Number Of Editors Research Articles

How article category in Wikipedia determines the heterogeneity of its editors

Collaboration is essential to advancing knowledge and, ultimately, entire societies. With the development of Web 2.0, the possibilities have risen to unprecedented levels and allowed for the collaborative creation of the world’s largest compendium of knowledge that ever existed – Wikipedia. Collaboration is not a safeguard of quality per se, however. Rather, the quality of Wikipedia articles rises with the number of editors per article as well as a greater diversity among them. Here, we address a not yet documented potential threat to those preconditions: self-selection of Wikipedia editors to articles. Specifically, we expected articles with a clear-cut link to a specific country (e.g., about its highest mountain, “national” article category) to attract a larger proportion of editors of that nationality when compared to articles without any specific link to that country (e.g., “gravity”, “universal” article category), whereas articles with a link to several countries (e.g., “United Nations”, “international” article category) should fall in between. Across several language versions, hundreds of different articles, and hundreds of thousands of editors, we find the expected effect within Wikipedia: The more exclusively an article topic is linked to a particular nation, the higher the proportion of editors from that country is among the contributors.

What is critical in EdTech research?

There are a number of editors on the CriSTaL editorial board, whose interest is in educational technologies, emerging technologies, ICTs in education, digital education and digital pedagogies, which are some of the many terms that are used in our field. These are usually the editors I, Daniela, as managing editor, draw on, when we get submissions from authors on issues around the use of technology in learning and teaching. We receive many submissions, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, but the rejection rate is also increasing due to the majority of the papers failing to meet CriSTaL’s aim and scope. I invited some of my editorial board colleagues into a conversation to chat about what we would like to see in a paper tackling technologies in learning and teaching and which papers we feel do not suit CriSTaL’s aims and scope. The colleagues who joined me in this conversation were Dr Najma Agherdien, who is in Curriculum and Teaching at the University of Witwatersrand and Dr Nicola Pallitt, an educational technology specialist and senior lecturer at Rhodes University. We shared our reflections with other members of the board, such as Paul Prinsloo, Research Professor in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) in the College of Economic and Management Sciences at the University of South Africa, and Tutaleni Asino, Associate Professor in the Learning, Design and Technology Program at Oklahoma State University, and invited our critical friend Laura Czerniewicz, emeritus professor at the Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching at the University of Cape Town, to get an outside perspective as well.

Characteristics of Blacklisted Journals: Evidence from Chinese-language Academic Journals

Some institutions have issued blacklists of academic journals in China and use them as a basis for research evaluation. However, due to a lack of transparent formulation criteria, the characteristics of blacklisted journals remain unclear. Using blacklisted academic journals of the East China University of Political Science and Law, this study analyzed differences in characteristics between blacklisted and non-blacklisted journals via web surveys and statistical analyses. Statistically significant differences were detected for article review time, article processing charges (APCs), the number of editorial board members, and the journal impact factor. There was no significant difference in the number of editors. While there is scientific merit in creating and publishing a blacklist of academic journals, the list development process requires more rigorous evaluation and a public process of development.

Corporate editors in OpenStreetMap: Investigating co‐editing patterns

AbstractTraditionally, OpenStreetMap (OSM) has been recognized as a volunteered geographic information (VGI) project. In recent years, many corporations have enlisted teams of mappers to edit data on OSM. These teams of corporate editors (CEs) can quickly edit large swaths of data using a variety of methods. Consequently, there are new tensions over possible community bifurcations where editing and map stewardship disagreements may occur between the CEs and non‐CEs. To characterize CE and non‐CE editing interactions, we focused on six locations with varied types of corporate editing activity. We created six temporal (2015–2020) editing networks for each location, resulting in 36 total networks. We found a continual increase in the number of editors, with more growth in places with CEs. There was significant co‐editing between the two groups, with CEs showing more in‐group editing patterns, both in terms of number of edits and time between edits. We conclude that currently the CE and the non‐CE communities continue to co‐exist and co‐produce open geospatial data in apparent harmony, even though the size of the CE community and volume of contributions have grown significantly. Finally, we discuss implications for OSM as a VGI project in light of our corporate editing trends.

