Co-editor In Chief Research Articles

Meet Our Co-Editor in Chief

Meet Our Co-Editor in Chief

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

In memoriam: Wayne Akeson, MD (1928-2016).

In memoriam: Wayne Akeson, MD (1928-2016).

Perspectives on the future of NMR, by the Associate Editors

In September 2015, MRC launched its new Associate Editorial Board (AEB), motivated by the wish of boosting its visibility and impact, particularly among the new generation of young researchers. Officially announced in the January 2016 Editorial, this dynamic team was formed of nine highly motivated and dynamic members with complementary fields of expertise in magnetic resonance for chemistry. The initial AEB, chaired by Patrick Giraudeau (France), was composed of Maria Baias (Abu Dhabi), Laura Castañar Acedo (UK), Jean-Nicolas Dumez (France), Damien Jeannerat (Switzerland), Armando Navarro-Vázquez (Brazil), Manuel Pérez-Pacheco (Spain), Volker Schmidts (Germany) and Julien Wist (Colombia), working in close collaboration with Roberto R. Gil (Co-Editor in Chief) and Paul Trevorrow, the Managing Editor. Since the AEB was created, we all worked together in a friendly but studious atmosphere. Thanks to quarterly conference calls and regular meetings at international conferences, we tried our best to make MRC evolve towards new horizons. Our main action points have been (i) to suggest new rules for reviewers and editors, which have been integrated to the online submission and reviewing system; (ii) to develop MRC's social network activity on Facebook and Twitter; and (iii) to initiate special issues which are now in preparation. Many other points are under discussion and investigation, and we will continue to serve the broad and diverse community of chemists working with Magnetic Resonance. Moreover, the AEB is happy to welcome three new members: Donghan Lee (Louisville, Kentucky), Josep Sauri (Boston, Massachusets) and Damodaran Krishnan Achary (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) who will be our USA representatives. This special issue is the fulfillment of the first of many AEB's collective projects. It gathers nine original perspective contributions – one for each member of the initial AEB – that summarize, from the authors' point of view, the challenges and perspectives in their respective fields of research at the time of writing. These contributions cover various complementary domains matching some of the major leanings of MRC's readership. Some contributions cover essential domains of small molecule NMR such as hyperpolarization (J.-N. Dumez), pure shift NMR (L. Castañar Acedo), residual dipolar couplings for structure elucidation (V. Schmidts), quantum mechanical prediction of chemical shifts and scalar couplings (A. Navarro-Vázquez), or quantitative NMR (P. Giraudeau). Another perspective article focuses on NMR and cultural heritage (M. Baias), while three contributions by D. Jeannerat, M. Pérez and J. Wist highlight the increasing challenges and perspectives arising from the automated analysis of NMR spectra and from the associated question of databases. This special issue does not aim at being exhaustive. Its content reflects the individual opinion of each member of the board from the eyes of relatively young NMR spectroscopists. The next decades will tell us if some of the dreams described in these contributions will come true. Meanwhile, we hope that these contributions will encourage many stimulating discussions among the MRC community. We are particularly grateful to the members of the young AEB who accepted with enthusiasm to contribute to this special issue and for entrusting us with the task of editing their manuscripts.

Indian Fertility Society Good Clinical Practice PCOS Guidelines

Sonia Malik is President of the Indian Fertility Society, Chair of the Infertility Committee of FOGSI, Chair of the Scientific Committee of IFFS 2016, Scientific Collaborator at the Reproductive Research Centre at the Cleveland Clinic (USA), Past President of the Indian Menopause Society and Co-Editor in Chief of the Journal of Midlife Health. Her areas of interest cover reproductive endocrinology, reproductive immunology, genital tuberculosis and premature ovarian failure.

