Japan had passed through an economic recession in the 1990s, when their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth dropped from + 5.5 to −.5, during which period the male suicide rate reached a peak 18.8–25.2. This increase was due to the ‘epidemic’ of suicides among working class males and was attributed to the rapid changes in industrial structure and working environment that followed recession. Further, the prevalence of coronary risk factors had risen in this subpopulation during the recession. A more detailed analysis and survey had shown that the risk of self-perceived poor health was significantly more for the lower income menial job group than for the higher income managerial group. This confirms what is apparently obvious – the poor and marginalized are more vulnerable to the economic decline. This is rather unexpected from a country known for its sound social security system, compulsory pension, and high standards of health for several decades.White matter diseases are increasingly recognized in India. Increased awareness of these conditions, availability of sensitive MRI services that could identify them, and opportunities for newer treatments have probably influenced this increased detection rate. It is unclear, whether there is an increase in the incidence of white matter diseases in India. Socioeconomic transition, environmental changes, and population migration could also be contributing to these changes. In this issue, we have presented a review article on a practical approach to diagnose various white matter diseases.Proteomics is a new branch of science that studies the proteins in toto for its structure and functions. Proteomics opens a window into the synthesis, transformations, and kinetics of proteins which are important in cell development and cell-to-cell signaling. Proteomics can be applied to study certain proteins as biomarkers in conditions like Alzheimer's disease. The commonly used techniques for such studies include western blot, immunohistochemical staining, enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), or mass spectrometry. We have presented one review on recent developments in proteomics with reference to mass spectrometry. This technique is slowly becoming available in India. There is immense scope to set up long-term studies on proteomics for diagnostic purposes in India.We are glad to present one detailed technical note on EEG examination of neonates. Neonatal EEG is a challenge even for experienced electroencephalographers. Small babies, particularly preterm and small for date, are an enormous challenge to the technologists to make good recording. Deviations from normal development, structural and anatomical disturbances, and metabolic changes make interpretation of these traces very difficult and often misleading. A systematic approach to the recording techniques and steps in interpretation are provided in this technical note. I hope that most readers who are involved with the care of newborns would find this very helpful.Our journal has made substantial growth in the past three years. The standards of the journal in content turnout and visibility have improved remarkably during this period. It is now indexed with several prestigious databases. This credit goes to all the members of the editorial board, editorial advisory committee, and the academy who had supported it so well. The Medknow publishers had done a remarkable job to bring out this journal both in print and online in a timely manner. We received unrestricted help from all the experts who had taken time from their busy schedule to review the articles for us. The contributors deserve special thanks for choosing this journal to publish their articles and for complying with our requirements. We had received unrestricted support from several healthcare industries that had accepted our open policy and gave their advertisements. Several institutions have started new subscription to our journal. I would like to thank each and every one of them for their strong support and assistance but for which we would not have achieved this growth. I accept with all humility the extension of my term as Editor of this journal for another three years which is indeed a matter of great pride and honor. The new editorial board and editorial advisory committee have come in to place from this issue of the journal. I am confident that we could do a good job with all their support.


International Seminars of Surgical Oncology without the knowledge or consent of either Prof Karakayali or Prof Haberal, and is being retracted for this reason. An apology is extended to Prof Karakayali and Prof Haberal as well as the editorial and publishing staff and readers of the journal.This article  was subm


With this issue of January 2009, Lung India has changed its looks and publication policy. The journal has entered into an agreement with M/S Medknow Publications, Mumbai for printing, publishing and distribution. This shall further improve the quality and the standard of the journal.www.journalonweb.com/lungindiaFrom now onwards, we adopt a complete on-line policy for submission of the articles, reviewing process, editing and proof- reading. All these facilities will be available at This will save a lot of extra efforts and time for the authors, reviewers and editors. It might be a little difficult for some of the members in the beginning. But we are save that you will find the entire process as easy, quick and friendly. We solicit your cooperation for the success of this venture.I, on behalf of the Editorial Board of Lung India invite you again to submit your articles and other interesting material to the journal. Your contribution is essential for the future of the journal.Wishing you all a very happy and successful New Year.


