Standard Peer Review Research Articles

Preface to the special issue on “Mechanics of Fibre-Reinforced Materials: Theory and Applications, Part II”

This special edition of the Journal of Engineering Mathematics (J Eng Math) is a continuation of the ongoing effort to promote quality research in the subject of theMechanics of Fibre-reinforcedMaterials (FRMs) on an international scale. This effort started with a special issue of this journal on the subject, published in 2010 and edited by two of the present co-guest editors [1], and continued more recently with the organization of the 551st Colloquium of the European Mechanics Society (Euromech 551, 2–5 September, 2013, University of Nottingham), which was co-chaired by all three editors of the present volume. The title of the Euromech Colloquium 551 was identical to that of [1]. The present volume comprises nineteen research papers that were presented in the Colloquium, and an additional paper (Paetsch and Dorfmann) invited by virtue of the contribution that one of its co-authors had published previously in [1]. All twenty papers were submitted to J Eng Math after the end of the Euromech 551 and passed successfully through the standard peer review process of this journal. The present special issue is thus a natural continuation of the earlier edition [1]. The preface of [1] outlined briefly the history of the nonlinear theory of FRMs and acknowledged the profound role that a group of Nottingham University mathematicians, led for long time by A. J. M. Spencer, played in its development. It described qualitatively each of the seven publications contained in [1] and highlighted research trends which were expected to influence the subject of the Mechanics of Fibre-reinforced Materials in the long term. Those trends remain highly relevant and need not be repeated in the present volume, the size of which is almost three times the size of its predecessor. Such a successful continuation of [1] makes it impractical to give a detailed description of the twenty high-quality papers contained in the present issue, but some general observations and research trends are now highlighted.

Introduction to the Special Issue of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Entitled: “Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical Behavior of Soils and Energy Geostructures”

This special issue of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering highlights state-of-the-art research on the thermo-hydro-mechanical behavior of soils, rocks and energy geostructures. Although the impetus of the special issue was to collect journal papers on subjects related to an NSF-funded international workshop on ‘‘Thermally Active Geotechnical Systems for Near Surface Geothermal Energy’’ held in March 2013 at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne in Switzerland, the special issue expanded to collect a broader set of papers from the field of Energy Geotechnics that involve thermal soil behavior. A total of 15 journal papers were selected to be published as part of the special issue, and went through the standard peer review process for the journal. Two papers focused on the thermal properties of unsaturated soils. Likos (2014) presented a pore-scale model for predicting the thermal conductivity of unsaturated sands using basic soil properties. Dong et al. (2014) presented an evaluation of various approaches to predict the thermal conductivity of unsaturated soils, and compared them with experimental data for sand, silt and clay. One paper was presented on the thermal volume change of unsaturated soils, and the impact of these volume changes on the response of a heated shallow foundation (Houston et al. 2014). Three papers were published on different aspects of geothermal heat exchangers in conventional applications (boreholes and horizontal trenches). Wu et al. (2014) studied relationships between the thermal conductivity dryout curve for unsaturated soils and the performance of geothermal heat exchangers in horizontal trenches, Ozudogru et al. (2014a) compared the performance of different numerical simulations to evaluate the response of geothermal heat exchangers in vertical boreholes, and Walker et al. (2014) studied the impact of different stratigraphic units on the overall thermal response of a geothermal heat exchanger in a vertical borehole. Seven papers were focused on the thermal and thermo-mechanical response of energy piles. Loveridge et al. (2014) analyzed the response of different types of auger cast piles that were converted into energy piles. Yu et al. (2015) used numerical modeling to evaluate the thermal conductivity of different soil layers from the analysis of a thermal response test on an energy pile. Kramer et al. (2014) evaluated the thermal response of an energy pile in sand constructed within a laboratory container. Murphy and McCartney (2014) studied the J. S. McCartney (&) Department of Structural Engineering, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085, USA e-mail: mccartney@ucsd.edu