Chief editors in aquatic science and communication are more likely to oversee editorial boards from their own regions

AbstractWe examined editorial board composition for aquatic science (AS, n = 217) and communication (CM, n = 308) journals indexed in Scimago's database in 2017 to explore geographic diversity, relationship between location of editors and their board members, and geographical relationship between editors and scientific output. We found that most journals in both fields are published in Europe (AS 50%, CM 62.3%) yet editors in AS (n = 6,194) are based mostly in Europe (35.7%) whereas editors in CM (n = 13,687) are based mostly in Northern America (47.8%). Chief editors are inclined to choose board members from their own geographical region, and this is commonplace regardless of geographic region. Scientific output is greatest in Europe (28.6% AS, 30.4% CM) followed by Northern America. In general, the number of editors per region aligns with each region's scientific output, although we found editorial underrepresentation for East Asia (AS) and South Asia and Europe (CM). Per country, relationships are idiosyncratic for each field and nation with notable editorial surpluses (when paired to scientific output) in the United States and the United Kingdom (both fields) and editorial deficits in China and India (both fields).

A70 PREVALENCE OF SELF-PUBLICATION AMONG EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS OF GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNALS

Abstract Background Editorial self-publication refers to the practice wherein editors publish research in journals to which they serve as editorial board members. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has detailed recommendations against the practice of self-publication. There is evidence to suggest that editorial board membership may influence the decision to publish academic papers, which may contribute to publication bias. Despite this, there have been few attempts to characterize this practice in gastroenterology journals. Aims To determine the prevalence of original gastroenterology research articles published by editorial board members in their own journal. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of editorial board members publishing within their own journals. A list of the top 25 highest impact factor gastroenterology journals was created through InCites Journal reports. Journals were screened to determine eligibility based on whether their primary focus included gastroenterology research and whether archives with the names and affiliations of editorial board members were available. 10 journals were selected based on these criteria. For each journal, we extracted all original research articles published in 2019 using Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics ©). Articles classified as editorial material, meeting abstracts, reviews, and clinical practice guidelines were excluded. We cross-referenced the affiliations of all authors found in each publication with affiliations of editors disclosed on the journal website. For each editorial board member, we determined the number of publications within their own journal. Results We identified 844 editorial board members in the 10 journals included. Overall, 337 (39.9%) of the editors had a publication in their own journal, of which, 152 (18.0%) had more than one publication. Across all journals, the median number of editors with self-publication is 27 (IQR=20.3–49.8). The median number of editors with more than one self-publication is 16 (IQR=10.0–25.3). In total, 507 (60.1%) of all editors had no publications within their respective journals. Conclusions Despite recommendations against this practice, our results show a high number of research publications authored by editorial board members. These results demonstrate a potential risk for publication bias. However, this study was limited by the inability to investigate beyond the prevalence of self-publication. Furthermore, the explicit implications of our results remain unclear. Further research is required to evaluate factors such as disclosures and the review process associated with increased rates of self-publication as well as its impact on publication bias. Funding Agencies None