BioEssays, for November and December, the last for 2008, I lay down my red pen and retire from the editorship of this journal. I am turning it over to the new Editor, Dr Andrew Moore, formerly of EMBO, with all my best wishes to him for a long, successful and enjoyable term at the helm of BioEssays.With this double issue of BioEssays have (obviously) been essential for its existence and survival. I feel more than general gratitude to these overlapping constituencies, however: one of the great pleasures of the job has been the chance to get to meet and/or correspond, about all sorts of things, with so many of our authors and readers.This note is, thus, a farewell to “my” authors and the readers of this journal but it is also a thank you note to these groups, whose interest in and support of BioEssays Got to Be the Way It Is. We have tried, and, I hope, succeeded in making this a distinctive journal and the story of how it acquired its identity may be of interest. It is a proper evolutionary tale, not a “just so” story. In fact, it turns out to be, in part, a story of co–evolution.Farewells, whether spoken or written, are inevitably somewhat self–centred and, often, somewhat sentimental. To avoid or, at least reduce, these elements, I would like to devote this space to something other than the business of saying goodbye, namely a short history of How BioEssays, Dr William J. Whelan, of the University of Miami School of Medicine. Bill had previously been the founding editor of Trends in Biochemical Sciences, which began publication in 1976. Though review articles as such and the long reviews of the Annual Reviews series had existed well before 1976, TIBS was the first modern review journal, one carrying short reviews designed to inform readers about recent developments in particular subjects. Bill is thus, in a sense, the Father of Review Journals.  Bill left TIBS in 1979 but, of course, continued to read it and follow its course. By the early 1980s, he had begun to feel that TIBS was not doing full justice to the emerging area of molecular genetics and that a new review journal devoted to genetics would be appropriate—none existed at the time. As incredible as it will seem to many readers of this piece who are in their early 40s or younger, the world was not then awash in review journals. In fact, I believe, there was only TIBS for short reviews. Thus, in 1983, Bill began to canvass the possibilities for a new review journal centred on genetics with potential publishers and soon reached an agreement with Cambridge University Press (CUP).This history begins, naturally enough, with the founding editor of Trends in Genetics. Unbeknownst to them, however, Elsevier Publishers were well along in planning their Trends series at this point, including a Trends in Genetics. Elsevier soon got wind of CUP's plans and rapidly communicated its displeasure. In fact, they indicated that legal action would almost certainly follow if CUP went ahead with naming its journal Trends in Genetics. The Elsevier position was that they had an exclusive legal right to any title beginning with the words “Trends in”. This “advice” required a rapid rethink on the part of CUP, and Bill soon came up, in late 1983, with the name BioEssays. Thus, the title was born.What should the new journal be called? Bill and CUP decided that, naturally enough, it should be called It was about this point that I entered the story. Having resigned from a university position that I was unhappy with, I had moved myself and my family to Cambridge, England, to finish a book I was then writing  and to look for funds for a research position at the University, in Michael Ashburner's lab where I had previously completed a sabbatical. Just a few months after returning to Cambridge, however, I got a call from the journals' department head at CUP, who asked: might I be interested in becoming the managing editor of a new genetics journal that was then starting? Perhaps, I felt, this would be worth trying; I could always go back to hunting for research money if I did not like it. CUP had previously hired someone for this post but she had backed out at the last minute and with only six months to go before the start of publication, and very little material in the pipeline, they needed someone desperately. An unemployed American academic, who knew some genetics, might do just fine. I passed the interview, which was informal and brief, and was hired.BioEssays. It was apparent to us, however, that this name liberated us from the narrow constraints of the original mission of the journal, namely to cover advances in molecular genetics. We could, in principle, cover all biology. This possibility seemed much more exciting and pleased us both. It was clear that the old disciplinary boundaries—genetics, cell biology, biochemistry, developmental biology—were rapidly dissolving and that a truly integrative, multi-disciplinary review journal might be the appropriate sort of journal to recognize that fact.Bill had already started commissioning articles but, early in 1984, we mostly just had the new name, With an initial volume size of only 48 pages, however, there was the question of how one wouldmake such a broad–ranging journal of sufficient interest to enough people to turn them into subscribers. Individuals who only read articles in their subject area would hardly find enough of interest in any one issue of that size.BioEssays”, consisting of about half a dozen distinguished Cambridge scientists, in part to brainstorm about this. I remember, in particular, however, that the idea for the “My Favourite Cell” column—devoted to new and interesting model cell systems – originated with Bill. This eventually blossomed into the whole “My Favourite…” series.  