Galley Proofs Research Articles

Rapid Track for Publication

HomeCirculationVol. 104, No. 20Rapid Track for Publication Free AccessAnnouncementPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessAnnouncementPDF/EPUBRapid Track for Publication James T. Willerson, MD and James T. WillersonJames T. Willerson Search for more papers by this author and Search for more papers by this author and for the Editors of Circulation Originally published13 Nov 2001https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.104.20.2385Circulation. 2001;104:2385The Editors of Circulation wish to remind readers of a special category of manuscripts we initiated nearly two years ago. Rapid Track for Publication is a category of manuscript submission designed for expedited review, and if accepted, expedited publication of manuscripts reporting the results of important clinical trials and major basic science discoveries. We are committed to providing an initial decision one week after the manuscript enters the review process. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, it will be published Online one week after galley proofs are returned to our publisher, and in the print journal within four to five weeks. We are pleased to offer this special opportunity for very rapid review and publication of the most important clinical and basic research work submitted to Circulation. Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails November 13, 2001Vol 104, Issue 20 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.104.20.2385 Originally publishedNovember 13, 2001 PDF download Advertisement

Gradient and spin echo(cardiographic) magnetic resonance imaging: prevalence of descriptive errors in published articles

Recently, while correcting a set of galley proofs, we noticed a curious error: the term gradient-echo had been changed by the production editor to gradient-echocardiographic. Although initially puzzling, the etiology of this error soon became apparent. Cardiac ultrasound (i.e., echocardiography) is widely referred to as “echo,” unfortunately, even in formal writing. Long-suffering production editors are often in the habit of expanding “echo” to “echocardiography” or “echocardiographic” as appropriate, and had mistakenly applied this putative correction to our manuscript, although “gradient echo” and “spin echo” are technical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) terms. More recently, an identical error was noted in final print form in another manuscript, raising the question of the prevalence of this accidental “mixed-modality” error.

Guidelines for Authors

Guidelines for Authors

The Times and the Concentration Camp at Dachau, December 1933-February 1934: An Unpublished Report

In February 1934 the London Times decided not to publish a long article on the concentration camp at Dachau, although it had already been set up and corrected in galley proofs. The author, Stanley Simpson, listed details of mistreatment of prisoners, based on accounts by witnesses. The Times' Own Correspondent in Berlin, Norman Ebbutt, urged it be published. The report was finally rejected not because it was thought unreliable but because reports about other concentration camps had appeared recently elsewhere, and probably because Geoffrey Dawson, the Editor of The Times , a semi-official journal of record, thought it better not to annoy the German government at that time. Notes and letters about the decision to publish or not and the article itself are held in the Times archives.