Transition in JPR leadership: a note from the new Editor-in-Chief

As of 1st January 2015, I have taken on the responsibility of Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Population Research (JPR). I consider it an honour and a privilege to serve this most important demographic journal. It also gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the first edition of JPR for which I have acted as editor. I am thankful to the outgoing Editor-in-Chief, Edith Gray, who has been in the role for 8 years and has done an outstanding job of establishing JPR as a leading demographic journal. Edith has made the transition easy by kindly agreeing to serve as an Associate Editor. I am very aware of the responsibilities that the editor’s role entails, and I approach the job with both excitement and apprehension! I also gratefully acknowledge the editorial and production crew at Springer for their support during the transition period. Moving forward, I would like to continue exploring opportunities to make JPR an exciting place to publish high quality papers on demography and population issues. While I do not propose radical changes, I have plans that I would like to share with you. Over the coming months, I plan to speed up the review process while maintaining the high standard of peer and editorial review. Of course, this depends on timely peer review from my fellow reviewers. Everyone is undoubtedly busy with competing demands but it is important to realise that we have a responsibility of service to our discipline and our wider scientific community. Please help me by accepting review assignments when you are asked and returning the reviews within the given time. We count on you all to provide a speedy and fair review and to achieve our quality standards. JPR is served by a highly committed team of associate editors. I do plan to update the team of associate editors to expand the range of expertise and to provide an

Preface to Special Topic: Select Papers from the 8th IEEE International Conference on Nano/Molecular Medicine and Engineering Held in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Traditional boundaries between materials science, nanoengineering, and life sciences are rapidly disintegrating as interdisciplinary research teams develop new micro-/nano-engineering-based tools for exploring fundamental issues in both medicine and biology. In particular, the means for achieving accurate clinical diagnoses via cellular- or molecular-based assays have been a longstanding but interesting research and clinical issue. With recent technological advances in multiple research fields such as materials science, cellular and molecular biology, micro-/nano-technology, and bioengineering, considerable attention is shifting toward evaluating the functional advantages of using nanomaterials and nanofabrication, at both cellular and molecular levels. This shift, directed specifically toward the development of biomedically relevant applications, has broad application, but an inherently small, i.e., nano, focus and is termed “Nanomedicine.” Endeavors in this shift enhance the understanding of the mechanisms of, and therapeutic potentials for, some of the most lethal diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, organ fibrosis, and cancers. This interdisciplinary approach has generated great interest among researchers working in a wide variety of communities including industry, universities, and research laboratories. We have collaborated with Biomicrofluidics to prepare a Special Topic that focuses mainly on nanomedically relevant issues, using the high standard peer review process for papers selected from IEEE NanoMed 2014. This Special Topic, we believe, covers a wide range of topics in nanomedicine involving the fluidic aspects. We initialized discussions with Professor Leslie Yeo and Professor Hsueh-Chia Chang, the Editors of Biomicrofluidics, regarding the organization of this Special Topic at the end of 2013. The topics regarding nanomedicine in this Special Topic are associated with 7 original articles that we have addressed covering the following: (1) small-scale devices for investigating both human and mouse embryos—related to the reproduction medicine;1,2 (2) the development of the thread-based diagnostic tool for the detection of both blood urea nitrogen and glucose in human whole blood;3 (3) a biophysically relevant study of the optically induced electric field4 and an interesting application of using electric stimulation for drug delivery at the small scale;5 and (4) the promising breakthrough of the micro-/nano-fabrication.6,7 Here, we would like to express our deep appreciation to all authors and reviewers. Without their full support, this Special Topic would probably not be published on schedule. This Special Topic may not cover all topics in this emerging field, the development of practical tools and approaches for nanomedicine, but we surely believe that our efforts have the potential to provide highly impactful innovations and interesting discussions in relevant academic and commercial communities.

Water Best Paper Award 2015

To better recognize the outstanding papers in the area of water sciences and technology published in Water, we announce the institution of an annual award.[...]

