Abstract The quality of peer review reports is essential to the integrity and effectiveness of scholarly communication. Yet review reports are often criticized for being vague, biased, or unconstructive, which limits their usefulness for both authors and editors. Existing frameworks for assessing review quality remain fragmented and are rarely validated through expert consensus. This study aims to define and validate a comprehensive set of quality dimensions for peer review reports, encompassing comments addressed to both authors and editors. We employed a two-phase design combining a thematic analysis of the literature with a Delphi study involving 43 scientific editors, primarily from journals in Computer Science and Engineering. Consensus was reached after two Delphi rounds, resulting in 62 validated statements organized into eight quality dimensions: Helpfulness, Specificity, Fairness, Thoroughness, Courteousness, Readability, Consistency, and Relevance. These findings provide an empirically grounded framework to inform the development of clearer standards for peer review practice.

The emergence of in-store microfulfillment centers (ISMFCs) is transforming omnichannel retailing by facilitating the rapid fulfillment of orders placed online. Effective management, particularly of the complex decisions related to the dynamic selection of products to place in the ISMFC and the determination of inventory levels of each product selected therein, can go a long way in maximizing the benefits of ISMFCs. In this paper, we first formulate the ISMFC inventory decision problem as a Markov Decision Process. We then leverage intuition from this representation and introduce a threshold policy based on the optimal multiperiod marginal profit-to-volume ratio to efficiently manage stochastic demand and make forward-looking decisions. We establish the quality of the proposed approach using two sets of computational experiments. Because key benchmark approaches do not scale well, we restrict the first set of experiments to simulated data involving three products. In the second set of experiments—based on a retail data set with 3,498 products—we benchmark the threshold policy against scalable methods, employing model parameters obtained partly from data estimation and partly from observed data values. The results from these experiments demonstrate that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art benchmarks, identifying near-optimal solutions in a few seconds. The scalability and effectiveness of the threshold policy underscores its practical viability and highlights the substantial economic gains achievable in managing ISMFC operations. History: Accepted by Ram Ramesh, Area Editor for Data Science and Machine Learning. Funding: Q. Jia was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72394373 and 72231004]. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2024.0710 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2024.0710 ). The complete IJOC Software and Data Repository is available at https://informsjoc.github.io/ .

Abstract Background Accurate descriptions of human genomic variants are crucial for gene-disease association, discovery, and clinical diagnosis. Although standardized genomic nomenclature, expertly curated and promulgated by the Human Genome Variation Society and the International Standing Committee on Human Cytogenomic Nomenclature, is strongly encouraged in scientific publications, many journals lack systematic mechanisms to ensure compliance with these nomenclature standards. Methods Genetics in Medicine developed detailed author instructions for gene/variant nomenclature and a protocol for scientific editorial teams, which promote adherence to gene/variant nomenclature standards in published works. We present results from a systematic review of manuscripts submitted over a 2-year period, applying a standardized rubric and severity scoring system based on this protocol. In addition, we assessed how erroneous variant nomenclature published in 4 different manuscripts affects findability using 3 open-source tools. Results Of submitted manuscripts, 100% demonstrated noncompliance with current nomenclature standards. Furthermore, every manuscript contained one or more errors expected to significantly reduce the probability of variant findability during routine database searches and/or variant curation efforts. Findability was complicated by differences inherent to each database or search engine’s structure, resulting in an additional layer of variability in the literature returns. Conclusions We conclude that strict adherence to gene/variant nomenclature standards is critical in published works, and that rigorous author instructions are insufficient to ensure adherence to nomenclature standards. In addition, we share strategies for the implementation of technical, nomenclature-focused editing within a journal’s editorial framework to promote improved genomic variant findability.

