Editorial Assistance Research Articles

Principles and Practice of Child Neurology in Infancy, Second Edition Edited by ColinKennedy. London: Mac Keith Press, 2020 £65.00 (Hardback), pp 552. ISBN: 9781911612001

Over the past decade there have been many advances in neonatal and infant care, along with an increasing recognition of the importance of family-centered care and evidence-based treatments. It is therefore a pleasure to see the Second Edition of this highly successful practical guide from Mac Keith Press, which was originally published in 2012. This new edition is again edited by Professor Colin Kennedy who is now supported by five assistant editors, reflecting the international outlook and authorship of the book. This new edition discusses recent advances in the field with four new chapters, and expansion and revision of the pre-existing chapters. However, the ethos of the book remains the same – to provide a holistic overview of the guiding principles of diagnosis and management in the major neurological disorders of infancy (children up to 2y of age). As before, the book is divided into theoretical and practical sections. The first section, ‘Principles of Child Neurology in Infancy’, comprises 13 chapters, with new chapters on neurological examination beyond the neonatal period, and genetic testing, which describes the scope and limitations of modern testing. It has a useful discussion of the principles of teamwork and working with families in planning management and promoting development. It describes a range of clinical investigations, including electroencephalographs and a well-illustrated chapter on neuroimaging, and goes on to discuss the principles of treatment, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological. The second section, ‘Clinical Practice of Child Neurology in Infancy’, examines major topics such as encephalitis, seizures, micro- and macrocephaly, and movement disorders (including cerebral palsy). There are also valuable new chapters on sleep disturbance and behavior, and inherited metabolic disorders. All the chapters begin with a useful page of take-home messages in which ‘key messages’, ‘common errors’, and ‘when to worry’ are highlighted. The book is illustrated throughout with line drawings, tables, and diagrams, and contains computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging as well. There are extensive up-to-date references at the end of each chapter. The editor admits the challenge he faced in keeping this new edition portable while thoroughly updating it. Indeed, this new edition is nearly 200 pages longer than the first and is certainly more detailed and comprehensive. Unfortunately, there are still a few omissions in my view, with only a minimal discussion of electromyography and its role in neonatal and infant care. Nor is there any discussion of brachial plexus injuries. There is more of an emphasis on infant care versus neonatal care but this is not always explicit; for example there is quite detailed discussion of neonatal seizures and birth asphyxia, yet little mention of kernicterus and its management. But these are small points in what is a very broad and inclusive book. The clear and logical layout of Principles and Practice of Child Neurology in Infancy make it ideal for doctors in training and for paediatricians who want a better understanding of neurology in early life. Furthermore, this practical guide is linked to an accredited online learning course. This is a new and useful initiative from Mac Keith Press to help reinforce the knowledge imparted from the many expert contributors in this essential book.

The initial management of multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents: 2021 and beyond.

The initial management of multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents: 2021 and beyond.

Editorial Assistants and Acknowledgments

"Editorial Assistants and Acknowledgments." Contemporary French and Francophone Studies, 25(2), p. 254

Guest Editor’s Introduction: Special Issue on Participation Anxiety

I would like to thank Professor John Hawley and Professor Nalini Iyer for inviting me to edit this special issue, Professor Robin Field for her immaculate and generous editorial assistance, all the...