Revitalizing the Information Quality Act as a Procedural Cure for Unsound Regulatory Science: A Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Case Study

This working paper explains in detail how the Information Quality Act and implementing guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget provide a procedural law mechanism to ensure the objectivity, quality, utility, integrity and reproducibility of highly influential scientific assessments developed by federal agencies and third parties, which agencies in turn “disseminate” as support for major agency regulations. OMB’s guidelines, which are binding on all federal agencies, inter alia impose rigorous, uniform, peer-review process standards that govern agency peer-reviewer selection and retention practices. The guidelines also govern agencies’ public disclosure obligations with respect to the data, computational and computer program inputs, assumptions, and applications that are incorporated into the assessments. In addition, OMB’s guidelines require federal agencies to provide adequate administrative review mechanisms to ensure that affected persons can seek correction of agency-disseminated HISAs that agencies failed to adequately validate. Given the highly technical and specialized nature and characteristics of HISAs and the data on which they are based, the IQA and OMB’s IQA guidelines anticipate that specialized review procedures separate and apart from ordinary APA notice-and-comment procedures, must be utilized under certain circumstances. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)’s 2009 Clean Air Act Section 202(a) Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Endangerment Findings and the decision-making process that led to the Findings, offer an ideal case study in how the IQA applies in the rulemaking context and how agencies can contravene the law. EPA’s review of climate-science assessments disseminated in support of the Endangerment Findings were subject to four distinct IQA legal obligations, none of which EPA satisfied. These obligations related to: EPA-developed and peer-reviewed HISAs; third-party-developed and peer-reviewed HISAs; EPA’s peer review of the Technical Support Document accompanying the Endangerment Findings that summarized and synthesized the numerous HISAs supporting them into a new HISA; and EPA’s improper treatment of IQA stakeholder requests for correction. EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) failed to ensure that the peer reviews of the HISAs satisfied the IQA’s most rigorous peer-reviewer independence, conflict-of-interest, and panel-balance standards. As the working paper explains, businesses and other stakeholders unsuccessfully sought correction of the faulty peer review processes employed to validate the scientific assessments supporting the Endangerment Findings, and reconsideration of the Findings themselves. Such final agency action potentially gives rise to legal challenges of EPA’s failure to comply with the IQA’s peer-review standards and its denial of specialized review of technical correction requests outside of the routine rulemaking process. A review of similar past legal actions filed by aggrieved regulatory stakeholders reflects that federal courts have been generally skeptical of IQA “private rights of action.” Those complaints foundered on plaintiffs’ standing to sue, as well as their assertion of a “positive” right to properly peer-reviewed government information. This working paper proposes an alternative approach to judicial enforcement of the IQA, one which addresses past lawsuits’ shortcomings. It explains this alternative approach in the context of a challenge to EPA’s and NOAA’s noncompliance with the IQA in its actions leading up to EPA’s GHG Endangerment Findings. The suit would seek to enjoin EPA’s use of all EPA, NOAA, and other agency-developed, improperly peer reviewed HISAs supporting the Findings, as well as the regulations they have spawned, until those HISAs have been peer reviewed once again in conformance with such IQA standards.

Foreword

This article seeks to shift the focus of the literature about law journals from their perceived benefits for academics and law schools to the real advantages they present for students. The discourse on law journals in the American jurisdictions demonstrates that the prolific debate there has overwhelmingly been dictated by academic concerns over unsupervised student editorship, lack of credible peer review and unreliable standards. The Australian and British discourse about law journals has, by contrast, been inconsequential. However, it too has focused on the roles played by law journals in the research done by academics and the development of the law. The benefits for law students have been ignored. The article then demonstrates that working on law journal production and publication achieves critical learning and teaching outcomes for the attainment of generic graduate attributes and specific legal skills. When included within a formal unit of study with academic supervision, student editorship of law journals bears the hallmarks of experiential learning and includes the potential for a successful capstone experience for final year law students.