But more than variety was needed: we would also have to do everything possible to make the articles readable and interesting. In doing so, we could (we hoped) tempt people to read and thus learn about subjects outside their subject area—BioEssays would, potentially, become a broad educational vehicle. But to help the authors with the task of writing for an audience beyond their own specialties, we would have to understand the material fairly well ourselves. My chief responsibility was the features section and I soon found that I had to educate myself across a whole range of subjects, in order to edit the material with any proficiency. In effect, I soon became a de facto student again, which suited me to a tee. I had been hired primarily as the nuts-and-bolts guy to make sure that the journal's production ran smoothly but I now had some real editorial responsibility plus a license to learn as much biology as possible. Though our early coverage was heavily weighted toward molecular genetics, cell biology and biochemistry, we were soon branching out into other fields, as a start toward justifying the “Bio” in BioEssays.One way to spark such interest would be to have a large section of “feature articles”, namely articles of great diversity and greater liveliness than standard review articles. They would be easy to read and, if done well, would have appeal beyond particular subject boundaries. Bill and I discussed possibilities and he also soon set up an editorial advisory group, the “Friends of BioEssays to become editor–in–chief of the FASEB Journal. Through a complex series of events, which I will not detail here, the journal moved to a new company, the Company of Biologists, Ltd.  and I became the Editor of BioEssays. Under the COB, the journal got a face lift and a corresponding boost in production values  and I set about to improve the readability of the articles and to further expand the range of coverage, particularly into the area of evolutionary biology, which had always been a strong interest of mine. Two critically important colleagues in this new phase of the journal's life were Dr Kermit L. Carraway (a colleague of Bill's at the University of Miami School of Medicine) and Dr Robert T. Johnson .In late 1989, after the journal was well–established, Bill left BioEssays into an even better journal—at least that was the goal—I began to notice that I, too, was changing. One change I have already mentioned. I had metamorphosed back into being a student, in fact a perpetual student. Indeed, on visiting my alma mater, Reed College, for my 40th(!!) anniversary class reunion in 2005, I realised that during my employment with BioEssays, I had effectively turned back into being a Reed student. Reed takes intelligent, idiosyncratic kids and exposes them to a huge range of subjects, demands lots of written work , vast amounts of reading, and a never-ending series of deadlines for pieces of work. There are no formal grades but lots of informal evaluation. In the end, Reed turns out young adults who are, in general, far more knowledgeable, more curious about the world as a whole, and probably even more idiosyncratic than when they entered. I reckon that, thanks to BioEssays, I have managed to remain a Reed student for a total of 28 years (though only four were spent at the college itself), surely a record even for a tertiary institution famous for its number of perpetual students.But while working away at the progressive evolution of BioEssays went beyond this. If you want to work constructively with authors to improve further their manuscripts, you have to use finesse and diplomacy, which is also simply the decent thing to do. Every article involves a lot of work by its author(s) and those efforts should be acknowledged, since the editor often has to ask the author(s) to put in even more work, in revision. Such requests should be done courteously and in a spirit that is clearly intended to be helpful. In effect, to be an editor, at least of a review journal, one has to acquire the skills of a diplomat. In addition, in the course of all my contacts with people, especially on my travels in connection with work, I began to lose some of the social awkwardness all too typical of academics, especially male academics. I found myself more at ease in social