Who Owns the News?: A History of Copyright, by Will Slauter

Reviewed by: Who Owns the News?: A History of Copyright by Will Slauter Priti Joshi (bio) Who Owns the News?: A History of Copyright, by Will Slauter; pp. xii + 352. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2019, $90.00, $30.00 paper, £74.00, £23.99 paper. There is today a virtual cottage industry of books on copyright (or piracy, its colorful sibling). It is not hard to see why copyright occupies scholars: Google Books's ambition to digitize the world's libraries and the legal challenges it faced made copyright courtroom drama. Elsewhere, the prospect of the digitization of historical newspapers has been tantalizing, only to be tempered by the realization that rigid interpretations of copyright mean that most digitized archives of nineteenth-century British newspapers lie behind prohibitive paywalls. And book history's directive that we examine the networks that lead to the production of printed material has moved copyright from the purview of authors, publishers, bibliographers, archivists, or literary executors to scholars probing how the books in our hands end up here. Given the plethora of books on the subject, why another on copyright? Quite simply: because the bulk of attention to copyright has focused on books in general and literary or creative works in particular. Readers are familiar with Charles Dickens's agitation to secure international copyright protections for his writings, and Meredith McGill's [End Page 326] well-regarded work takes up the story of transatlantic copyright from a book history perspective. By contrast, less attention has been paid to copyright in news. Indeed, the very concept of copyrighting news seems risible. How can a person or organization copyright what is clearly free for the taking: facts or events in the public sphere that belong to nobody and everybody? This is the question Will Slauter's Who Owns the News?: A History of Copyright takes up in this riveting history of copyright for news and newspapers from the eighteenth century to the present in Britain and the United States. The story of copyright that Slauter relates—with a density of detail that admirably never bogs him down—is the journey of an industry that not only tolerated but in fact relied on copying to one that increasingly sought to protect the contents of its newspapers. As any reader of nineteenth-century Anglo-American newspapers knows, so-called scissors-and-paste journalism was practiced by virtually all newspapers, metropolitan or regional. Slauter illustrates that for roughly two hundred years, most printers and publishers did not seek copyright for their products; only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century did a number of editors and publishers agitate for copyright. Copying between newspapers, Slauter writes, went from "welcome publicity … to unwelcome appropriation" (122). Yet even as some news organizations sought copyright protections, their adversaries were other news organizations who challenged the desire for protection and exclusivity as contrary to an enterprise premised on the flow of information. Slauter deftly draws out the fundamental questions that lie at the center of the debates (which involved lawmakers and courts, as well as news organizations): what is news? Events or accounts of those events? Facts or a particular arrangement or expression of those facts? And behind these, a broader, philosophical question: can events or facts be owned? Are they not common property? Is news not a public good? Does the public not have rights of access to information, rights that supersede the interests of news organizations? Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, news organizations sought not rights over facts themselves but protections for their investments in gathering news. Because being first provided a market edge and more advertising dollars, the cost of gathering news—particularly with the telegraph—rose. As Slauter patiently details, publishers' desire for copyright grew as their business model altered from collaborative to competitive. Yet the story of changes to copyright in news, in Slauter's hands, cannot be told in a straight line, but rather as the accretion of arguments that, almost as soon as they were enshrined in a ruling, seemed to become obsolete. Thus, in 1918, in International News Service v. Associated Press, the United States Supreme Court ruled that newspapers could protect their reports from...

Discovering the Benefits of Group Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts

Problem: Traditionally, journal editors expect individuals to complete peer reviews of submitted manuscripts on their own. Recently, a number of editors of health sciences journals have begun to support, and even espouse, the practice of group peer review (GPR). With GPR, multiple individuals work together to complete the review with permission from the journal editor. Motivated by the idea that GPR could provide a meaningful service learning experience for participants in an interprofessional educational scholarship course, we conducted three such reviews and subsequently reflected on our experience and the lessons we learned. We frame our reflections using guiding principles from the domains of peer review, professional development, and educational scholarship. Intervention: The course director arranged for manuscripts to review with the editors of three health sciences journals. Each GPR occurred during a separate weekly session of the course. Each GPR was completed using a similar set of steps, which included (a) gaining familiarity with review criteria, (b) reading aloud and discussing the manuscript’s abstract as a class, (c) reading and critiquing assigned sections as individuals and then small groups, (d) building consensus and sharing notes, (e) having the course director synthesize notes into a single review for submission to the journal. Context: The course on educational scholarship involved 15 faculty representing faculty from the University of Utah’s School of Medicine, College of Nursing, College of Pharmacy, College of Health, and School of Dentistry. The course director led three GPR sessions mid-way through the yearlong course. Impact: Participants’ reflections indicate that GPR (a) conformed to principles of effective peer review; (b) resulted in a meaningful service learning experience within a formal professional development program, deepening understanding of core concepts of educational scholarship; and (c) represented an authentic example of engaging in educational scholarship (i.e., designing and evaluating an intervention while drawing upon and contributing to a body of shared understanding within a community of practice). Lessons Learned: Our principles-based approach to completing GPR within a professional development course on educational scholarship can serve as a model for others to follow. A rigorous, meaningful group review can occur in 1 hour using a combination of group and individual activities focused on matching review criteria to the submitted manuscript. As a result, we continue to include GPR in future offerings of this interprofessional course on educational scholarship, and we continue to study ways to optimize its value as a service learning experience.

The Quality and Readability of English Wikipedia Anatomy Articles.