The Research of Peer-Reviewed Mode and Evaluation Standards Based on Online Published Papers

Peer review is a new phenomenon in the process of internationalization of academic journals, but also a worldwide problem. In this paper, the development and practical application of peer review system are sort out, which are based on objective data research of domestic and international academic journals; the problems of network online published papers in practice are analyzed and explored by modern advanced network technology as the application tool, and how scientific orientation are they to play an effective role. The purpose of paper is in order to ensure the impartiality of the academic council, spread rapidly and use information resources, and further promote to enhance the overall level of academic journals.

Should We be More "Open" About Publishing Research?

Dr Spock is a brilliant young vascular surgeon who is up for promotion next year. The chair of surgery has warned him that he needs to increase his list of publications to assure passage. He has recently had a paper reviewed by one of the top journals in his specialty, Journal X-special, with several suggestions for revision. He received an e-mail request for manuscript submission from a newly minted, open access, Journal of Vascular Disease Therapy, which promises a quick and likely favorable response for a fee. What should be done? A. Send the paper to another peer-reviewed journal with the suggested revisions. B. Resubmit the paper to Journal X-special. C. Submit to the online journal as is to save time. D. Submit to the online journal and another regular journal. E. Look for another job. These were the questions posed by Jones & McCullough in their excellent recent publication that discussed corruption in publication research [1]. Is open-access publishing the wave of the future in science? Open access (OA) means unrestricted free online access to peer-reviewed scholarly research. Open access is primarily intended for scholarly journal articles, but is also provided for a growing number of theses, book chapters, and scholarly monographs [2–4]. The OA movement had its official start in 2002 with the establishment of the Budapest Open-Access Initiative [2]. Public access to the World Wide Web became widespread in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The low-cost distribution technology has fueled the open-access movement. Conventional non-open-access journals cover publishing costs through access tolls such as subscriptions, site licenses, or pay-per-view [2]. Some non-open-access journals provide open access after an embargo period of 6–12 months or longer [3]. The movement for open access to science seeks to achieve unrestricted and free access to academic publications on the Internet. To this end, two mechanisms have been established: the gold road, in which scientific journals are openly accessible, and the green road, in which publications are self-archived in repositories. The publication of the Finch Report in 2012, advocating exclusively the adoption of the gold road, generated a debate as to whether either of the two options should be prioritized [5]. The recommendations of the Finch Report stirred controversy among academicians specialized in open-access issues, who felt that the role played by repositories was not adequately considered and because the green road places the burden of publishing costs basically on authors. The Finch Report’s conclusions are compatible with the characteristics of science communication in the UK and they could surely also be applied to the (few) countries with a powerful publishing industry and substantial research funding. In Spain, both the current national legislation and the existing rules at universities largely advocate the green road. This is directly related to the structure of scientific communication in Spain, where many journals have little commercial significance, the system of charging a fee to authors has not been adopted, and there is a good repository infrastructure. As for open-access policies, the performance of the scientific communication system in each country should be carefully analyzed to determine the most suitable open-access strategy [5]. The premises behind open-access publishing are that there are viable funding models to maintain traditional peer review standards of quality while also making OA self-sufficient. The challenge is to establish a sustainable financial business model that will permit the use of digital technology but yet not endanger the decades-old traditional publication model and peer review system. Rather than making journal articles accessible through a subscription business model, all academic publications could be made free to read and published with some other cost-recovery models, such as publication charges, subsidies, or charging subscriptions only for the print edition, with the online edition gratis or “free to read” [6–8]. The idealists for the open-access movement are seeking open access to the literature but also to the data that constitute the research within the manuscript [9]. The open-access movement is maturing and must be embraced in some format. Authors seem to be slower in adopting open access than the idealists in the movement [6–9].

The Undergraduate Ethnographic Field School as a Research Method

The undergraduate ethnographic field school can and should be a frequently used field research method. The key to transforming a field school from an excellent pedagogy into a viable research instrument requires the fusion of the field school with intensive postfield coauthored collaboration between field school directors and students. Engaging the field school as a full-round research process—to include writing to peer-reviewed standards—can overcome the opportunity cost of time spent in managing a field school. That could catalyze a much needed expansion in the availability of field schools as a best-practices pedagogy embedded in a community of practice centered on research. To some, these propositions will seem both daunting and controversial. But those who implement the conditions of a research- and publication-oriented field school will find that research, publication, and teaching synergies fully reward the additional investment that transforms the teaching field school into a productive research method.