Anthropologists Are Talking about Queer Anthropology

The following roundtable discussion took place at the European Association of Social Anthropologists’ biennial conference held in Tallinn, Estonia, on 31 July to 3 August 2014. It sprang out of the session ‘Whatever is happening to the critical study of sexual and gender diversity in anthropology?’ convened by Paul Boyce and Silvia Posocco, and a meeting of the European Network of Queer Anthropology (ENQA), which was founded in 2013 by Paul Boyce and Elisabeth Engebretsen. The aim of the discussion was to explore what we mean by a queer anthropology and what it can still contribute to the discipline some two decades after the emergence of queer theory in the academia. The discussion was recorded, transcribed and edited by Ethnos Co-Editor in Chief, Mark Graham

Kian-Lee Tan Speaks Out on How to Build a Strong DB Group without Pushing Students Hard

Welcome to ACM SIGMOD Record's series of interviews with distinguished members of the database community. I'm Marianne Winslett, and today1 we are at the Advanced Digital Sciences Center in Singapore. I have here with me Kian-Lee Tan, who's a Provost's Chair Professor of Computer Science at the National University of Singapore, where he's also the Vice Dean for Research in the School of Computing. Kian-Lee received the President's Science Award in 2011. He has served as co-editor in chief of the VLDB Journal and editor for IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, and a PC chair for VLDB and ICDE. His PhD is from the National University of Singapor.

Editorial

Over the past six months, we have transitioned to a new leadership team. We are now saying goodbye to Benjamin Pierce, who faithfully served as co-Editor in Chief since 2012, and welcome Jeremy Gibbons from the University of Oxford as new co-Editor in Chief.

Annual Acknowledgments from the Co-editors in Chief

Annual Acknowledgments from the Co-editors in Chief

EN

This commentary was written in memory of C. Barber Mueller, who died at age 97 on Feb. 13, 2014. He was co-editor in chief of CJS from 1972 to 1992.

Editorial for inaugural issue of Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury

Today marks the publication date of the inaugural issue of the Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury [1]. My immediate thanks goes out to my co-editor in chief, Professor Rolfe Birch, Head of the Royal National Orthopedic Hospital Peripheral Nerve Unit, in London, U.K. Professor Birch is a living encyclopedia of the history and development of peripheral nerve injury management and has been an invaluable personal and scientific resource for guiding the journal from initial planning to the first steps it is taking now. Our aim is that the journal will be the pre-eminent repository of knowledge for brachial plexus and peripheral nerve injury science. Injury in this context does not imply trauma alone, but any derangement of the anatomy, physiology or biochemistry that results in an altered state of functioning, truly an unlimited scope for a fascinating and important field. The journal is in open access format, in my view the only relevant such model in these times where information must be freely available to all. The traditional subscription-based model inherently denies free access to knowledge and seems contrary to the spirit of scientific thought. In support of this concept, we have arranged with BioMed Central to subsidize the costs of publication for the first two years of publication. Therefore, there are no barriers to publication of high quality science or to access to this knowledge. It is very important to note that all submissions, upon approval by our peer review process, are immediately indexed in PubMed and archived in PubMed Central, the full-text repository of the United States National Library of Science. Many other growing indexers such as Google Scholar will also display our articles, making them more widely read and accessible than any other system. Our goal is to have a rapid peer review process, and we will make every effort to make an initial decision within 6 weeks of submission. The peer review process will match knowledgeable reviewers with submitted manuscripts to produce high quality articles of interest and scientific merit. The process is confidential so that criticisms and revisions are made in the fairest manner possible. The final decision on publication will be made by the editors in chief. We will look for submissions of interesting and important scientific information that hopefully will have clinical application. This focus does not deny the relevance of basic research, it embraces it: the future of nerve injury management lies in manipulation of molecular mechanisms, less so in classic surgical and medicinal treatments. Whether there are obvious clinical implications or not, high quality research of all types will be nurtured and presented with pride in the journal. One of the main goals of our endeavor is to cultivate cross disciplinary dialogues to enhance our understanding of mechanisms and to develop strategies for treatment of various disorders. As an example, a neurologist may be interested to know the potential application of surgical techniques such as nerve transfer to upper motor neuron lesions like stroke that are not fully treatable with medicines; conversely, surgeons should be aware of potential sensory and motor imbalances typically see by neurologists which may be candidates for surgical treatment. And both groups will enhance their management of patients by knowledge of breakthroughs in underlying molecular mechanisms. Prior to today's inauguration Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury, there has been no single, dedicated place to discuss these critical issues. We have the opportunity to improve the quality of life of so many people in developing countries and otherwise disadvantaged situations. The talent and determination of our readers is a resource with unlimited potential and we have this as a motive to produce and foster new scientific thought for the benefit of the community affected by brachial plexus and nerve injury. This is the most exciting concept of all. I look forward to a most interesting future for Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury and for the International Society for Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury [2]. Our editorial board includes world leaders in all areas of our field and a comprehensive international distribution. There is every reason to expect that we will set new standards for the study of peripheral nerve injury and in the process improve public health significantly. I thank our editorial board and our contributors and readers for their interest and efforts in advancing this worthy cause.