A236 LINACLOTIDE IS NOT DETECTABLE IN BREAST MILK OF LACTATING WOMEN: AN OPEN-LABEL, PHASE 1 STUDY

Abstract Background Linaclotide (LIN) is a guanylate cyclase-C agonist approved to treat adults with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). As LIN is a 14-amino acid peptide, no absorption from the gastrointestinal tract is expected following oral administration. However, LIN levels in human breast milk have not been determined. Aims To determine the levels of LIN and its active metabolite, MM-419447, excreted in breast milk after multiple once-daily doses of LIN (72 µg, 145 μg, or 290 μg) in lactating women. Methods This was a multicenter, open-label, multidose, Phase 1, milk-only lactation study (NCT02220348) in lactating women aged 18–45 years who were actively breastfeeding or pumping for ≥4 weeks and were already taking LIN 72 μg, 145 μg, or 290 μg therapeutically for IBS-C or CIC. Participants continued their LIN dose once daily for the 3 study days, with breast milk extractions at −1 to 0 hours (pre-dose) on Day 1 and −1 to 0 hours and 0–2, 2–4, 4–8, 8–12, 12–16, and 16–24 hours after dosing on Day 3. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were the cumulative amount of LIN and MM-419447 and the percentage dose of LIN excreted into the breast milk over the dosing interval. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. The study has institutional review board approval. Results Seven women were enrolled in the study (IBS-C, n=1; CIC, n=6) and received LIN (72 μg, n=5; 145 μg, n=1; and 290 μg, n=1). Mean age was 28 (range: 19–35), mean weight was 70 kg (standard deviation [SD]: 12 kg), and mean body mass index was 26 kg/m2 (SD: 4 kg/m2); the majority were white (n=6). Concentrations of LIN and MM-419447 in breast milk samples were below the quantitation limits (<0.25 ng/mL and <1.00 ng/mL, respectively) at all time points for all participants. Cumulative exposure for each dose was 216 μg (72 μg dose), 435 μg (145 μg dose), and 870 μg (290 μg dose). One treatment-emergent AE was reported (mild rash). Conclusions The data collected in this study provide no evidence that breastfeeding infants receive LIN or MM-419447 through breast milk as their concentrations were below the quantitation limit following multiple once-daily doses of LIN 72 μg, 145 μg, or 290 μg. Funding Agencies This study was sponsored by Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland (prior to acquisition by AbbVie Inc.). Writing and editorial assistance were provided to the authors by Stephanie J. Rippon, MBio, Jane Beck, MA, and Rebecca Fletcher, BA(Hons), of Complete HealthVizion, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA and funded by Allergan plc (prior to acquisition by AbbVie Inc.).

A237 IMPROVEMENT IN ABDOMINAL SYMPTOMS WITH LINACLOTIDE IN PATIENTS WITH IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME WITH CONSTIPATION: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 3B TRIAL

Abstract Background Linaclotide (LIN) is a guanylate cyclase-C agonist approved to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) in adults. Abdominal symptoms are important to patients with IBS-C. In a recent Phase 3b study, LIN significantly improved a composite score of abdominal bloating, pain, and discomfort (Abdominal Score), which was used as the primary endpoint in the study. Aims To evaluate the efficacy of LIN for improving additional efficacy abdominal symptom endpoints in a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled Phase 3 study of LIN in patients with IBS-C. Methods Adults with IBS-C were randomized to PBO (N=308) or LIN 290 μg (N=306) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients recorded their daily abdominal symptoms, including the individual items of bloating, pain, and discomfort, using an 11-point scale (0–10; 0=none, 10=worst possible). The primary endpoint was the Abdominal Score. Additional efficacy endpoints included 6/12-week abdominal pain and constipation (APC)+1 responder, 6/12-week abdominal bloating responder, 6/12-week abdominal pain responder, and 6/12-week abdominal discomfort responder. For individual symptoms, a responder was a patient who had an improvement from baseline of ≥2 points in the respective endpoint for ≥6 of the 12 weeks. Changes from baseline (CFB) over 12 weeks in abdominal bloating, pain, and discomfort were evaluated using a mixed model with repeated measures framework. Proportions of responders were compared between groups for each responder endpoint using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results 614 patients (mean age, 46.7 years; 81% female; similar baseline abdominal symptoms) were randomized. LIN-treated patients had greater least-squares mean (LSM) CFB in abdominal bloating (LSM difference [95% CI]: –0.889 [–1.249, –0.530], p<0.001), pain (–0.881 [–1.238, –0.524], p<0.001), and discomfort (–0.837 [–1.196, –0.478], p<0.001) compared to PBO-treated patients. There was a greater proportion of LIN-treated vs. PBO-treated patients who were 6/12-week APC+1 (29% vs. 17%; p=0.0003), bloating (40% vs. 24%; p<0.001), pain (42% vs. 25%; p<0.001), and discomfort (42% vs. 26%; p<0.001) responders (Figure). Diarrhea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (LIN: 4.6%; PBO: 1.6%). Conclusions LIN significantly improved multiple abdominal symptom and secondary responder endpoints in patients with IBS-C. These results support the effectiveness of LIN for improving a spectrum of abdominal symptoms in IBS-C. Funding Agencies This study was sponsored by Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland (prior to acquisition by AbbVie Inc.). Writing and editorial assistance were provided to the authors by Brittany Y. Jarrett, PhD, Jane Beck, MA, and Rebecca Fletcher, BA(Hons) of Complete HealthVizion, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA and funded by Allergan plc (prior to acquisition by AbbVie Inc.).