Of Ethics and Editors

Last month Optometry and Vision Science was represented at the Annual Meeting of the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE). The CSE aims to “improve communication in the sciences by educating authors, editors, and publishers… … and by promoting effective communication practices.” Among the topics discussed at this year’s meeting were on-line publishing, guidelines for authors, impact factors, and copyright law. The conference is highly recommended for anyone involved in the editorial and publishing process. The road to publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not always a straight one. There are anticipated curves, unexpected bumps, and the occasional U-turn. Nonetheless, an author who demonstrates good scholarship, execution, and exposition can reasonably expect that his or her work will appear in print. Attainment of this goal is usually marked by a letter of acceptance from the editor. This signifies that the peer-review process is complete and all of the appropriate parties have agreed that the article should be published. One of the guiding principles of this process is that an editor should never reject or pull an article for arbitrary or capricious reasons. The only reasons that an article, once accepted for publication, should later be withdrawn are when the editor receives evidence of scientific misconduct, e.g., plagiarism, fraud, or breach of human or animal subject guidelines. Last December, the journal received a call from an author who had fallen victim to an editorial bait and switch. He had submitted a manuscript which had been reviewed, revised, and accepted for publication. He had approved the galley proofs and then, less than 1 month from scheduled publication, he was told that the article would not be published due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The content of this so-called controversial study is not important. What is important is the issue of editorial integrity. Editors of society journals, those owned by professional or scientific organizations, are sometimes placed in a difficult position, or even displaced. Although such journals exist to disseminate scientific information among the organization’s members, the parent society may find itself in the midst of a turf battle or some other form of professional strife. In these situations the editor may feel overt or subtle pressure. It was only last year that George Lundberg was fired as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association for publishing an article on college students’ perspectives on sex at the time of the proposed impeachment of President Clinton by the United States Congress. The AMA’s Chief Executive Officer said that Lundberg had “inexcusably” interjected the journal into “the middle of a debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine.” In the past 2 years, no issue in optometry has caused more spirited discussion than the establishment of the American Board of Optometric Practice. By the time this editorial reaches the readers of Optometry and Vision Science, the matter will have been debated for a second time in the American Optometric Association’s House of Delegates. As a precursor to this debate, Optometry: The Journal of the American Optometric Association published an article providing justification for and details of the proposed program of board certification in its April 2000 issue. A paper addressing the historical, organizational, and philosophical issues relating to board certification and presenting the case against the proposed process was prepared by the Board of Directors of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry. The article was submitted and accepted for publication in the May 2000 issue of Optometry. On April 17, 2000 the Editor of Optometry notified the National Board that the article would not be published as previously agreed. The reason given was that the Editor believed that a longer version of the article had already received wide distribution and that publishing this article would be redundant. The above editorial decision highlights the pressures that arise when political agendas are prioritized at the expense of journalistic integrity. Was the organization’s cause furthered by this action? Was the reputation of the optometric profession advanced by this action? We would hypothesize that both were likely hindered. The decision to pull, what we believe to be a considered and scholarly treatise of the issues, may have undermined support of the AOA’s position and increased the momentum of those taking the opposing view. Either way, the AOA’s action has severely compromised the journalistic integrity of its principal publication. Optometry faces a number of important issues, such as co-management and the use of lasers, that we believe should be discussed at the national level. Deliberation and resolution of these issues can only be adequately achieved if the debate is open and free from censorship.

10.2172/814822

This report describes errors in Herbert Goldstein's textbook Classical Mechanics, Second Edition (Copyright 1980, ISBN 0-201-02918-9). Some of the errors in current printings of the text were corrected in the second printing; however, after communicating with Addison Wesley, the publisher for ''Classical Mechanics'', it was discovered that the corrected galley proofs had been lost by the printer and that no one had complained of any errors in the eleven years since the second printing. The errata sheet corrects errors from all printings of the second edition.

10.2172/10131793

This report describes errors in Herbert Goldstein's textbook Classical Mechanics, Second Edition (Copyright 1980, ISBN 0-201-02918-9). Some of the errors in current printings of the text were corrected in the second printing; however, after communicating with Addison Wesley, the publisher for ''Classical Mechanics'', it was discovered that the corrected galley proofs had been lost by the printer and that no one had complained of any errors in the eleven years since the second printing. The errata sheet corrects errors from all printings of the second edition.

The Questionable Empirical Basis of Article 2's Incorporation Strategy: A Preliminary Study

Note available Copyright Information: All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for any necessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn more at http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse Galley Proofs, 04/20/99 2:43:27 PM 1 The Questionable Empirical Basis of Article 2’s Incorporation Strategy: A Preliminary Study

Thomas Hardy: a textual study of the short stories

This is the definitive textual analysis of all of Hardy's collected short stories, tracing the development of each from manuscript, through newspaper serial versions, galley proofs and revises to collected editions in volume form. It is no surprise to discover that Hardy's capacity for inveterate revision is manifested in his tales as it was in his novels. Even those stories for which he professed little regard were meticulously and continuously revised, in some cases more than thirty years after their first publication. The alterations extend to the most minute details of plot, landscape, characterisation and style, as well as the restoration of bowdlerised passages which had been demanded by serial magazines. This study will play a major role in elevating the importance of this genre in Hardy's prolific output and will illuminate his textual practices - an area of considerable and growing interest to a large number of scholars and students.