The emergence of artificial intelligence tools in scientific production is generating significant challenges for scientific integrity and editorial governance, prompting journals and publishers to develop normative guidelines for their use. This study analyzes the current state of guideline implementation among Latin American journals indexed in Scopus and classified according to the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR). A quantitative approach was adopted, complemented by a descriptive documentary analysis based on a detailed review of the websites of 1119 journals from 17 Latin American countries. The collected data were systematized using Excel and analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. The results indicate that only 27.2% of journals have explicit guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence, with a predominantly regulatory rather than punitive orientation that prioritizes technical support while restricting practices that compromise human intellectual control. Additionally, statistically significant differences were identified according to quality indicators, showing that journals with higher quality levels are more likely to have such guidelines. Overall, the findings reveal an incipient and heterogeneous regulatory development, underscoring the need to strengthen and harmonize editorial guidelines on artificial intelligence in order to safeguard transparency, clarify the responsibilities of the actors involved in the production and publication process, and protect the integrity of scientific communication.

Meet the author: Junyue Cao.

I do not think that word means what you think it means: Best available science edition

It launched in February 20, 2014 with volume 1 and number 1. It is to be published biannually. Supplement issues may be published. Total or a part of the articles in this journal are abstracted in ScienceCentral, Directory of Open Access Journal, Google Scholar, and CrossRef. Circulation number of print copies is 500 per issue. Full text is freely available from: http://www.escienceediting.org or http://e-se.org. It is the member journal of Council of Science Editors, the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, and European Association of Science Editors. There is no page charge or article processing charge of author side. This journal is supported by the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies, the Government of the Republic of Korea (2013-2014).

Virtual games have become a prominent cultural, social, and economic phenomenon, captivating millions of players globally, which stimulates intelligent services, like recommendations, with strong real evidence of enabling platforms to optimize operational management, enhance user satisfaction, and drive revenue growth. Even though traditional recommender systems that rely on modeling user preferences have achieved great success in commerce, they commonly model users’ purchase behavior with a unified preference representation, which has limitations for capturing users’ diverse intrinsic purchase motivations. In this paper, we therefore conduct a study that focuses on designing a recommender system for virtual games. We argue that purchases in virtual games are mainly motivated by both rational needs and emotional needs, with the former reflecting a player’s practical need to improve their ability for a specific game campaign (e.g., attack, defense) and the latter being more of a psychological preference (e.g., color, style). We design a framework called RERec that discriminately learns representations of the two types of motivations via distinct architectures and features a better-supervised optimization that is oriented toward the entire process rather than specific items. For its rational needs module, RERec employs a unique time-gating mechanism to perceive the temporal impacts of campaigns on players’ volatile rational needs. A heterogeneous item-taxonomy graph is also used as prior knowledge of similarity among items to accelerate convergence. On the other hand, because a player’s emotional preferences are relatively stable over a short period, RERec employs a hierarchical attention mechanism to capture the comprehensiveness and focus of the player’s emotional needs. RERec also incorporates player attributes to enhance the personalized emotional need representations. Extensive experiments and analyses on large-scale real-world data sets from both a well-known game company and the public benchmarks fully demonstrate RERec’s superiority in specific respects as well as its effectiveness. History: Accepted by Ram Ramesh, Area Editor for Data Science & Machine Learning. Funding: This study was partially funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72101176 and 72471165] and Emerging Frontiers Cultivation Program of Tianjin University Interdisciplinary Center. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2025.1179 . The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2025.1179 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2025.1179 ). The complete IJOC Software and Data Repository is available at https://informsjoc.github.io/ .