Introduction

On November 6, 2020, late in the sesquicentennial year of Dickens's death, two photographs of Dickens appeared on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. Arresting and similar images of the inimitable one sitting in a chair and revealed in half profile as taken by the Watkins Brothers circa 1860. Beneath them on the top of the Book Review section is the large-type title, “Dickensworld.” Indeed.The long essay that followed is ostensibly a review of a new biography of Dickens, but that is summarily dismissed, and what in fact is presented is a valuable musing on Dickens the man, his works, his afterlife, and especially his reputation, that begins with the following: This year is the 150th anniversary of the death of Charles Dickens — Dickens, who as time goes by emerges ever more conclusively as England's greatest novelist and the literary figure who has come to govern our sense of the Victorian era; to embody it, really. And who also happens, in all likelihood, to be the most popular novelist who ever lived.Readers of this journal will appreciate that ringing endorsement of the writer who we think, read, and write about. The author of that review essay is the venerable Robert Gottlieb, former editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster and Alfred A. Knopf book publishers and The New Yorker magazine. He is surely as informed on literary matters of the present and past century as anyone who has graced the pages of the New York Times, so his views command respect. As editors we welcome his affirmations, including on the value of aesthetic judgment and, implicitly, the value of what we do as literary scholars.As editors today we often are presented with essays and perspectives that grind critical paths and take hard work before they emerge in print. We regularly cry out for help to identify the new ideas so as to help the author express them to us uninformed though learned readers and editors. We thank all of our outside readers for their continued help and support in bringing new understandings and appreciations to the world of Victorian fiction, even while currently struggling with the many obstacles brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. And we appreciate Robert Gottlieb for bringing us back to the big picture, “Dickensworld,” and reminding a wide audience that Dickens matters a lot in these days when the humanities are being challenged as passé and irrelevant.Over the decades this journal has been open to all critical approaches, moods, and modalities, and has been well served—if we may say so ourselves—by a series of capable and respected editors. Things evolve, Dickens remains. We wish to thank our esteemed coeditor, Caroline Reitz—who has with our good wishes taken over as the executive editor of Clues: A Journal of Detection—for her companionship and dedication to Dickens Studies Annual: Essays on Victorian Fiction through Volume 51.For this current volume, we once more express our gratitude for important and practical assistance received from the following administrators at CUNY's Graduate Center: Interim Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Julia Wrigley, former Interim President James Muyskens; Ph.D. Program in English Executive Officer Kandice Chuh; and Nancy Silverman, Academic Program Coordinator, Ph.D. Program in English. Anna Metreveli in the Business Office continues to be the ablest of facilitators.In addition, we extend thanks to Professor John O. Jordan, Director of the The Dickens Project at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Renee A. Fox, Co-Director; and Courtney Mahaney, Assistant Director of The Dickens Project. See also <http//dickens.uscs.edu>.We gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to Paris Shih, a doctoral student in English at the Graduate Center who was our editorial assistant during the early period when this issue was in formation and to his successor Katharine Williams for their consistently efficient and reliable help.Finally, we thank the following members of the Journals Department at Penn State University Press for their encouragement, guidance, efficiency and support: Julie Lambert, Journals Manager; Astrid Meyer, Journals Managing Editor; and Rachel Lynn Ginder, Production Assistant and collaboratrice extraordinaire.—The Editors

An engineered coccolith-based hybrid that transforms light into swarming motion

The authors thank SGIker of UPV/EHU, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and the European Social Fund (ESF) for technical and human support. M.L. thanks Dr. Gerard O’Connor (NUI Galway, Ireland) for beneficial scientific discussions related to this work. A.L. and M.L. thank Gillian Murphy (NUI Galway) for maintenance/ extraction of coccoliths. M.L. is grateful for the help and input of his student, David Shumate (Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA). M.L. is also very thankful for support received from PreSens Precision Sensing GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) regarding proper handling and use of the oxygen and temperature probes and data analysis. M.L. would particularly like to thank Pierce Lalor, Dr. Emma McDermott, and Dr. Eadaoin Timmins (NUI Galway) for invaluable support with electron microscopy. Additionally, the authors acknowledge the aforementioned for access to facilities and the scientific and technical assistance kindly offered by the experts of the Centre for Microscopy & Imaging at the National University of Ireland Galway (www.imaging.nuigalway.ie). We also acknowledge Drawinginc (https://drawinginc.ie/) and Maciej Doczyk for support with preparation of the schematics. Anthony Sloan is recognized for help with language edits. Finally, we acknowledge the editorial assistance of Dr. Raghvendra Bohara. This publication has emanated from research supported in part by a grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under grant 13/RC/2073_P2. A.L. and J.R.S. are thankful for funding from the Basque Government, Department of Education (IT-927-16). A.L. acknowledges the Basque Government for a postdoctoral grant (POS_2014_1_26). Support from the Spanish Ministry of Industry and Competitiveness for project MAT 2013-45559-P is also acknowledged. A.P., C.R.-E., and J.R.S. would like to acknowledge funding from the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action iPROMEDAI project (TD1305). M.L. gratefully acknowledges his Early Postdoctoral Mobility Fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation (P2BSP3_174974).

