Fairfax, VA, United States
Fairfax, VA, United States

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | May 4, 2017
Site: www.eurekalert.org

Hoboken, NJ -- May 4, 2017 -- Evidence-based science is at the heart of discoveries that transform our world. From the development of life-saving antibiotics to the resolution of climate change issues; from the reversal of social injustices to the furthering of space exploration, collaborative research has set the foundation for a brighter future. On April 22, 2017, the March for Science took place in Washington, DC and more than 600 satellite events around the world. These events were the start of a movement that aims to highlight the vital role of evidence-based policy in the public interest and the role science plays to improve our everyday lives. Hundreds of organizations, including many scientific and scholarly societies, have partnered with the March to continue to expand the impact of research. "Science plays a significant role in our everyday life," says Ed Liebow, PhD, Executive Director of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), one of the official partners of the March for Science. "Our association stands firmly behind the need for evidence-based policy to serve the public interest." Eric Davidson, PhD, President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) adds, "Science is essential to public health, global and economic security, and the livelihood of communities around the world. The March for Science is an unprecedented call to action for all people, not just scientists, to make a strong statement in support of informed, evidence-based science and of the people and programs who make it possible." "Science is a global endeavor with the March for Science highlighting how we use science to support people's lives," says Professor Lisa Bero, co-chair of the Cochrane Governing Board. "This is the essence of Cochrane's mission--to synthesize scientific evidence to address specific health questions that help people make informed decisions about their physical and mental wellbeing." "Scientific progress has lifted humanity throughout history--marching is a first step toward developing sustained, energetic support for evidence-based truth," says Douglas Braaten, PhD, CSO, Scientific Publications at the New York Academy of Sciences, which is celebrating 200 years of advancing science in the service of humanity. "Scientific methods don't care about politics--they're an independent point of view," says Dr. Chris Crandall, President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI). "SPSSI members are proud to support the March for Science because social research contributes to a strong and effective democracy." As Wiley President and CEO, Mark Allin says, "We work alongside our society partners to protect collaborative, independent scientific research. Wiley is a pro-science partner, committed to advancing knowledge and supporting scholarly communication." Leveraging our partnerships to support the March for Science and its continued program of activities and outreach will benefit the research ecosystem in which all of us are proud to operate. In addition to supporting scholarly societies at the March, Wiley is pleased to release the report entitled "Building Momentum: Advocacy Resources for Societies." This report, featuring contributions from the organizations mentioned above, will serve as a sustained resource for societies. The American Anthropological Association is the world's largest association for professional anthropologists, with 10,000 members. Based in Washington, D.C., the Association was founded in 1902, and covers all four main fields of anthropology (cultural anthropology, biological/physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology). The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is an international non-profit scientific association with more than 62,000 members. The purpose of the American Geophysical Union is to promote discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity. Our scientific mission transcends national boundaries. Cochrane is a global independent network of researchers, professionals, patients, carers, and people interested in health. Cochrane produces reviews which study the best available evidence generated through research and make it easier to inform decisions about health. These are called systematic reviews. Cochrane is a not-for profit organization with collaborators from more than 130 countries working together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest. Our work is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. Find out more at cochrane.org. Follow us on twitter @cochranecollab. The New York Academy of Sciences is an independent, not-for-profit organization that since 1817 has been driving innovative solutions to society's challenges by advancing scientific research, education, and policy. With more than 20,000 Members in 100 countries, the Academy is creating a global community of science for the benefit of humanity. Founded in 1936, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues is a group of over 3000 scientists from psychology and related fields and others who share a common interest in research on the psychological aspects of important social and policy issues. In various ways, SPSSI seeks to bring theory and practice into focus on human problems of the group, the community, and nations, as well as the increasingly important problems that have no national boundaries. Wiley, a global company, helps people and organizations develop the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. Our online scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, combined with our digital learning, assessment and certification solutions help universities, learned societies, businesses, governments and individuals increase the academic and professional impact of their work. For more than 200 years, we have delivered consistent performance to our stakeholders. The company's website can be accessed at http://www. .