News from the editors of Fluids and Barriers of the CNS.

This editorial announces a new affiliation between Fluids and Barriers of the CNS (FBCNS) and the International Brain Barriers Society (IBBS) with mutual benefits to the journal and to society members. This is a natural progression from the appointment of two new Co-Editors in Chief: Professor Lester Drewes and Professor Richard Keep in 2013. FBCNS provides a unique and specialist platform for the publication of research in the expanding fields of brain barriers and brain fluid systems in both health and disease.

Three Candidates Vie to Become APA’s Next President-Elect

Back to table of contents Next article Association NewsFull AccessThree Candidates Vie to Become APA’s Next President-ElectKen HausmanKen HausmanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:6 Dec 2013https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2013.12a26AbstractElection season is under way at APA as the names of candidates who will be running for several Board of Trustees positions are announced. Two Areas will be choosing their representatives as well.Renee Binder, M.D., James Nininger, M.D., and Mark Rapaport, M.D..APA members will be able to choose among three president-elect candidates in the upcoming APA election who specialize in different areas of psychiatry but share extensive involvement in APA—Renȳe Binder, M.D., James Nininger, M.D., and Mark Rapaport, M.D.Binder is professor and director of the Psychiatry and the Law Program at the University of California, San Francisco, and associate dean for academic affairs for the School of Medicine and former interim chair of psychiatry. She is chair of the APA Committee on Advocacy and Litigation Funding and a former trustee at large and Area 6 representative.Nininger is a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Weill/Cornell Medical College and in private practice with a subspecialty in geriatrics. He is APA’s Area 2 Trustee, on the American Psychiatric Foundation Board, vice-chair of the APA Steering Committee on Practice Guidelines, a past speaker of the Assembly, and served on the DSM-5 Clinical and Public Health Committee.Rapaport is the Reunette W. Harris Chair of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine and chief of psychiatric services for Emory Healthcare System. He is the founding co-editor in chief of the APA journal Focus: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry and a member of the Council on Medical Education and Lifelong Learning.The treasurer’s post, which is for a three-year term, is also up for election, and in that race Frank Brown, M.D., of Atlanta will face James Greene, M.D., of Memphis.One of the Board’s trustee-at-large positions will also be contested in this election cycle, with Anita Everett, M.D., vying with Stephen McLeod-Bryant, M.D. Everett is from Glenwood, Md., and McLeod-Bryant is from Old Hickory, Tenn. At-large trustees also serve three-year terms.Two of APA’s seven Areas will vote for trustees in the next election. In elections for Area trustee, the Area Council rather than the APA Nominating Committee chooses the candidates.Facing off for Area 2 trustee are Jack Drescher, M.D., and Vivian Pender, M.D. Area 2 includes all of the district branches in New York state. Area 5—which includes the Southern states, Puerto Rico, and the military district branch—will also be electing a trustee. The candidates in that race are R. Scott Benson, M.D., of Pensacola, Fla., and Gary Weinstein, M.D., of Louisville, Ky.Members-in-training (MITs) will also have three candidates from whom to choose as they vote for the Board position of member-in-training trustee-elect. Competing for that position are Vittoria DeLucia, M.D., a resident at the University of Maryland/Sheppard Pratt Program; Heather Liebherr, D.O., a resident at the University of Pittsburgh Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic; and Ravi Shah, M.D., a resident at Columbia University - New York State Psychiatric Institute.APA announced the slate of candidates November 1, and while it is considered public, it is not official until the Board approves it at its meeting this month.All members for whom APA has a valid e-mail address on file will receive an electronic ballot. Other members will receive a paper ballot along with instructions on how to vote online if they so choose. All candidates and their supporters should review APA’s updated Election Guidelines. ■Election information is posted on APA’s website at http://www.psych.org/network/board-of-trustees/apa-national-elections. The election guidelines are posted at http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleID=1754317. ISSUES NewArchived