Introduction. Open access to scholarly knowledge is a core element of contemporary scholarly publishing policy and is actively promoted at both international and national levels. At the same time, empirical research shows that principled support for open access is not always accompanied by a uniform interpretation or consistent institutional implementation. In this context, the position of journal editors is of particular interest, as they are the actors who directly shape editorial policy and the dissemination practices of scholarly publications. Purpose. To identify which definitions and key features of open access dominate in the perceptions of editors of Russian scholarly journals, and how these perceptions are reflected in stated editorial policies and in journals’ actual practices. Materials and Methods. The study draws on data from an online survey of editors of Russian scholarly journals (N = 138) representing a range of subject areas and serving as editors-in-chief, deputy editors, managing editors, and scientific editors. The questionnaire included closed- and open-ended items designed to elicit normative orientations and practices related to open access. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Results. According to the survey (N = 138), most respondents declare support for open access, yet their understanding of it is heterogeneous: responses to the question about the definition of open access were distributed almost evenly between interpreting open access as free access to the full text and understanding it as a regime that entails additional reuse rights/licensing. At the level of implementation, the study identifies a persistent gap between the declared access model and its institutional articulation: although 89.9% of editorial teams characterize their content dissemination as immediate open access, 18.8% of journals provide no information about open access on their websites. Conceptual ambiguity is also evident in the classification of open access models: about one third of respondents do not distinguish the typology, which correlates with fragmented licensing and contractual practices and limited digital infrastructure. Publication fees are not the dominant mechanism and are generally viewed critically by editors. Conclusion. The findings suggest that within the Russian editorial community, open access functions primarily as a normative orientation rather than as a fully institutionalized journal model. The study highlights the need to shift discussions of open access from declarative support toward the operationalization of legal, infrastructural, and organizational mechanisms that ensure the sustainability and reproducibility of open scholarly dissemination practices.

Abstract: This study aims to paint a portrait of scientific editorial management in Brazil between 2019 and 2024, focusing on manuscript acceptance and rejection patterns. It is a descriptive and quantitative documentary research, based on the analysis of administrative records from a national scientific journal. Indicators such as received, accepted, rejected, and published submissions were examined, including rejections at the initial screening and after peer review. The results showed a significant drop in 2020, attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, and a significant recovery in 2023, accompanied by an increase in early rejections. It is concluded that actions aimed at improving the quality of submissions, strengthening the peer review board, and increasing the journal's visibility are necessary.

It launched in February 20, 2014 with volume 1 and number 1. It is to be published biannually. Supplement issues may be published. Total or a part of the articles in this journal are abstracted in ScienceCentral, Directory of Open Access Journal, Google Scholar, and CrossRef. Circulation number of print copies is 500 per issue. Full text is freely available from: http://www.escienceediting.org or http://e-se.org. It is the member journal of Council of Science Editors, the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, and European Association of Science Editors. There is no page charge or article processing charge of author side. This journal is supported by the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies, the Government of the Republic of Korea (2013-2014).