The Rise of Sinclair Lewis, 1920–1930 by James Hutchisson

76 Western American Literature gist George Romanes, and (possibly) the early animal rights theoretician Henry Salt. As a result of this intellectual cross-fertilization, what began as “a mere anecdote, told to friends as an after-dinner story over cigars and good wine” evolved “into a larger study of animal behavior and its lessons for humanity.” Muir came to see the tale as an opportunity to introduce radical ideas about “the moral equality of dogs and men and all other ele­ ments in the endless span of creation,” “to challenge traditional attitudes in an inoffensive way.” Limbaugh’s writing is lucid and succinct. Muir scholars will value this book not only for its argument, but also for the hard-to-find variants of “Stickeen” that it reprints in their entirety: the original journal passage upon which the story was based, the final manuscript version of 1897, and a children’s version written by Emily Swett Parkhurst. DAVID MAZEL University of West Alabama The Rise of Sinclair Lewis, 1920-1930. By James Hutchisson. (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. 276 pages, $29.50.) Renewed interest in Sinclair Lewis moves apace. This solid study treats the genesis, development, composition, and reception of the five major (and two minor) novels that Lewis published during his great decade of the 1920s. Along with five chapters devoted to Main Street, Babbitt, Arrowsmith, Mantrap, Elmer Gantry, The Man Who Knew Coolidge, and Dodsworth, Hutchisson, in a sixth chapter, discusses the author’s “unfinished labor novel” and his capturing the Nobel Prize in 1930. The appendixes avail us of Lewis’s excinded chapter from Main Street, his New York Evening Post article “The Pioneer Myth,” his deleted introduction to Babbitt, Hugh Walpole’s published introduction to the British edition of Babbitt, and two less ensconced documents of the decade—Lewis’s notorious letter refusing the Pulitzer Prize and his cele­ brated speech accepting the Nobel Prize. Besides useful notes, a bibliog­ raphy, and index, the volume has thirty-two illustrations: interesting examples of Lewis’s jottings, lists, maps, floor plans, timetables, brochures, manuscripts, typescripts, and galley proofs. Despite the continuing efficacy of Sinclair Lewis’s twenty-two satir­ ic novels for American and western American literature, scholarship, as Hutchisson notes, is relatively “scant.” For a long time students had assumed that after the publication of Sinclair Lewis: An American Life Reviews 11 (1961), Mark Schorer’s “official”jumbo biography allowed but little crit­ ical grass to grow. Among the Lewis Papers at Yale University and the University of Texas, however, is material underlying Lewis’s novels that Schorer by and large disregarded. Taking his cue from Malcolm Cowley, Hutchisson considers these documents and, rather than dwelling on Lewis’s failures after 1930, tries to explain the “height and nature” of Lewis’s achievement. Grounded in sound scholarship and sustained by clear thought, Hutchisson’s interpretation as to why Lewis made such a profound impact on his contemporaries is entirely plausible. In showing the transformation of Lewis’s notes, drafts, and the several versions of a fiction into its pub­ lished form, the critic-historian reveals how Lewis came to write a partic­ ular novel, how that novel helped shape Lewis’s career, and how each novel, in turn, influenced the work in progress. This story of Lewis’s com­ positional methods in the 1920s in the context of his development at the time provides continuities and perspectives, while the account of how his novels were received makes for amplitude and point. Combined with Hutchisson’s treatment of Lewis’s ties with Alfred Harcourt, the story also constitutes a chapter in the history of American book publishing. For all its specialized detail, each chapter is coherent, and the book as a whole (barring a few redundancies) is highly unified. And though sym­ pathetic to Lewis’s literary art, Hutchisson remains aware of Lewis’s often cheeky botchery. The intent of this study is not only refreshing but seems to me realized: to explain a phenomenon rather than to advance a cause. MARTIN BUCCO Colorado State University Mark Twain on the Loose: A Comic Writer and the American Self. By Bruce Michaelson. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1995...