Forty anatomy articles were sampled from English Wikipedia and assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, each article's edit history was analyzed by Wikipedia X-tools, references and media were counted manually, and two readability indices were used to evaluate article readability. This analysis revealed that each article was updated 8.3 ± 6.8 times per month, and referenced with 33.5 ± 24.3 sources, such as journal articles and textbooks. Each article contained on average 14.0 ± 7.6 media items. The readability indices including: (1) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Test and (2) Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula demonstrated that the articles had low readability and were more appropriate for college students and above. Qualitatively, the sampled articles were evaluated by experts using a modified DISCERN survey. According to the modified DISCERN, 13 articles (32.5%), 24 articles (60%), 3 articles (7.5%), were rated as "good," "moderate," and "poor," respectively. There were positive correlations between the DISCERN score and the number of edits (r = 0.537), number of editors (r = 0.560), and article length (r = 0.536). Strengths reported by the panel included completeness and coverage in 11 articles (27.5%), anatomical details in 10 articles (25%), and clinical details in 5 articles (12.5%). The panel also noted areas which could be improved, such as providing missing information in 28 articles (70%), inaccuracies in 10 articles (25%), and lack or poor use of images in 17 articles (42.5%). In conclusion, this study revealed that many Wikipedia anatomy articles were difficult to read. Each article's quality was dependent on edit frequency and article length. Learners and students should be cautious when using Wikipedia articles for anatomy education due to these limitations.

Kudos to Our Golden List of Reviewers

The Journal of Electron Devices Society (J-EDS) was founded in 2015 and since then is a very fast-growing journal. With over 400 papers submitted this year the number of editors has also expanded, but more so, the number of top-notch reviewers has naturally also increased substantially. One of the most important factors to create and maintain a journal of highest scientific quality is the diligent work of our esteemed reviewers. Not only do they deliver insightful scientific comments and corrections to the submitting authors that significantly improves the manuscripts, but they are also doing this in a very short time. The J-EDS is maintaining its fast submission to publishing time of slightly more than 11 weeks which is basically due to the fast response of our reviewers.

Effects of Contributor Experience on the Quality of Health-Related Wikipedia Articles.

BackgroundConsulting the Internet for health-related information is a common and widespread phenomenon, and Wikipedia is arguably one of the most important resources for health-related information. Therefore, it is relevant to identify factors that have an impact on the quality of health-related Wikipedia articles.ObjectiveIn our study we have hypothesized a positive effect of contributor experience on the quality of health-related Wikipedia articles.MethodsWe mined the edit history of all (as of February 2017) 18,805 articles that were listed in the categories on the portal health & fitness in the English language version of Wikipedia. We identified tags within the articles’ edit histories, which indicated potential issues with regard to the respective article’s quality or neutrality. Of all of the sampled articles, 99 (99/18,805, 0.53%) articles had at some point received at least one such tag. In our analysis we only considered those articles with a minimum of 10 edits (10,265 articles in total; 96 tagged articles, 0.94%). Additionally, to test our hypothesis, we constructed contributor profiles, where a profile consisted of all the articles edited by a contributor and the corresponding number of edits contributed. We did not differentiate between rollbacks and edits with novel content.ResultsNonparametric Mann-Whitney U-tests indicated a higher number of previously edited articles for editors of the nontagged articles (mean rank tagged 2348.23, mean rank nontagged 5159.29; U=9.25, P<.001). However, we did not find a significant difference for the contributors’ total number of edits (mean rank tagged 4872.85, mean rank nontagged 5135.48; U=0.87, P=.39). Using logistic regression analysis with the respective article’s number of edits and number of editors as covariates, only the number of edited articles yielded a significant effect on the article’s status as tagged versus nontagged (dummy-coded; Nagelkerke R2 for the full model=.17; B [SE B]=-0.001 [0.00]; Wald c2 [1]=19.70; P<.001), whereas we again found no significant effect for the mere number of edits (Nagelkerke R2 for the full model=.15; B [SE B]=0.000 [0.01]; Wald c2 [1]=0.01; P=.94).ConclusionsOur findings indicate an effect of contributor experience on the quality of health-related Wikipedia articles. However, only the number of previously edited articles was a predictor of the articles’ quality but not the mere volume of edits. More research is needed to disentangle the different aspects of contributor experience. We have discussed the implications of our findings with respect to ensuring the quality of health-related information in collaborative knowledge-building platforms.

