Co-editor In Chief Research Articles

Contributors

Contributors

Psychoanalytic Lexicography: Notes From Two “Harmless Drudges”

The co-Editors in Chief of the American Psychoanalytic Association's new edition of Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts (previously edited by Moore and Fine and last revised in 1990) recount their lexicographical adventures. Editing a dictionary at the turn of the twenty-first century is a daunting, some might say foolhardy, undertaking. The most obvious challenge faced by the editors was the growing pluralism within psychoanalysis. However, a more fundamental challenge was that the object of psychoanalytic study, the mind and its processes, can be known only by putting words to our observations, inferences, and interpretations. Psychoanalytic thinkers, starting with Freud, have wrestled with this challenge in ways that define the history of psychoanalysis itself. Long gone are the days when Freud could commend the "correctness" of Sterba's lexicographical efforts. Today postmodern critics, at the opposite extreme, argue that terms and concepts are best understood as "verbal gestures" in the "language-game" of psychoanalysis. Some go so far as to assert that dictionary-writing is obsolete. The co-Editors in Chief of Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts have not succumbed to such nihilistic views, but have instead struggled to establish a reasonable stance within contemporary debates over the nature of psychoanalytic language.

From the Editor's Desk: Our Paper Anniversary

Tradition has it that first anniversaries are celebrated with gifts of paper. Thus, it is fitting that on this first anniversary of our start as co-Editors in Chief of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, we should look back on the 12 paper issues we’ve published in 2010. The paper journal is sent to every member of the Society of General Internal Medicine and to a diminishing number of libraries who still choose to display the bound journal instead of relying solely on electronic access. As editors, we take the print journal seriously, striving to craft each issue to be a self-contained and coherent whole. This year has seen the addition of several new features that we hope add value to each issue. From the Editor's Desk directs readers’ attention to articles and themes of special interest. Exercises in Clinical Reasoning examines the diagnostic process as highly skilled clinicians work through a tough clinical case. Innovations and Improvement explores the process of quality improvement and enlivens the journal through interviews and first person narratives, and Healing Arts sounds the lived experience of general internal medicine in essays, poems, and criticism. Although we choose the articles appearing in each issue of the print journal with care, most consumers of medical journals never touch the paper of each monthly issue and instead prefer to access JGIM and other journal content as if it were on iTunes, searching through titles and abstracts and downloading individual articles. They find JGIM content through on-line sources such as Google Scholar, PubMed Central, and others. In fact, over the past year, while Springer, our publisher, mailed just over 2,000 copies of the paper journal to subscribers or members each month, there have been more than 1 million JGIM articles downloaded by readers since the publication of our inaugural issue last January. This, of course, is the present and future of medical journals; the increasing ‘webification’ of journal content and the growing irrelevance of the print journal. We are well aware of these trends and will work over the remaining 4 years of our editorship to prepare JGIM for the inevitable demise of the print journal and the predominance of the web-based journal. With the help of Associate Editor Malathi Srinivasan and others, work on eJGIM has already begun. In addition, the next 12 months will see the reinvigoration of Innovations in Medical Education, a stunning series of articles on Health Policy, and new collaborations with AHRQ, the VA, and the Annals of Internal Medicine. JGIM depends on the generosity of a committed and outstanding group of reviewers. In 2009–2010, JGIM reviewers volunteered their time and expertise to review about half of the more than 1,000 manuscripts that JGIM receives each year. During this period, 986 reviewers provided a total of 1,294 reviews with a mean quality score of 2.98 on a scale of 1–6 (as judged by JGIM Deputy Editors). Of these, 276 provided at least two reviews, and 29 provided three or more. We are indebted to them for their service. Among this group of dedicated peer reviewers, there is a cohort that stands out. Reviewers included in this prestigious group performed at least two reviews between July 2009 and June 2010, returned all reviews within 30 days, and received no quality score on any review lower than 4 on our 1–6 scale. An asterisk identifies the 131 reviewers meeting these criteria. We thank them for their efforts on behalf of the Journal. In our first “From the Editor’s Desk” in January 2010 we wrote: “In steering the journal forward over the next 5 years, we will be guided by the principle that JGIM is a journal for generalists committed to improving the world in which they practice and teach. Thus, we will seek to publish data derived from settings where real patients live and real doctors practice, as well as reviews and tools that clinicians and educators can use to do their jobs more effectively, efficiently, and humanely.” We remain committed to this vision over the next 4 years and hope that you, our readers, will join us by continuing to submit to, review for, read, and respond to JGIM. Whether in print or on-line, JGIM is your journal, and we need to hear from you. Send us an e-mail (or a paper letter!) and share your thoughts for the future of medical journalism and the future of medicine. The Editors