News Article | August 31, 2016
Site: phys.org

The population of North Atlantic right whales has slowly crept up from about 300 in 1992 to about 500 in 2010. But a study that appeared this month in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science said the number of baby right whales born every year has declined by nearly 40 percent since 2010. Study author Scott Kraus, a scientist with the New England Aquarium in Boston who worked on the study, said the whales' population suffers even when they survive entanglements in fishing gear. He said data suggest those entanglements have long-term negative physical and reproductive effects on them. "They are carrying heavy gear around, and they can't move as fast or they can't feed as effectively," Kraus told The Associated Press in an interview. "And it looks like it affects their ability to reproduce because it means they can't put on enough fat to have a baby." Entanglements have surpassed ship strikes as a leading danger to right whales in recent years. Forty-four percent of diagnosed right whale deaths were due to ship strikes and 35 percent were due to entanglements from 1970 to 2009, the study said. From 2010 to 2015, 15 percent of diagnosed deaths were due to ship strikes and 85 percent were due to entanglements, it said. There is reason to believe the entanglements could harm conservation efforts despite recent positive signs on the whales' recovery, Kraus said. Researchers said earlier this year that they were beginning to see more of the whales in Cape Cod Bay, and that was a good sign. Stormy Mayo, a senior scientist at the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, said the drive to make fishing gear safer for the whales could be key to saving them. "There's a great deal of work being done to try to change the configurations of various kinds of fishing gear or the methods of fishing to reduce entanglement," he told the AP. North Atlantic right whales are among the most endangered species of whales in the world. They spend the warm months feeding in areas off the Northeastern states and Canada and spend the winter off Southern states, where they give birth. They are called right whales because they were hunted relentlessly during the whaling era, when they were considered the "right" whale to hunt because they were slow and floated when killed. Explore further: Fishermen want humpback whales off endangered list More information: Scott D. Kraus et al, Recent Scientific Publications Cast Doubt on North Atlantic Right Whale Future, Frontiers in Marine Science (2016). DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00137


Jagsi R.,University of Michigan | Bennett K.E.,Scientific Publications | Griffith K.A.,University of Michigan | Decastro R.,University of Michigan | And 3 more authors.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2014

Purpose Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics ("Red Journal") implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions. Methods and Materials In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review. Results Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index. Conclusions In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with research findings and suspect author identity even when manuscript review is blinded. Nevertheless, blinding appears to be effective in many cases, and support for continuing blinding was strong. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


Holliday E.B.,University of Houston | Yang G.,University of South Florida | Jagsi R.,University of Michigan | Hoffman K.E.,University of Houston | And 3 more authors.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2015

Purpose: To evaluate characteristics associated with higher rates of acceptance for original manuscripts submitted for publication to the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (IJROBP) and describe the fate of rejected manuscripts. Methods and Materials: Manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP from May 1, 2010, to August 31, 2010, and May 1, 2012, to August 31, 2012, were evaluated for author demographics and acceptance status. A PubMed search was performed for each IJROBP-rejected manuscript to ascertain whether the manuscript was ultimately published elsewhere. The Impact Factor of the accepting journal and the number of citations of the published manuscript were also collected. Results: Of the 500 included manuscripts, 172 (34.4%) were accepted and 328 (65.6%) were rejected. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates according to gender or degree of the submitting author, but there were significant differences seen based on the submitting author's country, rank, and h-index. On multivariate analysis, earlier year submitted (P<.0001) and higher author h-index (P=.006) remained significantly associated with acceptance into the IJROBP. Two hundred thirty-five IJROBP-rejected manuscripts (71.7%) were ultimately published in a PubMed-listed journal as of July 2014. There were no significant differences in any submitting author characteristics. Journals accepting IJROBP-rejected manuscripts had a lower median [interquartile range] 2013 impact factor compared with the IJROBP (2.45 [1.53-3.71] vs 4.176). The IJROBP-rejected manuscripts ultimately published elsewhere had a lower median [interquartile range] number of citations (1 [0-4] vs 6 [2-11]; P<.001), which persisted on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP is approximately one-third, and approximately 70% of rejected manuscripts are ultimately published in other PubMed-listed journals, but these ultimate-destination journals usually have a lower impact factor, leading to fewer citations and overall visibility. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.


PubMed | University of Michigan, Massachusetts General Hospital, University of Houston and Scientific Publications
Type: Journal Article | Journal: International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics | Year: 2014

Peer reviewers knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (Red Journal) implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions.In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review.Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index.In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with research findings and suspect author identity even when manuscript review is blinded. Nevertheless, blinding appears to be effective in many cases, and support for continuing blinding was strong.


PubMed | University of South Florida, Scientific Publications, University of Houston, Massachusetts General Hospital and University of Michigan
Type: Journal Article | Journal: International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics | Year: 2015