Evaluating Strategic Approaches to Competitive Displacement: The Case of the U.S. Newspaper Industry

ABSTRACTThe concept of competitive displacement is central to theories of media evolution, and the threat that the Internet has posed to printed newspapers provides an ongoing case study on the topic. In particular, this situation offers an opportunity to examine the strategic efforts of print newspapers to prevent competitive displacement, as well as the effectiveness of these strategies. This article addresses these issues through an analysis of a unique data set, constructed from 20 years of newspaper circulation data, as well as data on local market characteristics, newspaper staffing and content variety, and state-level Internet penetration. Specifically, this article examines whether, and to what extent, these competitive strategies impacted local print newspaper circulation trends over this 20-year time period. This analysis focuses on the following strategic responses: (a) newspapers’ launching of online versions (a diversification strategy within the language of media evolution literature); and (b) newspapers’ efforts to cover a greater variety of subject areas, as measured by the number of editors and special editorial sections produced. (The authors characterize these as a “mimicking” strategy from media evolution literature, as this strategy essentially represents an effort to simulate the much greater content variety that readers can find online). This article examines the relationships between these circulation, strategic, and Internet penetration variables over a 20-year time period, while also taking into account relevant characteristics of local newspaper markets.

Exploring the dynamic contribution behavior of editors in wikis based on time series analysis

Purpose– Wiki is a new form of information production and organization, which has become one of the most important knowledge resources. In recent years, with the increase of users in wikis, “free rider problem” has been serious. In order to motivate editors to contribute more to a wiki system, it is important to fully understand their contribution behavior. The purpose of this paper is to explore the law of dynamic contribution behavior of editors in wikis.Design/methodology/approach– After developing a dynamic model of contribution behavior, the authors employed both the metrological and clustering methods to process the time series data. The experimental data were collected from Baidu Baike, a renowned Chinese wiki system similar to Wikipedia.Findings– There are four categories of editors: “testers,” “dropouts,” “delayers” and “stickers.” Testers, who contribute the least content and stop contributing rapidly after editing a few articles. After editing a large amount of content, dropouts stop contributing completely. Delayers are the editors who do not stop contributing during the observation time, but they may stop contributing in the near future. Stickers, who keep contributing and edit the most content, are the core editors. In addition, there are significant time-of-day and holiday effects on the number of editors’ contributions.Originality/value– By using the method of time series analysis, some new characteristics of editors and editor types were found. Compared with the former studies, this research also had a larger sample. Therefore, the results are more scientific and representative and can help managers to better optimize the wiki systems and formulate incentive strategies for editors.

Edited books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and collaboration analysis

Monographs and edited books are important in scholarly communication, especially in the Social Sciences and Humanities. An edited book is a collection of chapters written by different authors, gathered and harmonized by one or more editors. This article analyses the characteristics and collaboration patterns of edited books in the Social Sciences and Humanities as practiced in Flanders, the Northern Dutch speaking part of Belgium. It is based upon a comprehensive set of 753 peer reviewed edited books, of which at least one of the editors has a Flemish university affiliation, and the 12,913 chapters published therein. The article analyses various characteristics of edited books, i.e. the distribution over publishers, the places of publication, language use, the presence of introductions and conclusions, the occurrence of co-editorship and co-authorship, and the number of unique authors and book chapters per volume. Almost half of the edited books are published with about 5 % of the publishers. English is the dominant publication language for all places of publication. Writing a conclusion seems rather uncommon. All in all, about 90 % of all volumes are co-edited. Edited books in the Social Sciences have a more diverse authorship then edited books in the Humanities. In general, the more co-authorship for articles occurs within a discipline, the more co-authorship occurs for book chapters, whereas the number of editors is independent from this trend.