New Journal, Same Ongoing Challenge: Advancing Policies that Promote the Health and Well-Being of Children and Families

The publication of the inaugural issue of the Journal of Applied Research on Children is a notable milestone for its sponsoring organization, CHILDREN AT RISK (www.childrenatrisk.org). With the release of “Volume 1, Number 1,” we as the Co-Editors in Chief would like to take the opportunity to thank the inaugural contributors whose articles follow and to answer the obvious question of “Why publish a new journal?”

Conflict of Interest in Science Communication: More than a Financial IssueReport from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009

A systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once (1). Up to 33% admit other questionable practices such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed changes in pre-research protocols or dubious ethical behavior (1). There can be no doubt that discovered cases of research and publication misconduct represent a tip of an iceberg and many cases go unreported (2). Experienced biomedical journal editors are aware of a “rogues’ gallery” of major fraudsters, such as Schoen, Hwang, Sudbo, Poehlman, Singh, and Chandra (3-8). Much more common are the less dramatic, because more subtle but probably more dangerous, examples; these are more dangerous because they remain undiscovered so may feed into meta-analyses and guidelines. A seminar organized by the Esteve Foundation, held in Sitges in April 2009, concentrated on conflicts of interest (COI, sometimes also referred to as Competing Interests, CI), which underlie so much research and publication misconduct. All attendants of the meeting agreed that there were many sources of COI in the general process of scientific communication (Figure 1). The meeting was mainly focused on non-financial COI. Three introductory presentations highlighted some of the topics related to COI in the contemporary scientific publishing enterprise. Figure 1 Main protagonists in the process of scientific communication among which conflict of interest may arise. Dr Virginia Barbour, editor of PLoS Medicine, raised the following issues: - Does past or present employment with industry prejudice authors and researchers? - Journal policies on competing interests are often unclear or ambiguous even though the problem is common and consumes a disproportionate amount of editors’ time. - It is difficult to persuade academic institutions and individual researchers to comply with accepted definitions of misconduct. - Editors and publishers have not got to grips with non-financial conflicts. - There is uncertainty and inconsistency about sanctions for misconduct. Magne Nylenna, editor-in-chief of the Norwegian Electronic Health Library, raised the following issues: - Good practice vs misconduct is not a matter of black and white. There are shades of gray. - Of greatest significance is the researcher’s/author’s intent – and that may be difficult to determine. - Extreme cases are probably unpreventable so, as in preventive medicine generally, attention to the whole population is likely to have a better outcome than concentrating on outliers. - Simple guidelines are more useful than detailed, lengthy protocol - Everyone concerned merits training. Ana Marusic, co-editor in chief of the Croatian Medical Journal, addressed the specificities of small journals: - There are particular problems for small journals whose editors are likely to be academics, not full time medical journalists. - There is special risk from “scientific inbreeding” (the tradition of having tenure in the same institution where one trained). - In post-communist countries the concept that it is praiseworthy to cheat the government may be extended to other perceived authorities. - There needs to be a clear definition of when and how an article is retracted and what should be the consequences thereof.

New Co-editor in Chief of Croatian Medical Journal: Collaboration Across Continents

The readers who came to this editorial from the Croatian Medical Journal’s (CMJ) web-page as well as those who regularly read the CMJ on line, already most likely know that Professor Matko Marusic has stepped down as one of the Journal’s co-editors. Herewith we are pleased to announce that the CMJ will be edited by Ana Marusic and Ivan Damjanov, serving as co-editors in chief in the editorial leadership of the Journal. Professor Ana Marusic will continue performing her editorial duties from the Split University School of Medicine, Split, Croatia, whereas the new co-editor in chief, Professor Ivan Damjanov, will take on editing the Journal electronically from the University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.