A vision that focuses on diversity and broader impact

The Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) has made an easy transition from one editorial team to the next. We thank the outgoing editorial team, led by Coeditors Fouad Abd-El-Khalick and Dana L. Zeidler and Managing Editor Elizabeth C. Niswander, for its exemplary work and dedication to JRST. You can read their Editors' report in Issue 58, Volume 2, which summarizes their tenure. From their 5-year editorship, we have inherited a strong journal in terms of infrastructure and good standing as an international journal focused on cutting-edge science education research. In our editorial as incoming coeditors, Volume 57, Issue 2, we communicated our vision for the journal where we outlined three strategic foci: (1) promoting equity and diversity of the JRST community; (2) leading efforts to establish disciplinary norms, criteria, and expectations relative to the evolving landscape of open access and open science across the publishing industry; and (3) building a stronger presence for JRST within the modern media environment such that JRST-published research achieves broader reach and impact for the improvement of science education practice and policy. Over the next few months, we will expand upon these areas while also updating you on what is happening in the publishing world that will have an impact on the decisions we make as Coeditors and your work as scholars. First, we are focused on advancing equity and diversity in the peer review process, which starts with the composition of our editorial team. We introduced our Managing Editor and Editorial Assistants in our first editorial. Here, we introduce the Associate Editors (Table 1). Collectively, they have a vast knowledge base relevant to contemporary issues in science education. With theoretical, methodological, epistemological, and philosophical diversity, their expertise and standing in the field represent a multiplicity of perspectives to support the vision we have for promoting diverse scholarship, which comes from having a diverse editorial team. As a group, we represent the most diverse group of Editors and Associate Editors who have served JRST. This is critically important because we believe the cultural diversity of our team communicates an important message to the global science education community about our commitments to diversity, inclusivity, and representation; a more diverse editorial team also denotes the increasingly diverse membership of NARST and the JRST readership. We know the process of publishing can be challenging, not only for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty but also for seasoned scholars in submitting their work to the journal. We have been working closely with our Wiley team to update and provide information for submitting your manuscripts. We found many places where the criteria were not consistent, and we thank our community for pointing out some of these places. There is a checklist for authors to review before and upon submitting their manuscript to ScholarOne Manuscripts™. Preparing your manuscript according to these guidelines is an equity issue for us. This means that formatting your manuscript according to the 10-item checklist allows for equitable formatting requirements, which also helps later in the management and production processes to prepare manuscripts promptly for early view. We encourage all authors to view the Author Guidelines before submission of their manuscripts. JRST is a world-class research journal, and our goal is to improve upon the journal's excellence. In doing so, we intend to maintain its very strong reputation; improve readership; increase its impact factor; and broaden the community of scholars who conduct research, read, and review for JRST. We are committed to preserving JRST as a venue that values a range of important and forward-thinking scholarship related to the teaching and learning of science, including scholarship with diverse and critical theoretical frameworks, methodologies, commitments, and perspectives. As an example of meeting our goal of broader access, we are piloting Visual Abstracts and Research Briefs to share on our social media outlets. These resources are short bits of information for educational stakeholders outside of the immediate research community and are written with an educated layperson in mind. Freely share this information to educators, policymakers, and organizations you feel will benefit from these highlights of recent publications in the journal. We are appreciative of those who review for the journal, and we invite a broader community of reviewers to participate in the peer-review process. We welcome you to nominate yourself and others to be reviewers, to accept invitations to review and to engage with us in challenging our collective work as a worldwide organization for improving science teaching and learning through research with the ultimate goal to help all learners achieve science literacy. You can reach us through the journal's new email address: [email protected]. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @JRSTpub.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’ s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Conference submission management system: http://papersub.iceeep.org/• Number of submissions received: 419• Number of submissions sent for review: 397• Number of submissions accepted: 221• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 52.7%• Average number of reviews per paper: 3• Total number of reviewers involved: 878• Any additional info on review process: After preview by editorial assistant, 397 papers were sent for peer reviews, 878 reviewers were involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries: Ms. Iris Yuan, Wuhan Zhiming Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. (secretary@iceeep.org)