Editor's Note: EIC Farewell and New EIC Introduction

IT is my great pleasure to announce that Professor David Bader has appointed as the next Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (TPDS), who will start his term on 1 January 2014. David has a highly distinguished academic career. I am quite sure that he will provide excellent leadership and bring a great deal of technical and managerial experience to TPDS. Please join me in congratulating David on his appointment. His brief biography appears below. As my term as Editor-in-Chief ends, I thought you would be interested in knowing how we are doing in TPDS. I have listed a few statistics during my term 2010-2013. The number of submissions doubled from 681 in 2009 to 1,272 in 2012 (and 1,322 for a year ending 31 August 2013). The number of editors also doubled, from 32 to the current number 66. The acceptance rate is approximately 25 percent. The average time from submission to the fi rst decision has been reduced from 4 months to 80 days, while it took, on average, 90 days from submission to the fi nal decision. The average time from submission to online publication has been reduced from 43 weeks to 36 weeks (median is 33 weeks), and each accepted paper has received at least three reviews. As you can see, we are a highly competitive journal with a fast turnaround time similar to conferences. However, the added advantage of submitting to our journal is getting detailed reviews with a possibility of addressing the drawbacks in a paper through a major revision. This does not happen in conferences. I attended three times each IPDPS and ICDCS, two main related conferences, to meet our editors and authors and attend steering committee meetings. To control the backlog (currently about one year from acceptance date to the scheduled publication date), I pioneered the division of papers into the main fi le plus supplementary one, with the main fi le restricted to currently 10 pages (reduced from 14) and with supplementary fi le with the text of practically unlimited size. A by-product of this conversion was increased readability of the main fi le; to help it further, one of my editorials was devoted to presenting articles with the goal of minimizing the time for a reader to understand the essence of the contribution. I was extremely lucky and honored to be given this leadership opportunity, and would like to thank many people who have made my tenure as Editor-in-Chief both rewarding and enjoyable. I am especially grateful to the staff in the publication offi ce of the IEEE Computer Society, Pam Gimzo and Carrie James for their help in day-to-day operation of the paper review and publication process, and Hilda Carman, Erin Espriu, Joyce Arnold, and Alicia Stickley for their help in many administrative and production matters related to TPDS. I often rely on their expertise to resolve diffi cult issues related to the paper review process. Last, but not the least, I would like to thank all of our authors, reviewers, and associate editors for their support and hard work for TPDS during the past four years. About 5,000 reviews were made in 2012, to select papers for TPDS, and efforts by reviewers receive little visibility due to the anonymous nature of reports. The IEEE CS started, at the end of 2012, the Reviewer Appreciation Program, to recognize distinguished reviewers for each transaction (see the April 2013 editorial of TPDS). The key enabler for this program is the reviewer statistics, which is made available by S1M, following my few requests in 2010 and 2011. I used it in making decisions on new TPDS editors (as one of factors). The information fi nally became available (for all CS transactions) in a reasonable size (excel) and sortable fi le during 2012. The scope of TPDS has been recently updated to refl ect the latest and exiting developments in the area, such as many-core systems, network on chips, cloud computing, social networks, wireless networks, and cyber-physical systems. I hope you will continue to submit your best papers to TPDS and continue our effort to keep TPDS the fl agship journal in the fi eld of parallel and distributed systems.

Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines

We are writing as scientists and editors of leading peerreviewed journals that have published important contributions in the study of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). By signing this editorial, we affirm that regulatory decisions on EDCs should be made based on the best available science and expertise that involves, among others, reproductive biology, endocrinology, medicine, genetics, behavior, developmental biology, and toxicology. (For a complete list of Signatories and their Disclosures, see Supplemental Table 1 published on The Endocrine Society’s Journals Online website at http://end. endojournals.org.) Thousands of published studies have revealed the health effects of EDCs on wildlife and laboratory animals and, moreover, have shown associations of EDCs with effects in humans. Many of these studies have been reviewed recently by The Endocrine Society, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Health Organization (WHO), and other independent scientists. The conclusions presented in each of these documents are extraordinarily consistent: like hormones, EDCs are active at very low doses and can induce a range of adverse health outcomes, many of which are not examined in traditional toxicology assays. In sum, these reports point to the conclusion that EDCs pose a global health threat. A recent editorial signed by a number of editors of toxicology journals argues for the status quo in the regulation of EDCs, despite the large volume of evidence indicating that current regulations are ineffective in protecting human populations from these chemicals. As the UNEP/WHO report notes, the incidence of chronic disease is now greater than that of communicable disease; many of these diseases have an endocrine basis. Both experimental animal and epidemiology studies provide plausible causal links between EDCs and many of these diseases; for some, the data are sufficiently robust. The dismissive approach to endocrine disruption science put forth by Dietrich et al. is unfounded, as it is neither based on the fundamental principles of how the endocrine system works and how chemicals can interfere with its normal function, nor does it consider the consequences of that interference. Their letter also ignores a growing and rigorous body of literature on both endogenous hormonal and exogenous EDC effects.