Editorial

Hamid Mcheick is currently an associate professor in computer science department at the University of Quebec At Chicoutimi (UQAC), Quebec, Canada. He holds a PhD degree in software engineering and distributed system from Montreal University, Canada. He holds a master degree from the University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada in information retrieval system. Professor Mcheick is interested in distributed software architecture, mobiles applications and pervasive computing, as well as in separation of concerns (component, services, aspect, etc.). He works also in ubiquitous computing, service composition of business process. He has given many talks in congresses and conferences as a keynote or invited speaker. He is a chief in editor and guest editor of several international journals. His research is supported by many research grants he has received from the Canadian government, University of Montreal, CRIM (Centre de Recherche informatique de Montreal), University of UQAM, and University of Quebec At Chicoutimi, Canada. The missions of Bentham Journal volume aim to bring, for both academics as well as for industrial practitioners, a set of articles discussing and answering the recent patents on core topics of software computing and intelligence and improving the state-of-the-art of worldwide research in the areas of computer science issues by publishing high-quality articles in this area, and by exposing the readers to various methodologies, tools, technologies, algorithms, results, and types of articles. It is our pleasure to highlight in June 2014, the 7th volume of the Journal Recent Patents on Computer Science (CSENG) that includes a selected and reviewed research papers. This issue includes papers of Software Defined Networks for Data Center Optimization, Intelligent techniques and systems in credit risk analysis and forecasting, Cultivating Software Solutions Development in the Scientific Academia, Information Security and Threats in Mobile Appliances, Hybrid Swarm Intelligence and Artificial Neural Network for Mitigating Malware Effects, An Experimental Investigation of MLPNN and GRNN Classification Methods for Evaluation of Different sEMG-Extracted Features, Review on Patents in Mobile Augmented Reality, and Exploring various information in DVC side information generation. A challenge to leap forward for the contributing Authors of this issue was to present the critical underlying of many research topics, such as possibility of optimizing data management, various software developmental models, credit risk domain, information security in mobile devices, and many others. Acting as the Editor-in-Chief of Recent Patents on Computer Science issue, I wish to express our gratitude to the Authors, my particular thanks to Bentham Science for their on-going commitment to the highest quality science, to Elma Tabita Bashir and Sumaiya Azhar, Publication Managers, and the entire Bentham Editorial Staff that have done an exceptional job in insuring the highest standards of peer review. I would like to particularly acknowledge the untiring contributions of our distinguished cadre of Editorial Board Members who do the lion’s share of the reviews and are largely responsible for the exceptional quality of the current and past issues. Also, I would appreciate to thank our readers and encourage you to contact me for any suggestions, criticismsand ideas that can help us to all make “Recent Patents on Computer Science” meet the expectations that it is targeted to do.

Emergency department patient safety incident characterization: an observational analysis of the findings of a standardized peer review process.

BackgroundEmergency Department (ED) care has been reported to be prone to patient safety incidents (PSIs). Improving our understanding of PSIs is essential to prevent them. A standardized, peer review process was implemented to identify and analyze ED PSIs. The primary objective of this investigation was to characterize ED PSIs identified by the peer review process. A secondary objective was to characterize PSIs that led to patient harm. In addition, we sought to provide a detailed description of the peer review process for others to consider as they conduct their own quality improvement initiatives.MethodsAn observational study was conducted in a large, urban, tertiary-care ED. Over a two-year period, all ED incident reports were investigated via a standardized, peer review process. PSIs were identified and analyzed for contributing factors including systems failures and practitioner-based errors. The classification system for factors contributing to PSIs was developed based on systems previously reported in the emergency medicine literature as well as the investigators’ experience in quality improvement and peer review. All cases in which a PSI was discovered were further adjudicated to determine if patient harm resulted.ResultsIn 24 months, 469 cases were investigated, identifying 152 PSIs. In total, 188 systems failures and 96 practitioner-based errors were found to have contributed to the PSIs. In twelve cases, patient harm was determined to have resulted from PSIs. Systems failures were identified in eleven of the twelve cases in which a PSI resulted in patient harm.ConclusionSystems failures were almost twice as likely as practitioner-based errors to contribute to PSIs, and systems failures were present in the majority of cases resulting in patient harm. To effectively reduce PSIs, ED quality improvement initiatives should focus on systems failure reduction.