Editors' Note

Editors' Note Kate Masur and Gregory P. Downs As we write this editors' note in summer 2021, we are hopeful that many in-person activities will soon resume, including the conferences, seminars, workshops, and writing groups that are so important to our collective work. Our issue features three research essays about men's lives that touch on politics, ideology, and power. Daniel Crofts takes a new look at a famous diarist in "Sidney George Fisher and the Coming of the Civil War: How Southern Overreach Alarmed a Conservative Philadelphian." An elite Philadelphian, Fisher had generally conservative political instincts. Yet he became increasingly troubled by southern politicians' demands for dominance in the 1850s, eventually siding with the Republicans and, when war came, even supporting emancipation. The story of Fisher's political evolution is a reminder of the diversity and contentiousness of the Republican coalition. In "William Henry Trescot, Pardon Broker," Cynthia Nicoletti follows Trescot, a South Carolina lawyer and politician (and historian), to Washington, DC, where he lobbied President Andrew Johnson to restore land to his state's planter elite. Trescot entered directly into political negotiations about the future of land confiscated from Confederates during the war, using his legal savvy and political connections to discredit demands for land redistribution by South Carolina freedpeople and O. O. Howard, the commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. Tarik Yiğit explores Civil War veterans in Egypt in "Reconstructing the American under the Most Unimaginable Conditions: Civil War Veterans in the 'Arabian Nights.'" Egypt's leader, Ismail Pasha, sought American advisors after the war, and many U.S. and Confederate veterans were happy to oblige. Impelled by the chance to earn an income and an associated sense of manhood, Civil War veterans in Egypt contributed their skills in surveying, military training, and armed conflict itself. Many had known each other before the war, and Egypt became a site where Americans who had fought on both sides grappled with one another and with the Civil War's legacies. In his review essay, "The Common Soldier of the Civil War: His Rise and Fall," Gerald Prokopowicz examines evolving scholarly interest in Civil War soldiers. Historical scholarship on the rank and file has been shaped by subsequent wars and by historians' changing approaches to the past. What was once represented as a generalizable "common soldier" experience—atleast [End Page 447] for Confederate soldiers on the one hand and US ones on the other—has been shattered, but questions of why people fought endure. With this issue, we say goodbye to our editorial assistant, Megan Hildebrand, a PhD candidate at Penn State, whose term is ending and whose excellent work we have appreciated tremendously. Edward Green is the new editorial assistant, and we welcome him to the team. We also express special gratitude to the authors, peer reviewers, and book reviewers who made time to contribute to the journal during the difficult months of the pandemic. We hope they and all our readers are faring well and that we'll see one another soon. [End Page 448] Copyright © 2021 The University of North Carolina Press

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’ s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Conference submission management system:http://papersub.icnmci.org/• Number of submissions received:45• Number of submissions sent for review:38• Number of submissions accepted:18• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of SubmissionsReceived X 100):Approximately 40%• Average number of reviews per paper:3• Total number of reviewers involved:144• Any additional info on review process:After preview by editorial assistant, 45 papers were sent for peer reviews, 144 reviewers involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries:Ms.Zheng, sec_zheng@icnmci.org