Detlev F. Vagts (1929–2013)

In August we learned of the passing of Detlev Vagts, our colleague, mentor, and friend, and thisJournal’s co-editor in chief from 1993 to 1998 with Judge Theodor Meron. Fortunately, Vagts lived to hear not only praise for his life devoted to scholarship, teaching, and academic administration at the Harvard Law School but also expressions of gratitude for his service to his country and to thisJournal. In addition, his former students honored him during his lifetime with a Festschrift of insightful essays, providing a complete list of his publications and valuable perspectives on his career.

Editorial

Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & FoodsVolume 4, Issue 4 p. 169-169 EDITORIAL Editorial Stanley P. Cauvain, Stanley P. Cauvain Co-editor in Chief [email protected] Search for more papers by this author Stanley P. Cauvain, Stanley P. Cauvain Co-editor in Chief [email protected] Search for more papers by this author First published: 08 November 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-837X.2012.00186.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume4, Issue4December 2012Pages 169-169 RelatedInformation

Editorial

Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & FoodsVolume 4, Issue 2 p. 53-54 EDITORIAL Editorial Stanley P. Cauvain, Stanley P. Cauvain Co-editor in Chief [email protected] Search for more papers by this author Stanley P. Cauvain, Stanley P. Cauvain Co-editor in Chief [email protected] Search for more papers by this author First published: 03 May 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-837X.2012.00131.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume4, Issue2June 2012Pages 53-54 RelatedInformation

Editorial

With this issue of the Journal of Functional Programming, we transition to a new leadership. Xavier Leroy, who has faithfully served as co-Editor in Chief since 2007, is stepping down. After a short apprenticeship over the past year, Benjamin Pierce is taking his place.

Non-expert reviews considered helpful

This issue has three innovative papers. In a belated implementation of a decision made at a meeting of STVR's editorial board, this issue will start naming the reviewing editor who took charge of each paper. So when you read ‘recommended by’ later, that identifies the reviewing editor who found reviewers, evaluated the paper and the reviews and made a recommendation to the co-editors in chief. This is immensely more work than it may seem on the surface, and we are happy to acknowledge the reviewing editors’ hard work. The first paper in this issue, A testing strategy for abstract classes, by Clarke, Power, Babich and King, reports on a landmark advance in object-oriented testing. The authors have invented a way to test abstract classes without having to instantiate the class, thereby giving users more confidence when they create inheritance hierarchies. This is recommended by Atif Memon. The second, Test data regeneration: generating new test data from existing test data, by Yoo and Harman, presents an innovative approach to the always challenging problem of automatic test data generation. Their idea is called regeneration, where existing tests are used as a basis for new tests. This is recommended by Paul Strooper. The third, Fuzzy Bayesian system reliability assessment based on prior two-parameter exponential distribution under different loss functions, by Gholizadeh, Shirazi and Gildeh, presents a new approach to reliability assessment that uses fuzzy parameters, fuzzy random variables and fuzzy prior distributions. This is recommended by Tor Stalhane. I want to talk more about reviewing in this editorial. Most reviews are from experts on the topic of the paper. When trying to assess the value of a research paper, reviewing editors quite naturally tend to look at the top experts on the topic and ask two or three of them to review the paper. However, for a research paper to have significant impact, the paper must be accessible beyond the few experts. Thus, it is also valuable to get opinions from non-experts, scientists who are more representative of the hoped for intended audience. Getting one of three reviews from a non-expert can help assess the broad accessibility of a research paper. Reviewing as a non-expert takes different techniques from reviewing as an expert. Generally speaking, a non-expert should be able to read and understand at least the broad points in a research paper. For example, ideally, everybody with some knowledge of testing should be able to understand all introductions and conclusions in testing papers published in STVR, and most should be able to understand empirical sections. If we cannot follow details of algorithms or techniques, that is okay. So as a non-expert, a reviewer should comment on how well he or she understood the paper, whether there were any obvious flaws and whether it was easy to separate the parts that could be understood from the parts that could not. Non-experts may also be particularly suited to assess how hard it will be for the research ideas to move into practice. A non-expert probably cannot assess the originality and significance, but other reviewers should be able to fulfil that role. So if you are asked to review a paper that is a bit out of your area, you should alert the reviewing editor but also be prepared to write a non-expert review. For a reviewing editor, look at the reviews from non-experts differently and make sure that at least some reviewers have the knowledge to understand all the technical details.