The International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility: Evaluating the First Years

In January 2004 the ministers of research of the OECD countries endorsed the recommendation from the Neuroinformatics Working Group of the OECD Global Science Forum to start a global neuroinformatics initiative to coordinate international research and resources in the field. As a result, the International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility (INCF) was established in August 2005. The INCF has an unusual structure for an international initiative, shown in Fig. 1. It is build on top of national nodes, which are centers of excellence in neuroinformatics supported by national governments and which promote the growth of neuroinformatics at the local level, coordinated by a secretariat. A governing board, composed of representatives from the 15 supporting member countries from Asia, Europe and North America (see http://www.incf.org for an up to date list), provides overview and strategic planning to the activities of the secretariat. In November 2005, after a competitive bid, the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden was selected as the site for the secretariat. Dr. Jan Bjaalie was appointed executive director of the secretariat in 2006, a role taken over by Dr. Mark Ellisman earlier this year. Four years after its foundation the operations of the INCF were reviewed as a prelude towards a decision on extending its life beyond the initial five year period. In this editorial I will present a personal overview of the main activities of the INCF based on a document that was prepared for the international review process, which will be described at the end. The most established activities of the INCF are its programs, the web portal and the Neuroinformatics Congress. In addition, there are local initiatives managed by the national nodes, that are beyond the scope of this editorial, and a series of workshops on educational activities. The INCF programs have had a slow start but are now becoming quite visible and it is my belief that these activities will become the main contribution of the INCF to the field. All three active programs have a focus on the establishment of international standards, which is by definition an activity that cannot be done at a national level. Moreover, neuroscience is lagging behind compared to other biological fields in formulating international standards for nomenclature (Bug et al. 2008) or for describing experimental data (Teeters et al. 2008) or models (Cannon et al. 2007; De Schutter 2008). The first program is on digital atlasing, which has a focus on the rodent brain. Central to this program is a new standard for mapping, called the Waxholm Space (named after the site of a key meeting in 2008). The Waxholm Space is a coordinate-based reference space for the mapping and registration of neuroanatomical data. FIrst steps in its construction are the development of a standardized acquisition procedure for passing data into the Space, using a high-resolution MRI dataset and companion Nissl-stained reconstructions. Next key reference atlases will be registered into the Space and a set of best practices for experimenters to ensure Waxholm Space compatibility will be proposed. Erik De Schutter is co-editor in chief of this journal and also member of the INCF governing board and chair of the INCF program for largescale computing.

Editorial

This issue of the Journal of Functional Programming (JFP) marks a point of transition. After serving since 1991 as Editor, then since 2004 as co-Editor in Chief (along with Greg Morrisett from 2004 to 2006 and Xavier Leroy since 2007), Paul Hudak is stepping down.

The Systems Approach View from Professor Andrew P. Sage

Andrew P. Sage is the Founding Dean Emeritus University Professor, and First American Bank Professor in the Systems Engineering and Operation Research Department at George Mason University in USA. Professor Sage is recognized as one of the shapers of the Systems Engineering discipline by his important academic, scientific and consulting contributions for advancing the scientific knowledge and the practice of Systems Engineering from 1960s in the topics of: Systems Integration and Architecting, Complex Adaptive Systems and Knowledge Management, Economic Systems Analysis, and Systems Management. Professor Sage is author or co-author from several books on Systems Engineering and of more than 100 papers in top journals and conferences. Professor Sage has been Editor in Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (January 1972 - December 1998), Editor of Automatica (July 1981 - June 1996) and Co-Editor in Chief (with W. B. Rouse) of Information, Knowledge, and Systems Management, IOS Press, from April 1999 at present. Currently, Professor Sage is the Editor In Chief of the International Council on Systems Engineering Journal Systems Engineering from, January 1998. He has received several international awards for his academic and professional activities such as: the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Pioneer Award (2002), the Eta Kappa Nu Eminent Member Award (2002) and the Third Millennium Medal IEEE (2000) among others. His formal education is a B.S.E.E. (The Citadel, 1955), a S.M.E.E. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1956), a Ph.D. (Purdue University, 1960), a D.Engr. (University of Waterloo, 1987, Honoris Causa) and a D.Engr. (Dalhousie University, 1997, Honoris Causa). His wisdom has been gained during more than 40 years doing teaching, research and consulting. In IJITSA journal, we are honored to present the system’s view and thoughts from Professor Sage with the goal to contribute in the systemic integration of the Information Systems, Systems Engineering and Software Engineering disciplines. IJITSA’s questions and Professor Sage’s views are presented in next paragraphs.