Editors’ Note

Editors’ Note Silvia Patricia Solís, Wanda S. Pillow, Darius Bost, and Kimberly M. Jew This issue begins with an essay from our general submissions. Ranjoo Seodu Herr offers a philosophical analysis of the relationship between Indigenous women’s rights and self-determination within the settler Canadian nationstate. In her research, Herr notes that “some Indigenous women . . . strongly support the collective right to Indigenous self-determination even at the expense of women’s individual rights.” Herr invites readers to engage with the full essay and then sit with the analysis regarding the paths forward for Indigenous feminists and civil rights. The remainder of this volume is dedicated to the special issue “Deterritorializing Frontiers: Opening Space for Dis(mis)located Voices” with guest editors Lydia Huerta Moreno and Ana Gómez Parga. This special issue opens spaces for transfeminist dialogues from a range of perspectives and geographies in order to decenter Western structures of knowledge and to address the violence of academic imperialism. The issue represents different geopolitical perspectives, sensibilities, and mobilities—Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, El Salvador, Bolivia, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and the US-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, and Cuidad Juarez, Chihuahua. The contributions are in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, making it the first multilingual issue of Frontiers in its history. To echo the guest editors, this issue required extensive editorial work by the guest editors and the Frontiers Editorial Collective. The work undertaken to produce this special issue was in itself a deterritorializing process and reiterated the stakes of this special issue. The submission process through our English-only online portal was not feasible for some authors located outside the US. The journal’s websites, instructions, and author documents additionally privileged English-only protocols. Initial communications were in English but that was not sustainable and did not make sense. So we soon [End Page ix] switched to the preferred language of the guest editors and authors. Multilanguage reviewers were identified and submissions repeatedly transcribed. A special search had to be made to find Spanish and Portuguese copyeditors prior to submitting the special issue to the press. The process made us reflect on and critique how we operate as a feminist journal. We want to thank the University of Nebraska Press for their support and responsiveness throughout this process. However, this support did not take away from multiple layers of recognition of the assumptions of academic publishing, including feminist publishing. Additionally, the time period of work on this special issue occurred during the implementation of some of the most anti-immigration policies in the US, during travel bans and during economic turmoil and hurricanes in the places authors were living, working, protesting, and writing. Then came a global pandemic, further highlighting systemic racism and social inequities amid protests, hate, and political upheaval. Journal and press timelines and to-do checklists did not work under these precarities. This process exposed the ways that the westernization of feminist publishing creates procedural obstacles for non-Western scholars and serves more privileged, English-speaking scholars in the US academy. As editorial assistant, Dr. Silvia Patricia Solis took on all primary communications with authors, guest editors, reviewers, and copyeditors. Without Silvia’s extraordinary direction and commitment this special issue would not have made it to print. This special issue, began as an investment on Global South feminisms, turned into a praxis of actually doing feminist collective work. Frontiers is sitting with this experience and making changes in how and what Frontiers can do as a feminist publication. The beauty in this issue and in the labor undertaken to bring it to print is captured in the poetics, the activism, and in a collective reference to the writings of the radical women of color who edited and participated in the 1981 feminist anthology This Bridge Called My Back. In that same spirit, we turn to Toni Cade Bambara in This Bridge, to express the radical possibilities in feminist practices, “Now that we’ve begun to break the silence and begun to break through the diabolically erected barriers and can hear each other and see each other, we can sit down with trust and break bread together. Rise up and break our chains as well...

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Conference submission management system: http://papersub.icmice.org/ • Number of submissions received:41• Number of submissions sent for review:33• Number of submissions accepted:15• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 37%• Average number of reviews per paper:3• Total number of reviewers involved:89• Any additional info on review process:After preview by editorial assistant, 33 papers were sent for peer reviews, 89 reviewers involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries:Ms. Yuan, secretary@icmice.org