To evaluate characteristics associated with higher rates of acceptance for original manuscripts submitted for publication to the International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics (IJROBP) and describe the fate of rejected manuscripts.Manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP from May 1, 2010, to August 31, 2010, and May 1, 2012, to August 31, 2012, were evaluated for author demographics and acceptance status. A PubMed search was performed for each IJROBP-rejected manuscript to ascertain whether the manuscript was ultimately published elsewhere. The Impact Factor of the accepting journal and the number of citations of the published manuscript were also collected.Of the 500 included manuscripts, 172 (34.4%) were accepted and 328 (65.6%) were rejected. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates according to gender or degree of the submitting author, but there were significant differences seen based on the submitting authors country, rank, and h-index. On multivariate analysis, earlier year submitted (P<.0001) and higher author h-index (P=.006) remained significantly associated with acceptance into the IJROBP. Two hundred thirty-five IJROBP-rejected manuscripts (71.7%) were ultimately published in a PubMed-listed journal as of July 2014. There were no significant differences in any submitting author characteristics. Journals accepting IJROBP-rejected manuscripts had a lower median [interquartile range] 2013 impact factor compared with the IJROBP (2.45 [1.53-3.71] vs 4.176). The IJROBP-rejected manuscripts ultimately published elsewhere had a lower median [interquartile range] number of citations (1 [0-4] vs 6 [2-11]; P<.001), which persisted on multivariate analysis.The acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP is approximately one-third, and approximately 70% of rejected manuscripts are ultimately published in other PubMed-listed journals, but these ultimate-destination journals usually have a lower impact factor, leading to fewer citations and overall visibility.


LYON, France--(BUSINESS WIRE)--POXEL SA (Euronext – POXEL - FR0012432516), a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of innovative treatments for type 2 diabetes, today announced the presentation of preclinical data supporting Imeglimin’s drug profile as a novel diabetes therapy. The data were presented in a poster and an oral presentation at the 14th World Congress on Insulin Resistance and Cardiovascular Diseases (WCIRDC) in Los Angeles. Imeglimin is currently being studied in a 300-patient Phase 2b clinical trial in Japan and has completed Phase 2 development in over 850 subjects in the US and EU. The poster presentation titled, “Imeglimin preserves beta-cell function and mass in male Zucker diabetic fatty rats”, demonstrates Imeglimin’s beneficial effect on beta-cell function and its potential to delay the development of type 2 diabetes. “We are continuing to add further differentiating data to Imeglimin’s exciting clinical results as we learn more about the important benefits of Imeglimin’s unique mechanism of action,” said Harold E. Lebovitz, MD, Professor of Medicine in the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism/Diabetes at State University of NY, Health Sciences Center, Brooklyn, and a member of Poxel’s Scientific Advisory Board. “These preclinical data support Imeglimin's ability to preserve beta cell function by increasing insulin secretion in response to glucose and by preserving beta cell mass by decreasing beta cell death and increasing its reproduction, and, if reproducible in humans, could delay and/or treat type 2 diabetes progression." “Our goal is to provide patients with new differentiated treatment options to help manage their disease,” said Thomas Kuhn, CEO of Poxel. “Through mid-2017, we expect to present further differentiating data demonstrating Imeglimin’s potential for cardiovascular-related benefits, and we are on track to deliver results from the 300-patient Phase 2b study in Japan during the second quarter of 2017.” In the study, 7-week old Zucker diabetic fatty rats were treated orally with 150mg/kg Imeglimin twice-daily for 5 weeks. Imeglimin treatment resulted in preservation of islet architecture, increased beta-cell mass by 41% (p<0.01), decreased beta-cell apoptosis by 52% (p<0.05) and increased the proportion of proliferating cells by 111% (p<0.001), as compared to controls. These data highlight Imeglimin’s potential to delay type 2 diabetes disease onset and progression through the preservation of beta cell mass and the improvement of beta-cell function. Furthermore, the study confirmed Imeglimin’s beneficial effect on glucose tolerance and insulin secretion in response to glucose in a model of disease progression. The poster presented at the WCIRDC is available on the Company’s website under “Scientific Publications” or by using the following link http://poxel.com/our-science/scientific-publications.php. Imeglimin is the first in a new chemical class of oral anti-diabetic agents, the Glimins. Imeglimin acts on the three main target organs involved in glucose homeostasis: the liver, muscle, and the pancreas. Imeglimin has a unique mechanism of action that targets mitochondrial bioenergetics. This has the potential for glucose lowering benefits, as well as the potential to prevent endothelial dysfunction, which can provide protective effects on micro- and macro-vascular defects induced by diabetes, and benefits on beta cell protection and function, which can delay disease progression. This distinct mode of action compared to existing treatments for type 2 diabetes makes Imeglimin a prime candidate in monotherapy and to complement other treatments such as metformin or sitagliptin. Poxel uses its development expertise in metabolism to advance a pipeline of drug candidates focused on the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We have successfully completed our Phase 2 clinical program for our first-in-class lead product, Imeglimin, which targets mitochondrial dysfunction, in the U.S. and EU and have fully enrolled a Phase 2b clinical study in Japan. Our second program, PXL770, a direct AMPK activator, is in Phase 1 development. We intend to generate further growth through strategic partnerships and pipeline development. (Euronext: POXEL, www.poxel.com)

Loading Scientific Publications collaborators
Loading Scientific Publications collaborators