When I took up my position as Executive Editor of topiCS five years ago, I did so with a strong desire to broaden the scope of cognitive science beyond what had become its dominating core disciplines (Bender, 2019, 2021)—and especially to reconnect it with anthropology, the discipline that, in Margaret Boden's (2006) words, went “missing” (and see Bender, Hutchins, & Medin, 2010; Núñez et al., 2019). While this desire resonates with what has been expressed in writing (e.g., Beller, Bender, & Medin, 2012; Cooper, 2019; Gentner, 2019; Goel, 2019; Levinson, 2012), many scholars in non-mainstream disciplines still awaited clearer signs of welcome (cf. the contributions to the topic “Should Anthropology Be Part of Cognitive Science?” coedited by Sieghard Beller & Doug Medin in 2012 in topiCS, and the voices cited in Goel, 2019). One small but visible step in this direction was taken when we launched the Disciplinary Diversity & Integration Award in Cognitive Science—a two-tier conference prize recognizing and highlighting exciting cognitive research in disciplines that have been traditionally under-represented at our annual conferences and in our journals (Bender, 2021). When an organized symposium is awarded the prize, it receives the second part of the prize once it is also submitted to topiCS and accepted for publication. Since its announcement in 2021, this prize has been awarded to eight teams, half of which accepted the invitation to turn their symposium into a proposal to topiCS. The first one of those has now been finalized with the topic in this issue. What makes me particularly excited about this specific topic is that it happens to be one that does bridge anthropology and cognitive science—edited by linguistic anthropologist Stephen Chrisomalis (Wayne State University, US) and cognitive scientist Helena Miton (Stanford Graduate School of Business, US). The two had organized their symposium on The Deep History of Information Technologies: A Cognitive Perspective at CogSci 2021 and submitted their proposal two years later. Apparently, this is the time needed to convince scholars from “minority disciplines” to place their faith in a cognitive science editorial board and cognitive science audience… Once accepted and put into action, however, both the editors of the topic and the authors of the contributions to it were so dedicated that they delivered one of the fastest turnaround times for a topic to date. The degree of diversity covered by the completed topic is breath-taking, including the range of domains, from units of language or tools for time-keeping and math to medicinal knowledge; cognitive functions, such as remembering and transmission of information, computing, and organizing; cultural instances spanning all around the globe from Aboriginal Australia to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, and back in time to medieval England, the Visigoths, Ancient Rome, and even the Upper Palaeolithic; and, last but not least, the contributing disciplines, which straddle perspectives and approaches from anthropology, archaeology, biology, classics, history, linguistics, philology, philosophy, and psychology, as well as cognitive science ‘proper’. Such diversity in all possible facets renders this topic a truly worthy recipient of the Disciplinary Diversity & Integration Award. Each of the 15 contributions is not only a rich source of information and insights on particular cognitive technologies but also a powerful argument for why cognitive science, the study of the mind, would benefit from a stronger historical perspective on those cognitive technologies that make it perform better. In their introduction to the topic (Chrisomalis & Miton, this issue), the editors skillfully integrate the different parts, set them in a historical perspective, and highlight distinct, yet interconnected themes. In so doing, they provide a scholarly overview of why their topic is both scientifically intriguing, in its own right, and a promising nexus for “future interdisciplinary cognitive scholarship.” topiCS encourages letters and commentaries on all topics, as well as proposals for new topics. Letters are not longer than two published pages (ca. 400–1000 words). Commentaries (between 1000 and 2000 words) are often solicited by Topic Editors prior to the publication of their topic, but they may also be considered after publication. Letters and commentaries typically come without abstract and with few references, if any. The Executive Editor and the Senior Editorial Board (SEB) are constantly searching for new and exciting topics for topiCS. Feel free to open communications with a short note to the Executive Editor ([email protected]) or a member of the SEB (for a list, see the publisher's homepage for topiCS: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1756-8765/homepage/EditorialBoard.html).