Editors' Note

Editors' Note Red Washburn and Brianne Waychoff This issue Solidão hits during a critical moment transnationally. It lands during a global pandemic, with calamitous events from Trump and Bolsonaro worldwide. However, as Arundhati Roy states, "The pandemic is a portal" (Roy 2021). This time has allowed us to reimagine life and solidarity in order to resuscitate them during social isolation. It is a clarion call to reorganize life to repair ubiquitous underemployment and unemployment, inadequate health care, inhumane incarceration, sexual harassment against women, anti-Black police violence, trans dehumanization, totalitarian regimes, environmental destruction, Indigenous genocide, and the defunding of Black, race, ethnic studies; women's, gender, and sexuality studies; and LGBTQ studies. Of particular alarm is the predicament facing Indigenous people in the Brazilian Amazon—the loss of life, culture, nature, and habitat—as a result of the climate crisis and corporate wealth. The possibilities of the portal include a recentering of marginality, for example, Black and Indigenous women's and trans people's lives and words. The gateway from one way of life to the next demands we move beyond thought to practice freedom, a revolution that begins with decolonizing our minds and curricula as well as a massive restructuring of social institutions that shifts priorities to people over profit. The guest editors of this issue, along with the writers and artists who contributed to it, address many of these topics in-depth, thereby expanding the scholarship robustly. We are grateful to the guest editors for doing this issue, the first issue to come out during our editorship. We want to thank WSQ, including the editorial board, the poetry, prose, and art editors, and editorial assistants. In particular, we want to extend a hearty thank-you the editorial assistants, Amy Iafrate, Alex Johnson, Joe Goodale, and Ivy Bryan, all of whom worked [End Page 12] tirelessly on communicating with the scholars, writers, and artists to make this issue happen. In addition, we want to extend a generous thank-you to Dána-Ain Davis, Director of the Center for the Study of Women in Society, and administrative staff Eileen Liang and Jennifer Bae for providing WSQ with internships in feminist publishing for graduate students in women's and gender studies at the City University of New York. Our partnership has significantly enriched the quality of the journal for our feminist communities across CUNY and beyond. We are greatly indebted to the Feminist Press for all its help with scheduling, copyediting, and distributing our issues, especially to Interim Executive Director Lauren Rosemary Hook and Assistant Editor Nick Whitney. We also wish to thank Associate Director of the Center for the Humanities Kendra Sullivan, as well as Jordan Lord and Sampson Starkweather for collaborating with us and building a new vision for the journal, including aiding with publicity, administrative matters, and translations for this issue. We acknowledge the support we have received from the National Women's Studies Association, namely President Kaye Wise Whitehead and Interim Executive Director Jen Ash, as well as the Community of Literary Magazines and Presses (CLMP). Lastly, we want to thank each other as general editors of WSQ for navigating a difficult editorial transition during austerity and doing so with feminist generosity. We are looking forward to celebrating the legacy of WSQ, its fiftieth anniversary hitting during our leadership, and creating a sustainable future for it at the City University of New York. Red Washburn Kingsborough Community College Director of Women's and Gender Studies Associate Professor of English City University of New York Brianne Waychoff Borough of Manhattan Community College Associate Professor of Speech Communications and Theatre Arts Gender and Women's Studies Program City University of New York Works Cited Roy, Arundhati. 2021. "The Pandemic Is a Portal." Haymarket Books (blog). 23 April 2020. https://www.haymarketbooks.org/blogs/130-arundhati-roy-the-pandemic-is-a-portal. Google Scholar Copyright © 2021 Red Washburn and Brianne Waychoff

Cameralism and Enlightenment: Happiness, Governance and Reform in Transnational Perspective. Edited by Ere Nokkala and Nicholas B. Miller. With the editorial assistance of Anthony J. La Vopa. New York–London: Routledge, 2020. x+325 pp.

Cameralism and Enlightenment: Happiness, Governance and Reform in Transnational Perspective. Edited by Ere Nokkala and Nicholas B. Miller. With the editorial assistance of Anthony J. La Vopa. New York–London: Routledge, 2020. x+325 pp.

Foreword

One of the fairly common practices for scientic research journals and scienti c research periodicals is to publish special issues as well as conference proceedings. Quite frequently, these special issues are devoted exclusively to specic topics and/or are dedicated respectfully to commemorate and celebrate the works of one or the other chosen research scientists.It is a great pleasure for me to write the Foreword of this Special Dedica- tion Issue of the European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (EJPAM), which is dedicated to me on the occasion of my 80th birthday. I am overwhelmed to see so many nice and noteworthy contributions toward the success of this Special Dedication Issue from all over the world.The main emphasis of this Special Dedication Issue was to include some selected peer-reviewed papers which stemmed from the International Conference on Advances in Mathematics and Computing (ICAMC 2020) (Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Burla, Odisha, India; February 07-08, 2020) for which I was invited to be the Chief Guest. The relevant details of ICAMC 2020 can be accessed in the following link:http://icamc.co.in/h1.htmlThis Special Dedication Issue has chosen also to include a few other invited papers which were not connected directly with ICAMC-2020.The European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (EJPAM) also published another Special Dedication Issue (Volume 3, Number 6, 2010) on "Complex Analysis: Theory and Applications", which was dedicated to me on the occasion of my 70th birthday.Finally, on my own behalf as well as on behalf of the Members of the Organizing Committee of ICAMC 2020 (including the Convener, Dr. Susanta Kumar Paikray), I am exceedingly delighted to thank all of the participating authors and the referees for their invaluable contributions toward the remarkable success of this Special Dedication Issue. My special thanks are due to the Editors-in- Chief, Prof. Eyup Cetin and Dr. Baris Kiremitci.I do also greatly appreciate the editorial help and assistance provided efficiently by many colleagues and associates in the Editorial Office of the European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (EJPAM).Hari Mohan Srivastava Advisory Editor, European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (EJPAM)