Changes Continue to Enhance Journal

At the last full meeting of the Neuro-Oncology Editorial Board (during the SNO Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida, last November), the editors in chief proposed a revised editorial structure for Neuro-Oncology, which would allow regional executive editors for the journal to be chosen by the sponsoring organizations (SNO, the European Association for Neuro-Oncology [EANO], and the Japan Society for Neuro-Oncology [JSNO]). This change in editorial leadership was conceived as a means of ensuring that the journal achieves its sponsors’ long-term goal: to enhance the quality of information Neuro-Oncology provides to the international community of professionals it serves. The proposal was approved, the EANO and JSNO boards have concurred, and the changes are being implemented now—all to promote a more integrated form of journal governance and decision making. Accordingly, I am happy to welcome onboard three executive editors for the journal, one representing each organization named above. Effective July 1, 2007, C. David James, who has ably served as co-editor in chief for the journal since its transition from Dr. Darell Bigner and his team at Duke, has assumed his new position as executive editor, SNO. Michael Weller, a longtime editorial board member and reviewer, has joined the revamped editorial team as executive editor, EANO. And Ryo Nishikawa, formerly senior editor for Asia, has been named executive editor, JSNO. While it has long been my pleasure to work with these gentlemen on the journal, I look forward to having even greater access to their expertise and experience going forward.

Welcome note from the new Editor-in-Chief

It was not really a diffi cult decision when I was asked by Thomas Abel and the Editorial Board of IJPH if I could try to fi ll the gap that was left by Alfredo Morabia when he resigned as Co-Editor in Chief. Alfredo has moved to new professional horizons in North America and, in addition, taken on the editorship of another journal. Assuming the helm from a very successful Co-Editor in Chief will certainly not be an easy job. However, the fi ve years that I worked as an Associate Editor with my dedicated colleagues in the Editorial Board of SPM were so full of exciting experiences that in the end the decision was easily taken. Since the sharing of editorial responsibility among two Editors in Chief and the Associate Editors has worked extremely well in the past and will remain in effect, readers and authors of IJPH should experience the partial change in editorial responsibility as a smooth transition.

From the editors

Happy New Year! We look forward to serving you in 2006 which marks our fifth, and final, year as co-editors of Data Base. We will work with the next co-editors to make the transition as smooth as possible.As of January 1, 2006 Andrew Scwartz at Louisiana State University is taking over the managing editor position that has been held by Tim Kayworth at Baylor University for the past four years. We thank Tim for the excellent work that he has done. Andy has kindly agreed to take on the role and we look forward to working with him. The point of contact for submissions and paper information remains data_base@baylor.edu.As part of our international expansion, we are adding Jose Roldan from Spain and Jens Dibbern from Germany to the editorial board. They will be handling papers from their respective countries. This will compliment the work that Emmanuel Monod has been doing for us with papers submitted in French, the first accepted one of which will be published in the final issue of 2006!This coming year we will publish the special issue on Research Notes edited by Wynne in a two-issue special (Volume 37, issues 2 and 3). This was a very popular special issue and we are glad that it was so successful. Issues 1 and 4 will both be comprised of regularly submitted research articles.The current issue is comprised of 5 papers, all of which were submitted after we commenced our term as co-editors in chief. It has been very rewarding to see the progression of these papers from the original submission to the published paper. The first paper, by Vital Roy, Carmen Bernier and Lucie Léveillé, compares the roles of project directors involved in high organizational transformation projects with project directors involved in low organizational transformation projects. Using a qualitative method, the study examines the transactional and tranformational leadership styles enacted by the project managers to determine which style is more effective under which circumstances. The second paper, by Rajiv Kohli and Ellen Hoadley, reports on a case study of three firms that examines the organizational effects of IT-enbaled BPR. Also using a case study methodology, the third paper by Hee-Woong Kim and Shan L. Pan reports a process model of CRM implementation. The paper compares one successful CRM implementation with two failed efforts. The fourth paper is a conceptual one that considers data retrieval anddocument retrieval models as examples of informations systems with lower and higher levels of representational indeterminacy. The final paper by Alexander Pons presents a new method technique of web object prefetching that improves a web browser's cache-hit percentage while lowering web page latency. We are grateful to Roger Chiang for handling this, and all other, submissions that have a technical orientation. Prior to Roger's joining the board, we simply did not have the editorial expertise necessary to review technical papers.