Editorial

The Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management Society (AEHMS) has been actively publishing special issues and books on various topics from the Asia Pacific region for quite a long time (Table 1). The first publication was a short book, namely, Aquatic Ecosystems of China: Environmental and Toxicological Assessment as early as 1995. This was followed by another book, Sediment Quality Assessment: Insight and Progress (2003). 2006 and onwards saw an upsurge in the publication of special issues about the Asia Pacific region in Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management.The manuscripts included in this compendium originated from a workshop on Ocean Color Remote Sensing of Case 2 Waters in China, held in Guangzhou during September, 2012. The workshop was sponsored by the State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Hach Company. All manuscripts were evaluated by the AEHMS editorial committee for their scientific suitability. Selected papers were then subjected to the submission requirements of the AEHM with the help of Page by Page (PbP) editorial service of AEHMS to make them technically/linguistically suitable in accordance with the instructions to authors for the standard peer review of the journal. Following the peer review process, the accepted articles went through a meticulous revision process and were once again reviewed by a referee and editorial committee. Following satisfactory revisions, the accepted articles were subjected to editorial compliance and technical/linguistic editing by the technical editor of the journal.A great variety of topics are covered in this special issue about ocean color remote sensing of Case 2 waters of China. It contains eleven manuscripts from marine and freshwater environments providing a state of the art status of the application of remote sensing and modeling. We sincerely hope that the publication of this special issue will improve our understanding of the complex subject of remote sensing of aquatic habitats in China.I would like to thank Dr. Dongxiao Wang, Director, State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences for his support and encouragement in the development of this special publication. Thanks are due to Dr. Shilin Tang from the South China Institute for the coordination and liaison from China, and to the AEHMS editorial office in Canada. We would also like to thank the contributors for their patience during the multiple revisions which greatly improved the quality of the articles. As usual, the AEHMS editorial staff contributed significantly in raising the quality of articles: Robin Rozon assisted in coordination, Susan Blunt provided technical editing, and both Jennifer Lorimer and Lisa Elder helped in various aspects of publication of this special issue.

Capacity building - a challenge for nurse managers

Capacity building - a challenge for nurse managers

Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) health: a new programme to facilitate LMIC research capacity

Abstract Background The Partnership for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) Health programme, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), is a new research partnership programme that directly supports researchers from developing countries as Principal Investigators in partnership with collaborators at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The goals of this programme are threefold: (1) to advance critical evidence to address crucial health challenges facing LMICs; (2) to support collaboration and build on existing relationships between local public health and research institutions, global health practitioners, host country government, NIH researchers, and USAID Missions and Embassy staff; and (3) to build capacity by supporting researchers in LMICs thereby enabling local solutions to context specific challenges. Methods More than 180 preproposals from 25 LMICs were submitted to the first PEER Health research solicitation focused on Child Survival. After consultation with USAID Missions to ensure relevance to host country health priorities, about 80 applicants were invited to submit a full proposal. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development organised a special emphasis panel for the scientific review of PEER Health full proposals to address both scientific merit and research capacity building aspects of the grant proposals, whilst maintaining key elements of the standard NIH peer review model. 40 experienced NIH reviewers, representing a wide variety of scientific disciplines and global public health experience, did the peer review of grants using a novel IT system developed for the PEER Health initiative. The National Academies of Sciences hosted an interagency protocol review to ensure scientific validity and compliance with international human subject guidelines. Findings Sixteen diverse grant partnerships were awarded in ten USAID Child Survival priority countries in Africa and Asia. Research funded under this programme is varied and includes studies from diverse topical areas, including malaria, neonatal sepsis, breast-feeding, tuberculosis, prevention of mother-to-child transmission, among others. Studies include investigation of both facility and community level interventions. NIH partners are largely US based and half are support by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). Interpretation Broad interest in this novel programme and applications from 25 countries show a crucial need for more directed funding for research strengthening and partnerships with LMIC Principal Investigators. Funding USAID, in-kind support from NIH.