This January 2026 issue of Family Court Review marks the last for which Marsha Kline Pruett serves as Social Science Editor. Marsha has worked conscientiously and enthusiastically in this role since her debut in the April 2019 issue. Those of us who have worked closely with Marsha during that time want to express to her and to our readers how very much she has meant to us and to the ongoing success of the journal. As Marsha shared in her “Introduction” in the January 2019 issue, “[m]y own interests focus on the nexus between research and intervention, research and policy, and practice and policy. I believe innovation comes from linking disparate disciplines and ideas to move beyond silos. This, of course, is the basis on which the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts was founded more than 55 years ago. Such integration results in new strategies for improving the lives of children and families.” Indeed, Marsha embodies this spirit, possessing advanced degrees in psychology and legal studies and serving as a social work faculty member and associate dean. Marsha was keenly aware of FCR's symbiotic relationship to AFCC, having been an AFCC member since the 1990s, a contributing author to FCR, an FCR Editorial Board member, a member of AFCC's Board of Directors, and AFCC President in 2016–2017. In these roles, she brought innovative ideas and contributions to AFCC and FCR. Thus, she brought to her role as Social Science Editor a remarkable insight into the interests and needs of both AFCC's members and FCR's readership at large. Moving ahead on topics such as children resisting/refusing to spend time with a parent, shared parenting, innovative dispute resolution strategies, and global sharing of interventions and research will require tearing down our silos and building bridges that extend over churning waters and slippery paths. I invite you to submit papers that are not just about successful studies or programs but about how the work is conceptualized when it feels stuck and fraught. What helps? What does not help? What resources were drawn upon? How do communities work together? Many researchers, scholars, and practitioners heeded Marsha's call, and many of those articles became part of a special issue on several of the very topics Marsha identified. In her role as Social Science Editor, Marsha was responsible for assigning at least two peer reviewers for all social science-based articles and for rendering a publication decision for the articles based upon the reviewers' recommendations. For Marsha, this often also entailed her own careful review of the manuscripts and the addition of her highly valuable and informed insights as a source of strong feedback to the authors. On the personal side, Marsha's wittiness, sense of humor, and kindness, in addition to her esteemed professional background, made it a delight to collaborate with her. Each spring, Marsha welcomed the incoming Hofstra law student staff of FCR with compassion and encouragement. She worked closely with many special issue guest editors, helping to ensure the highest quality special issue publications. Throughout her tenure, she was a delightful and valued partner of the editorial staff, including the Editor in Chief and the Hofstra Faculty Administrative Editor. Marsha tells us she is not leaving completely. She plans to continue to peer review FCR submissions and to serve as an Ex-Officio Member of the FCR Editorial Board. For all that she has done and promises to continue to do, we are extremely grateful. On behalf of FCR, AFCC, and all who have benefited from her wisdom, we extend our deepest gratitude to Marsha for her exemplary service, enduring friendship, and lasting contributions to the journal, the field, and the families and children we serve.

As the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge, journal editors, reviewers, and study section members hold a profound responsibility for shaping what is valued and disseminated in our field. Achieving equity in pain science requires a critical reevaluation of how rigor is defined and applied, as well as a commitment to dismantling the biases embedded in academic publishing and peer review. The priorities described in this joint call to action paper outline a path toward a more inclusive and representative scientific record. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Supervised clustering has emerged to be a popular topic for studying heterogeneous effects in diverse areas such as risk management and medical science. In this paper, we introduce a general heterogeneity tracking model that accommodates various common paradigms for supervised clustering. Building on this new model, we propose a novel method called truncated fusion learning (TRUE) for conducting clustering, which involves a nonconvex fusion penalized optimization. For implementation, we innovate a thresholded fusion stagewise algorithm that allows for quickly tracing out the entire solution paths of TRUE. Under mild regularity conditions, we provide comprehensive theoretical guarantees including the convergence of the proposed algorithm, as well as consistency in parameter estimation, cluster recovery, and model selection. The superior performance of our method is demonstrated by several simulation examples and applications to two real data sets. History: Accepted by Ram Ramesh, Area Editor for Data Science and Machine Learning. Funding: This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China [Grant 2022YFA1008000], the Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72571258, 72301258, 11671374, 12101584, 71731010, 71921001, and 72071187], and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [Grants WK2040000114, WK2040250125, WK3470000017, and WK2040000047] is gratefully acknowledged. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2024.0840 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2024.0840 ). The complete IJOC Software and Data Repository is available at https://informsjoc.github.io/ .

Review of the Monograph by O. Kudlai: "The Government of the Ukrainian People's Republic: Institutional Establishment and Main Activities (1917–1918)" - Scientific Editor: V. Verstiuk. National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Institute of History of Ukraine. Kyiv: Institute of History of Ukraine, 2025. 580 p.