Introducing the Methods Corner

Health Services ResearchVolume 47, Issue 1pt1 p. 1-2 Editorial Introducing the Methods Corner José J. Escarce, José J. Escarce Co-Editor in Chief jescarce@mednet.ucla.edu Search for more papers by this authorJacqueline Zinn, Jacqueline Zinn Co-Editor in Chief jacqueline.zinn@temple.edu Search for more papers by this authorBryan Dowd Ph.D., Bryan Dowd Ph.D. Senior Associate Editor dowdx001@umn.edu Search for more papers by this author José J. Escarce, José J. Escarce Co-Editor in Chief jescarce@mednet.ucla.edu Search for more papers by this authorJacqueline Zinn, Jacqueline Zinn Co-Editor in Chief jacqueline.zinn@temple.edu Search for more papers by this authorBryan Dowd Ph.D., Bryan Dowd Ph.D. Senior Associate Editor dowdx001@umn.edu Search for more papers by this author First published: 12 January 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01371.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume47, Issue1pt1February 2012Pages 1-2 RelatedInformation

Matko Marusic: Life of an editor

In this charming booklet, Matko Marusic, the founder (1991), Editor-in chief (1991-2009) and Editor Emeritus (since 2009) of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ), tells a story of how he made this new medical journal a good and reputable international journal. The first part of the booklet “The first five years”, the author explains, with great deal of humor, his efforts to acquisite new contributions, and how he pre-review the submitted manuscripts. I this part, he lists the most common mistakes, errors and omissions in the submitted manuscript, and explains how to deal with these. The roles of the reviewers, the co-editor-in-chief and entire the editorial staff are also explained, regardless the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. The final acceptance does not mean that the authors and the editors are now revealed: the author’s duties regarding the proofs and editors’ duties regarding printing are also listed. The second part of the booklet “The second five years” is devoted to the “Instructions for authors” – the efforts of the journal to make them clear, understandable and helpful to authors – all in accordance to the CMJ’s author-friendly policy. In the third part entitled “The first ten years” the author explains that the success of the CMJ is due to the constant, persistent, diligent and honest job of not only himself, but also of his coeditor-in chief (Ana Marusic), whose enormous contribution M. Marusic acknowledges with great gratitude. Finally, in “The end article”, the author explains the causes of his decision (the sweet-bitter one, as he emphasizes) to take leave, after 17 years, of his position as editorin chef of the CMJ. His unsuccessful effort to protect the editorial freedom and independence led to this decision. This conflict originated from the CMJ retractions of several plagiarized articles of Asim Kurjak, whose plagiarism was detected by the editor of the British Medical Journal. Although the international scientific community tried to convince the leadership of the Zagreb Medical School that the CMJ acted according to the highest international standards of the editorship and publication ethics, the pressure was so intense that Matko Marusic left his position