Improved incident reporting following the implementation of a standardized emergency department peer review process.

Incident reporting is an important component of health care quality improvement. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of an emergency department (ED) peer review process in promoting incident reporting. An observational, interrupted time-series analysis of health care provider (HCP) incident reporting to the ED during a 30-month study period prior to and following the peer review process implementation and a survey-based assessment of physician perceptions of the peer review process' educational value and its effectiveness in identifying errors. Large, urban, academic ED. HCPs were invited to participate in a standardized, non-punitive, non-anonymous peer review process that involved analysis and structured discussion of incident reports submitted to ED physician leadership. Monthly frequency of incident reporting by HCPs and physician perceptions of the peer review process. HCPs submitted 314 incident reports to the ED over the study period. Following the intervention, frequency of reporting by HCPs within the hospital increased over time. The frequencies of self-reporting, reporting by other ED practitioners and reporting by non-ED practitioners within the hospital increased compared with a control group of outside HCPs (P = 0.0019, P = 0.0025 and P < 0.0001). Physicians perceived the peer review process to be educational and highly effective in identifying errors. The implementation of a non-punitive peer review process that provides timely feedback and is perceived as being valuable for error identification and education can lead to increased incident reporting by HCPs.

Peer Review and Scientific Publishing in Times of Web 2.0

The second half of the twentieth century brought major changes in the society and consequently in the different areas of the sciences. The growing number of universities after the second world war, the post-war industrial growth and later digitalization transformed the sciences present until then, enlarged the scientific community and the number of scientific publications. In the last couple of decades, the creation of web 2.0 brought new possibilities for knowledge co-production, interaction and exchange between all interested parties in research. The goal of this paper is to explore the possibilities for (extended) peer review and quality control on the internet, primarily blogs and social media, which could contribute to the standard peer review process and open the sciences to a wider audience. We are wondering if these processes could also raise the quality in science and lead to the democratization of knowledge production. We argue that changes in science also have an impact in reshaping the society and bringing democratization in knowledge production.

Editorial: Special Issue (SI): International Conference on Science Education (ICSE)

In the context of science education globalization, the International Conference on Science Education was held in Nanjing, China, in October 2012. The purpose of this conference was to provide a forum for science education researchers from China and from the rest of the world to exchange research ideas and best practices in science education. A call for papers for a special issue of the Journal of Science Education and Technology was made to all conference participants, and a set of six articles was resulted from a standard peer review process. This set of six articles provides a snapshot of research in China and in some other countries, and represents a dialogue between Chinese science education researchers and science education researchers from other countries. We call for more exchange and collaboration in science education between China and the rest of the world.

Moving toward a more objective peer review process

Moving toward a more objective peer review process

Computational intelligence in decision making

In this preface we stress the relevance of the traditional collaboration between Engineering and any field of Mathematics in order to build intelligent decision-aid tools, as it is illustrated by the twelve papers contained in this Special Issue. These papers, selected by means of a standard peer review process after an open call, offer an interesting variety of models, approaches and techniques, to be applied within different specific problems. Each paper is introduced in this preface and is developed in the subsequent article. Moreover, in this preface we also claim for a more intense collaboration between decision engineers and other fields that study human brain behavior, like Neurology, Psychology, Sociology and Linguistics. Because if we really want to procure intelligent tools for decision aid, we should start by taking the human brain as our first reference, as it is the most efficient machinery we have found in order to deal with complex, uncertain, incomplete and even apparently inconsistent information. We hope that readers will enjoy this Special Issue devoted to Computational Intelligence in Decision Making.