The authors of the article propose a view of the modern educational and scientific environment through the prism of six concepts that actively influence scientific methodology, the worldview of scholars, their technological capabilities, and the situation that shapes qualitatively new realities. These include the impact of wartime (the national-liberation concept), information technologies of networks in education (the reformation concept), network algorithms in the ethics of science and education (the ethical concept), the introduction of AI technologies in education and science (the intellectual concept), the dynamic communication environment that contributes to unique opportunities for processing scientific information (the informational-scientific concept), and the scholar’s ability to perceive surrounding changes – in the specific functioning/interpretation of strategic thinking, a kind of “coherent fusion” of logic, intuition, and the ability to foresee the near future of the scientific space (the prospective concept). The authors draw attention to the peculiarities of using information sources under wartime conditions, to the authority of information flows in the educational and scientific dimensions, and attempt to observe the dynamic processes of creating a new paradigm of knowledge and skills, the implementation of methods that open up not yet fully comprehended opportunities. The use of AI tools adds to educational and scientific communication a very powerful and not yet fully predictable new participant, capable of quickly mastering entire arrays of information and performing instant analysis of vast amounts of data (compared to human capabilities), able to act as an active interlocutor, a participant in scientific discussion, a generator and editor of scientific ideas. Certain concerns widespread in the scientific community are noted in the context of AI involvement and ethical considerations. The paradigm and methodological shift lead to changes in worldview. In conclusion, an assumption is made regarding the new features of the scientific worldview and educational opportunities in the dynamic conditions of a networked society. Keywords: network society, science studies, philological science, ethics of science, academic integrity, educational and scientific concepts, implementation of AI tools.

I am thrilled to join Family Court Review (FCR) as the new Social Science Editor. I am honored and profoundly privileged to take on this prestigious role within the family law community. I approach this opportunity with an earnest appreciation for those who have contributed to the journal's history over the past sixty-plus years. I have tremendous respect for FCR's longstanding tradition of connecting scholarship, law, and mental health practice to support and serve children and families engaged in family law matters. The articles published in FCR have been instrumental to my own learning journey over the past two decades. My access to FCR through my AFCC membership has been one of the most significant benefits. I follow in the footsteps of giants in the field and an exceptional group of Social Science Editors whose collective wisdom has helped shape FCR into a leading voice in family law. From the early days of collaboration between scholars and jurists to the most recent tenure of Dr. Marsha Kline Pruett, each editor has brought unique insights and energy. Dr. Kline Pruett's leadership, intellectual curiosity, and inclusive approach have enhanced the journal's influence and reputation. Under her guidance as Social Science Editor, FCR has strengthened its interdisciplinary perspective, expanded its global reach, and remained unwavering in addressing the most challenging and divisive issues facing family law practitioners. It is an honor to carry on this legacy and continue the conversations she so skillfully fostered. FCR has always been distinguished by its dedication to embracing complexity rather than sidestepping it. The journal has never aimed to provide simple answers. Instead, it serves as a platform for rigorous investigation, critical reflection, and sincere collaborative discussions about the changing intersections of family, law, and society. In my work, situated at the intersection of social science research, social work, and family law, I have observed that real progress depends on collaboration across boundaries. It involves curiosity about what exists beyond one's own discipline. My editorial philosophy is guided by four key principles: rigor, relevance, inclusion, and integrity. While only a small portion of FCR articles are empirical studies, I believe that all manuscripts, whether conceptual, policy-oriented, or practice-focused, must demonstrate clarity, coherence, and grounding in the best available evidence, practice wisdom, and child-centred approaches. I am dedicated to increasing the diversity of voices and perspectives in FCR by mentoring emerging scholars, promoting interdisciplinary and international contributions, and ensuring that both conceptual and practice-oriented work meet the same standards of rigor and integrity as empirical research. My approach also emphasizes a purposeful approach that prioritizes social science evidence, identifies and prevents advocacy bias, and ensures that scholarship remains connected to the realities of the children and families we serve. As we look ahead, the challenges facing our field continue to expand in scope and complexity, including confronting and reducing polarization, supporting the authentic inclusion of children's voices, prioritizing safety-first approaches for children and families, screening and addressing family violence, enhancing responses in cases of parent–child contact problems, and increasing artificial intelligence literacy and the ethical use of technology. These are not isolated issues. They are interconnected, global, and urgent. In my role, I will also help the Editor-in-Chief identify and develop special problems, such as trauma-informed courts, international perspectives on co-parenting, and evaluations of court-involved programs. I am eager to work with our esteemed Editor-in-Chief, Barbara Babb, the AFCC leadership, Hofstra's Center for Children, Families, and the Law, and the exceptional student editorial team to maintain efficient workflows and ensure timely, high-quality publication. FCR is part of the larger AFCC community. I am most thankful for the incredible leadership of our Executive Director, Bryan Altman, and the Board of Directors. I am most appreciative of your accepting my application and providing me with this remarkable opportunity. To the community of readers, contributors, reviewers, AFCC members and practitioners in the field who support FCR, thank you for your dedication to advancing meaningful dialogue and your commitment to evidence-informed family law practice. Together, we uphold a tradition of rigorous, respectful, and innovative scholarship. I look forward to continuing this journey with you. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed. Michael A. Saini is a Full Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and also holds a cross-appointment as an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. He is the endowed Factor-Inwentash Chair in Law and Social Work and serves as Co-Director of the J.D./M.S.W. program. He is the past president of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). In 2019, he received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award from AFCC, sponsored by the Oregon Family Institute. He is also a two-time recipient of the Meyer Elkin Essay Award from the Family Court Review in 2018 and 2024.