From the co-editor in chief

Industrial BiotechnologyVol. 1, No. 3 EditorialFrom the co-editor in chiefPublished Online:6 Oct 2005https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2005.1.iAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail "From the co-editor in chief." , 1(3), p. iFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 1Issue 3Sep 2005 InformationCopyright 2005, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:From the co-editor in chief.Industrial Biotechnology.Sep 2005.i-i.http://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2005.1.iPublished in Volume: 1 Issue 3: October 6, 2005PDF download

Advancing the Advances in Heart Failure: Updates on Newer Therapies

Marc A. Silver, MD, Co-Editor in Chief From the Department of Medicine and the Heart Failure Institute, Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, IL Address for correspondence: Marc A. Silver, MD, Chairman and Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine and the Heart Failure Institute, Advocate Christ Medical Center, 4440 West 95th Street, Suite 319 South, Oak Lawn, IL 60453-2600 E-mail: marc.silver@advocatehealth.com In January 2005, we issued a call for papers to focus on updates on some of the new and emerging therapies for patients with heart failure. We specifically asked potential authors to focus on biventricular resynchronization and left ventricular assist devices. This focus was prudent, because although clinical trial publications and early adoption of these strategies were of recent vintage, we felt that these were two key therapeutic areas where the field was evolving on a daily basis. Furthermore, as a heart failure community, we must test our tools every day. There is no room here for a strategy or therapy that does not provide continued significant improvement in heart failure outcomes for patients. So the call went out and authors responded. Included in this issue are four of these papers. One deals with updates on selecting responders to resynchronization therapy—a hot topic indeed. Two others deal with advances in patient selection and care for potential left ventricular assist device recipients and potential new complications to be aware of. We are also pleased to have the excellent paper by Faris and colleagues representing an important FDA perspective on both resynchronization and left ventricular assist devices. And as these papers are published, it is my hope that they soon become obsolete. We should push ourselves to test the methods and resources we use for heart failure patients every day. We should continue to speak among ourselves and to others about these advances. In that context, Congestive Heart Failure will continue to publish periodic focus issues like this. In an electronic age, we should be able to spread best practices liberally to those who provide the care; it is our pledge to be part of that dissemination of current knowledge.

Karen L. Roos

It is with great pleasure and pride that I announce to the readers of Seminars in Neurology that Dr. Karen L. Roos, the John and Nancy Nelson Professor of Neurology at Indiana University School of Medicine, has been appointed as the Editor in Chief of Seminars in Neurology. The position is not particularly new to her, as she has served as Co-Editor in Chief for the past year, and during that time has really assumed the majority of the editor's duties-making it a logical and very appropriate transition.

Farewell Bob, and Thank you!

With this publication of Seminars in Neurology, Dr. Robert Pascuzzi has stepped down from his role as Editor in Chief; a role that he made his own from 1998 to 2001, and then shared in 2002 as Co-Editor in Chief with Dr. Karen Roos. During these years Bob and his editorial team have worked tirelessly to produce the highly respected and uniquely informative Seminars series, including such stellar topics as Muscular Dystrophy, Neurogenetics in Clinical Practice, Neuro-ophthalmology for the General Neurologist, Central Nervous System Infections, Motor Neuron Disorders, Spinal Disorders, and Epilepsy, to name just a few.

Retirement of the Co-Editors in Chief

The AJIL Board of Editors wishes to announce the retirement of the Co-Editors in Chief, Professors Theodor Meron of the New York University School of Law and Detlev Vagts of Harvard Law School. As of the October 1998 issue, the editorial leadership will be assumed by Professors Jonathan Charney of the Vanderbilt University School of Law and W. Michael Reisman of Yale Law School.

Retirement of the Coeditors in Chief

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.