge on their reproductive biology, threats, domestication, and conservation status are still lacking. It therefore becomes crucial to systematically review literature on the current knowledge to identify research gaps and future research. Hence, this review aimed to critically synthetize knowledge, and gaps therein, to highlight future research for sustainable use and conservation of both species. To this end, publications were searched online in Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Springer Online and Research Gate, using following keywords: “taxonomy”, “distribution”, “ecology”, “botanical description”, “structural characteristics”, “vernacular names”, “uses”, “plant parts used”, “phytochemical” and “pharmacological properties”, “economy”, “propagation”, “pollination”, “reproduction”, “threats”, “conservation” and “domestication” in combination with “C. planchonii” or “C. tinctorium”, “False-cotton”. Out of 423 publications initially recorded, 165 were retained, of which 153 conducted in West Africa; the remaining 12 tackled botanical and taxonomical issues. Most of the publications addressed ethnobotany, chemical and pharmacological properties. Information obtained was compiled, critically analyzed, and discussed; knowledge gaps were keyed out and potential future research was highlited. The review confirmed the over-exploitation of both species mainly for human livelihoods. Both species were valuable sources of compounds and showed various pharmacological activities. A risk of genetic erosion was reported due overharvesting of their rootstocks whose powder was highly marketable. Future studies on their reproductive biology could enable their cultivation in order to reduce anthropogenic pressure and promote their sustainable use and conservation.

Maurocalcine has been the first demonstrated animal toxin acting as a cell-penetrating peptide. Although it possesses competitive advantages, its use as a cell-penetrating peptide (CPP) requires that analogues be developed that lack its characteristic pharmacological activity on ryanodine-sensitive calcium channels without affecting its cell-penetrating and vector efficiencies. Here, we present the synthesis, three-dimensional (1)H NMR structure, and activity of D-maurocalcine. We demonstrate that it possesses all of the desired features for an excellent CPP: preserved structure, lack of pharmacological action, conserved vector properties, and absence of cell toxicity. This is the first report of a folded/oxidized animal toxin in its D-diastereomer conformation for use as a CPP. The protease resistance of this new peptide analogue, combined with its efficient cell penetration at concentrations devoid of cell toxicity, suggests that D-maurocalcine should be an excellent vector for in vivo applications.

Bibliography