The article examines the scientific activities of Dmytro Hordieiev, a student of the Byzantine scholar Fedir Shmit. Since 1925, he had lived in Tiflis (the then name of the capital of Georgia, now Tbilisi) and studied medieval Georgian art as part of the artistic culture of a country belonging to the Byzantine cultural sphere. After F. Shmit left Kharkiv for Kyiv in 1921 and then for Leningrad in 1925, D. Hordieiev, remaining in Tiflis, continued to collaborate with other students of the aforementioned outstanding scholar at Kharkiv University – among them O. Berladina, O. Nikolska, T. Ivanovska, and others who stayed in Kharkiv. In July 1926, D. Hordieiev was officially appointed head of the Kharkiv subsection of Oriental Studies within the Department of Art History of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kyiv. Soon, V. Zummer, a specialist in Azerbaijani art, joined the Kharkiv group after moving from Kyiv. Relying on archival documents – primarily correspondence between D. Hordieiev and O. Berladina – the author of this article significantly expands the available information about Hordieiev’s publications, reports, and communications, as well as about the scholarly work of the members of his subsection. For the first time, Hordieiev’s activities as a scientific and literary editor, as well as his culture of professional communication with colleagues, are revealed. The study opens perspectives for further research.

The growth of scientific and technological progress has led to the emergence of a new era in the development of urban systems, aimed at improving the livelihoods of the urban population itself and the formation of sustainable development of the subject. The Smart City concept and sustainable development of cities are closely interrelated. However, a restrictive aspect for the effective implementation of the project in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is the underestimation of the environmental component and insufficient allocation of funds to finance the digital environmental safety unit. “Digital inequality” is observed on the territory of the designated subjects of the Russian Federation, including the territory of the Volgograd region. The Volgograd Region has a regional Smart City project, and a passport has been developed for the introduction of digital technologies into the urban environment. Currently, there are noticeable results in such areas as housing and communal services, urban transport, and social development. The authors conducted research aimed at the design of an integration model for the implementation of environmental indicators in the Smart City digital system and identified obstacles to the effective implementation of environmental parameters. Authors’ contribution. A.A. Matveeva – developing a model for optimizing the Smart City concept in terms of its environmental component, defined methodological recommendations for the functioning of the Smart City concept in relation to environmental parameters using the example of the Volgograd region, and performed general scientific editing of the text of the article, generalization of research results, and formulation of conclusions; E.A. Zaliznyak – conducted detailed research on the assessment of smart city indexes and passports of the subjects of the Russian Federation Smart City, including the territory of Southern Russia, writing the text of the article and formatting it according to the requirements of the journal.