2012 Special NSREC Issue of the IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science Comments by the Editors

The December 2012 special issue of the IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science contains selected papers from the 49th annual IEEE International Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects Conference (NSREC) held July 16���20, 2012, in Miami, Florida USA. 95 papers presented at the 2012 NSREC were submitted for consideration for this year���s special issue. Those papers that appear in this special issue were able to successfully complete the review process before the deadline for the December issue. A few additional papers may appear in subsequent issues of the TRANSACTIONS. This publication is the premier archival journal for research on space and nuclear radiation effects in materials, devices, circuits, and systems. This distinction is the direct result of the conscientious efforts of both the authors, who present and document their work, and the reviewers, who selflessly volunteer their time and talent to help review the manuscripts. Each paper in this journal has been reviewed by experts selected by the editors for their expertise and knowledge of the particular subject areas. The peer review process for a typical technical journal generally takes six months to one year to complete. To publish this special issue of the IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science (in December), the review process, from initial submission to final form, must be completed in about 10 weeks. Because of the short schedule, both the authors and reviewers are required to respond very quickly. The reviewers listed on the following pages contributed vitally to this quick-turn review process.We would like to express our sincere appreciation to each of them for accepting this difficult, but critical role in the process. To provide consistent reviews of papers throughout the year, the IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science relies on a year-round editorial board that manages reviews for submissions throughout the year to the TRANSACTIONS in the area of radiation effects. The review process is managed by a Senior Editor and six Associate Editors who are technically knowledgeable in one or more specializations and are experienced in the publication process. This editorial process works very well. With twice the number of editors as previously used for overseeing the review process, each editor is able to devote more time to individual papers.

The practical relevance of management accounting research and the role of qualitative methods therein

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present and analyze the opinions of a number of editors of accounting journals on the value they attach to the practical relevance of management accounting research and the potential role of qualitative methods in conducting this type of research.Design/methodology/approach – This paper collects together commentaries from these journal editors about the theme indicated above, together with an overview and reflections by the editors of this special issue.Findings – The journal editors do not regard a lack of practical relevance in management accounting research as a key concern. Most of them see practice‐relevance and theoretical advancement as complementary, while the latter is given by far the most weight as the core of academic work. Furthermore, most journal editors have no clear preference for either qualitative or quantitative research in relation to the practical relevance issue. Neither do they seem to have strong opinions about the specific benefits of qua...

Bachelors and bunnies: the sexual politics of Playboy

For a lot of people, thoughts about the sexual politics of Playboy run along the lines of what Gloria Steinem reportedly once told Hugh Hefner: 'A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.' Hefner's magazine celebrates men as swinging bachelors and women as objects of desire; ergo, it's sexist. Not so fast, says Carrie Pitzulo. With Bachelors and Bunnies, she delves into the history of the magazine to reveal its surprisingly strong record of support for women's rights and the modernization of sexual and gender roles. Taking readers behind the scenes of Playboy's heyday, Pitzulo shows how Hefner's own complicated but thoughtful perspective on modern manhood, sexual liberation, and feminism played into debates-both in the editorial offices and on the magazine's pages-about how Playboy's trademark girl next door appeal could accommodate, acknowledge, and even honor the changing roles and new aspirations of women in postwar America. Revealing interviews with Hugh Hefner, his daughter (and later Playboy CEO) Christie Hefner, and a number of editors and even Playmates show that even as the magazine continued to present a romanticized notion of gender difference, it again and again demonstrated a commitment to equality and expanded opportunities for women. Offering a surprising new take on a twentieth-century icon, Bachelors and Bunnies goes beyond the smoking jacket and the centerfold to uncover an unlikely ally for the feminist cause.

A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market

This paper provides a dynamic analysis of the market for academic publications. Given imperfect information about journals’editorial line, authors can sometimes target a wrong journal; in turn, the editor will desk-reject their paper. An equilibrium is de ned as a situation where both editors and authors implement their optimal publication strategies, given the matching technology and the prevailing surplus sharing rule. The model can be solved for the equilibrium submission fee, desk rejection rate and ratio between the number of editors and the number of authors.