BDS in the context of achievements

Impact Factor (IF) means the scientometric index that represents the average annual number of citations that manuscripts published in a specific journal received in the last two or three years [1, 2]. It expresses the relative importance of the journal in the field from the view of scientific community.
 Different databases have their own impact factor calculation based on the citations in the indexed journals.
 For the journals that are indexed on Web of Science, they are ranked by JCR (Journal Scientific Report)/ISI (Institute for Science and Information) in JIF (Journal Impact Factor). For Scopus by SJR (Scimago Journal Rank-citescore)/SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper); etc.
 Since we got Scopus indexation in 2017, BDS has been growing its CiteScore index from 0.3 to 1.0 in 2020 [3]. This bibliometric index shows a positive trend for BDS during the last years. Our team is focused on the future with a score higher than “1.0”.
 Furthermore, BDS improves its Editorial Board. Twenty-four section editors and 30 assistant editors are directly involved weekly with the process of the manuscripts submitted to the journal. Opportunities arising from the pandemic brought improvements in the speed of evaluation process, in the distribution of the steps, in the partnership, digital or remote meetings, and visibility of the journal.
 The communion of ideals among the team members led BDS to a high profile on social networks as Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn. Our posts have been shared with researchers with great success.
 By 2021, authors and readers can expect issues with the highest quality in science, commitment to innovation, and dissemination.
 Welcome to BDS journal once again.
 
 References
 
 Frankernberger, R., Van Meerbeek, B. JAD in the context of bibliometric data. JAD (2020), n5, p. 439. doi:10.3290/j.jad.a45410
 Fernandes V., Salviano LR. Indicadores JCR, SNIP, SJR e Google Scholar. http://portal.utfpr.edu.br/pesquisa-e-pos-graduacao/indicadores/indicadores-externos/indicadores-externos
 CiteScoreTracker. Scopus. [Internet]. Access in: 16 Dec 2020. Avaiable at: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100831445

Plant Physiology welcomes 16 new Assistant Features Editors.

Plant Physiology welcomes 16 new Assistant Features Editors.

Implementation and operational feasibility of SAMBA I HIV-1 semi-quantitative viral load testing at the point-of-care in rural settings in Malawi and Uganda.

We monitored a large-scale implementation of the Simple Amplification-Based Assay semi-quantitative viral load test for HIV-1 version I (SAMBA I Viral Load=SAMBA I VL) within Médecins Sans Frontières' HIV programmes in Malawi and Uganda, to assess its performance and operational feasibility. Descriptive analysis of routine programme data between August 2013 and December 2016. The dataset included samples collected for VL monitoring and tested using SAMBA I VL in five HIV clinics in Malawi (four peripheral health centres and one district hospital), and one HIV clinic in a regional referral hospital in Uganda. SAMBA I VL was used for VL testing in patients who had been receiving ART for between 6months and ten years, to determine whether plasma VL was above or below 1000 copies/mL of HIV-1, reflecting ART failure or efficacy. Randomly selected samples were quantified with commercial VL assays. SAMBA I instruments and test performance, site throughput, and delays in communicating results to clinicians and patients were monitored. Between August 2013 and December 2016 a total of 60889 patient samples were analysed with SAMBA I VL. Overall, 0.23% of initial SAMBA I VL results were invalid; this was reduced to 0.04% after repeating the test once. Global test failure, including instrument failure, was 1.34%. Concordance with reference quantitative testing of VL was 2620/2727, 96.0% (1338/1382, 96.8% in Malawi; 1282/1345, 95.3% in Uganda). For Chiradzulu peripheral health centres and Arua Hospital HIV clinic, where testing was performed on-site, same-day results were communicated to clinicians for between 91% and 97% of samples. Same-day clinical review was obtained for 84.7% across the whole set of samples tested. SAMBA I VL testing is feasible for monitoring cohorts of 1000 to 5000 ART-experienced patients. Same-day results can be used to inform rapid clinical decision-making at rural and remote health facilities, potentially reducing time available for development of resistance and conceivably helping to reduce morbidity and mortality.