Multilated Signs: Notes toward a Literary Paleography

Multilated Signs: Notes toward a Literary Paleography

Erratum: A nesting dinosaur

Nature 378, 774-776 (1995) A PRODUCTION problem after the galley proof stage caused confusion in the authors' affiliations for this Letter in the 21/28 December issue. The affiliations shown above are correct, with M.A.N. at the American Museum of Natural History.

The Celine Effect: A 1992 Survey of Contemporary American Writers

The Céline Effect: A 1992 Survey of Contemporary American Writers Alice Kaplan (bio) Louis-Ferdinand Céline confounds the paradigm for fascist writers. A doctor for the poor with clear populist tendencies who emerged on the literary scene from out of nowhere, he produced a runaway best-seller, Voyage au bout de la nuit (Journey to the End of the Night) (1932), then a misunderstood bildungsroman, Mort à crédit (Death on the Installment Plan) (1936), that revolutionized the look of written French and exploded narrative convention. In the late 1930s he published two anti-Semitic pamphlets ( Bagatelles pour un massacre [Trifles for a massacre] and L’École des cadavres [School for corpses]), both wildly successful, that pushed back the envelope of acceptable hate speech. In occupied France, he wrote letters to the editors of collaborationist newspapers and was identified with the racial policies of Vichy, but he was inconsistent and fairly useless as a polemicist for the “new order,” since his spleen turned against Vichy as well its enemies. Nonetheless his camp was chosen: he was the writer who had passionately demanded the extermination of the Jews. At the end of the war he fled, following the Vichy government to the castle town of Sigmaringen, then to Denmark, where he was imprisoned by the Danes and released into exile. He was not extradited back to France during the early days of the purge, when collaborators such as Robert Brasillach were being condemned to death. By the time Céline stood trial, in absentia, the fury days of the purge had ended. Amnestied in 1951 as a veteran of World War I, he returned to a semireclusive life in the Paris suburb of Meudon, where he penned a trilogy of novels about the immediate [End Page 117] postwar moment, featuring a shattered Europe and a paranoid, misunderstood, and wildly comic narrator. His novels (but obviously not his complete works) have been edited in the prestigious “Pléiade Collection”; his work appears on the French state agrégation examination, which certifies teachers of literature at the highest level. He is generally acknowledged, along with Marcel Proust (perhaps as an anti-Proust, in terms of class and syntax), as the great literary innovator of the century. Céline’s pamphlets, according to the wishes of his widow, have not been reedited since the war; pirate versions have been seized by his estate. There is currently a debate in France about whether or not his pamphlets should be reedited; whether, on the one hand, there is enough “Céline” in them to make them valuable as literary objects, or, on the other hand, whether it isn’t dangerous, in a current French climate of escalating racism and electoral successes by Le Pen’s Front National, to make this writer’s hate speech available to a public who reads him as great literature. Céline has figured in the American literary context at least since the early 1930s; the story of his American reception runs along not quite parallel tracks to the French story, with some fascinating differences. This essay concentrates on one part of the American picture: Céline’s reception among writers. The Miller Paradigm Georges Brassaï, in a memoir entitled Henry Miller: grandeur nature (Henry Miller: lifesize), tells the following, now famous story: Henry Miller was living in Paris in 1932 and struggling with the manuscript of Tropic of Cancer, which had already been rejected by publishers. 1 An agent connected with the French publishing firm of Denoël and Steele gave Miller galley proofs of Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s Voyage au bout de la nuit. This was Frank Dobo, also of the Winkler International Literary Agency, the agent who would help sell and promote the English version of Céline’s first novel with Little, Brown and Company, and who was soon after to become deeply involved in Miller’s literary career. According to Brassaï, reading Céline so affected Miller that he rewrote Tropic of Cancer. 2 Miller told Brassaï that “no writer had ever given him such a shock”; Brassaï went so far as to claim that Miller moved to the working-class suburb of Clichy to...

The Dendritic Box: Shape-Selective Liberation of Encapsulated Guests

• A submitted manuscript is the author's version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.

Who Owns What I Say?

medical scientistsas authors and speakers are being forced into a dilemma: the oral presentation of new information at a scientific meeting may jeopardize consideration of that information for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This problem came home after I had presented a paper at the 10th International Congress of Eye Research held in Stresa, Italy, on September 21, 1993. Having been invited to present an original scientific work previously by one of the session chairmen, I had not given either oral or written consent to the video or audio recording of the presentation. Copyright ownership was not assigned to either the journal,Experimental Eye Research, which had previously published the meeting abstracts, or the organizers of the congress, the International Society for Eye Research.1To my surprise, within 1 month, I received a galley proof by way of facsimile transmission from one of the ophthalmologic tabloids that contained

A TREATMENT OF A PUBLISHER'S PASTE-UP

Summary A publisher's paste-up of the first American edition of The Winding Stair by William Butler Yeats was treated by the Conservation Department of the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, Texas. The volume contains 44 pages and 128 inserts, mostly cut from galley proofs. All of the printed inserts were stained with a rubber cement adhesive and more than half were no longer attached to the pages of the book. The rest were stuck to each other in layers, each insert obscuring the one below. The conservation treatment required that the inserts should be made accessible to researchers. The inserts were separated and the adhesive residues were removed; the inserts were collated, lined and rehinged to the pages of the book.

Patients With Familial Short Stature: Correction and Clarification

Sir .—This is in response to the letter by Stanley M. Garn, PhD (written communication, March 24, 1992) regarding our article 1 published in the March 1992 issue of theArchives. The data throughout the article were indeed expressed as mean±SEM. However, a typographical mistake in the galley proof was not corrected; thus, the footnotes in Tables 1 and 3 expressed the data as SD instead of SEM. We appreciate Garn's pointing out this error. Regarding the stature of the parents of the patients, our study group was not a randomized sample from the general population, but a selected group of familial short-stature patients. Therefore, the fact that the parents of the patients were shorter than the mean is not surprising. The genetic endowment of our population was not the point of our discussion. The point of the article was the weight progression of the patients, which differs between those

Walden Two: A 1950 Review

The following review of B. F. Skinner's Walden Two (1948) 1 was written forty years ago, not long after the book was originally publisbed. My manuscript was set in type -I have the galley proofs -but never appeared in print. I have been asked to describe the circumstances. From 1939, when I graduated from high schoo~ until 1951, when I left New York for Indiana, I probably spent more of my time campaigning against nationalism and war and for a socialist society than I did pursuing my studies. I thought of myself as a person whose mission in life was to transform the existing social order. One of my reasons for taking up psychology was that I agreed with Floyd Allport's contention (Institutional Behavior, 1933) that, when closely examined, social institutions turn out to be nothing more than the activities of their individual participants. Accordingly, I concluded that the best way to understand the functioning of various institutions must be through the study of individual behavior. Another reason was more practical: I hoped to earn my living in a way that would not be harmful to others and in a setting that would give me some license to speak on political matters but would leave me relatively free of pressures to conform to the viewpoint of any single political or economic organization. From 1943 to 1949 I pursued my graduate studies at Columbia, and from 1946 to 1951 I taught classes there, mostly in the School of General Studies. Through the influence of Fred Keller and Nat Schoenfeld I had become familiar with Skinner's writings (see Dinsmoor, 1990), and when his second book, Walden Two, appeared I inlmediately purchased and read it. I considered it an extremely innovative and significant contribution to our thinking on the way society should be organized and tried to think of ways of bringing it to the attention of other people who migllt be interested in that issue. For about ten years I had been a member of the National Executive Committee of the Young People's Socialist League, the youth section of the Socialist Party, and between my undergraduate and my graduate studies I had even served for a brief period as its National Secretary. But the Socialist Party's endorsement of the American military intervention in Korea proved the last straw, and in desperation the political grouping to which I belonged withdrew from the SP and

Editorial The Changing of the Guard

Editorial The Changing of the Guard

To: “The Berlage wavelet” by D. F. Aldridge (GEOPHYSICS, 55, 1508–1511, November 1990).

Several typographical errors appeared in this Short Note after corrected galley proofs were returned. The expression for the mth moment of the normalized energy density waveform appears in the text prior to equation (5). It should read [Formula: see text]