situations and confident that I was handling them well or, at least, better than I had before. Thus, thanks to BioEssays, I discovered my “inner extrovert” .But my personal co–evolution with BioEssays has been a truly co–operative effort involving numerous individuals. Some of the key figures  are acknowledged above and I would like to stress how much I appreciate their contributions and support. But there are four others, as well, whom I want to thank. First is Joe Ingram, my top manager at John Wiley & Sons for the 11 years that this journal has been with Wiley. (It moved from the Company of Biologists in 1997.) Joe has been friendly, sympathetic and helpful throughout; I could not have asked for a better “boss”.It has been a terrific job in all respects, although a demanding one. While it will be good to leave its ceaseless pressures behind, there is a part of me that will always miss it—though, at the same time I am eager to get on with the next stage of my life, which will continue to be involved with biology in numerous ways  It has also been gratifying to have received so much praise for my work over the years from numerous people though, at the same time, there is the nagging feeling that, after all, I was only trying to do the work conscientiously and perhaps one should not be praised for just doing one's job. But I would like to say that whatever I have put into the work, the job would have been impossible without the support and active help of many people. And then, and most crucially, there have been three key assistants: Stephanie Hamer , Ann Chase (my assistant editor), and Eleanor Wick (Ann's daughter and Stephanie's predecessor). My job has been a complex one and, at times, has felt overwhelming. Without the highly competent, efficient and above all, friendly and steady support of Steph, Ann and Eleanor, I would have gone under long ago. I am deeply grateful to them that this did not happen.And so, from the three of us at the Cambridge office, along with our invaluable canine support crew (my dog Jessie), we bid farewell to our readers and authors, with all best wishes to each of you for health, happiness and much enjoyment of your work.


I'm pleased to write this editorial for the inaugural edition of the Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology (MEAJO). I would like to thank the Board of Middle East and African Council of Ophthalmology (MEACO) for their confidence in bestowing upon me the honor of being appointed Editor-in-Chief of this newly named Journal. The journal under its original name, the Middle East Journal of Ophthalmology had a rich and long history but with the transition in the name of the Council (from PAACO to MEACO) it was felt that a change in name of the flagship journal would truly reflect the spirit and mission of the Council.The Middle East Africa (MEA) region has a rich history of ophthalmic innovation and history spanning millennia. Today this region has over 1.1 billion inhabitants accounting for around 20% of the population of the world.www.meajo.org. The journal is open access and all articles will be available free of charge to readers. Also, the article submission and peer review process will be electronic so that timely peer review is provided to the authors. The journal will be published quarterly and will in addition to original articles contain scientific reviews, editorials and technical reviews. We envision that the journal will serve as a resource for educational needs to ophthalmologists and allied health care personnel in the region.Furthermore, MEACO recognizes the need for timely updated ophthalmic information and education to the eye care providers in the Middle East and Africa. To help with this endeavor, we are proud to announce that the journal will be is now available online at The editorial staff and I are truly excited to have two outstanding associate editors. Dr Ahmed Abu El-Esrar and Dr Alexander Bialasiewicz are internationally well-known ophthalmic researchers and educators who will help me in this responsibility. In addition, we are truly fortunate to have a superb Editorial Board and International Advisory Board who are committed to providing high quality education and to providing help with the scientific peer review process. You will be meeting these dynamic individuals as they share their expertise through editorials and scientific and technical review over the next two years.To quote Arthur Ashe, the great tennis star, “Success is a journey-not a destination”. The success of this journal will not depend on the editors and reviewers but also on the participation of the readers and contributors. We hope that you, the readers and contributors, will join us in this journey to make this an endeavor that is successful and useful to us and our patients.


The following information was missing from the Funding section: The authors are grateful to the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for funding this work through the HPAI risk reduction project (GCP/UK/804/INT).


Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) has emerged as one of the leading journals in the environmental health sciences. It can be argued that one reason for EHP’s standing in the field of environmental health is its credibility as an unbiased source of news and research. With the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)—the journal’s parent agency—under new direction, we felt it was important to assure our readership that we greatly value the journal’s trustworthy reputation and that we are committed to maintaining its credibility as a high-quality, independent, peer-reviewed publication.Over the years, EHP is to serve as a forum for the discussion of the interrelationships between the environment and human health by publishing in a balanced and objective manner the best peer-reviewed research and the most current and credible news in the field. EHP does this by maintaining a strict separation from advocacy and nonprofit groups, industry, and government agencies, including the NIEHS.The mission of EHP alone is a pillar of truth.”In reference to the ability of the journal to report scientific findings independent of influence from some segments of the industrial sector, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich remarked in a congressional hearing  that “EHEnvironmental Health Perspectives) was held in Bethesda, Maryland, to consider the future of the journal. Participants included representatives from the environmental health sciences, journal subscribers, academics, and publishers. As part of the discussion, the participants were asked to identify threats that could weaken the journal in the future. One of these threats was the potential for the director of the NIEHS to influence, or be perceived to influence, the journal content. Because EHP receives considerable support for personnel and publication costs from the institute and because the journal and its staff are subject to the same organizational rules and regulations as other federal employees, it is logical to be concerned that the NIEHS director might exercise control over journal operations and publication decisions.In June 2007, a roundtable meeting (Listening Session and Roundtable Discussion on EHP is not so much that of biased editorializing, but of editorial self-censorship—that is, trying not to offend the powers that be, especially among staff who have been long-term government employees. In the minds of the participants, editors working within a government context may be less likely to act and write provocatively, even though it is the role of editorials, news, and research papers to provoke thought and stimulate discussion.The roundtable participants further noted that the potential problem for EHP editorial published in January 2008 noted that the content, scope, and direction of the journal would not be influenced by NIEHS leadership and that the editor-in-chief would be given full responsibility for directing and managing all aspects of the publication process (In fact, the NIEHS director makes no attempt to sway editors or writers, or to influence the peer-review process. In our view, editorial independence is an absolute necessity for producing a successful scientific journal. An  process . AccordiWe acknowledge and believe it is in the best interest of the NIEHS to support a prominent journal dedicated to stimulating new ideas and publishing research that sustains and develops themes relevant to the mission of the institute but that is not influenced by the institute. It is in the best interest of the institute to ensure that the message of the journal is viewed as fair and balanced to all sides of a question and that the journal is dedicated to publishing the best peer-review work in the discipline of environmental health sciences.EHP and the NIEHS. A high degree of credibility and scientific integrity is necessary to maintain the trust of Congress and the public, which are the ultimate consumers and supporters of environmental health science research.At issue are the credibility and scientific integrity of both


The best poems of the English language: from Chaucer to Frost. Bloom, for those who don't know, is the creator of the "canon," the collection of good books by mostly dead, white writers that he thinks everybody should read. He's been roundly abused for being elitist and out of touch with the modern world. I've also read the two Bibles of style: The complete plain words by Sir Ernest Gowers and The elements of style by William Strunk Junior and E B White. And I regularly reread Orwell's essay Politics and the English language, the greatest piece of writing on writing in English. So I have my pretensions when it comes to language, but I'm willing to publish in this journal prose that can be described only as execrable. Why?Few things give me greater pleasure than reading good prose. I've been reading an unbroken series of what I snobbishly call "good books" – Dickens, Trollope, Hemingway, Powell, Austen, Eliot, Conrad, James, Proust, Balzac, Roth, Updike, McEwan, and the like – since I was a teenager. Beside my bed I have a copy of Harold Bloom's Cases Journal has no pretensions to literary excellence, although I do long for case reports written with the depth and beauty that Freud managed. I keep hoping.The first simple reason is that the prose in most medical journals is flat and boring. Nobody reads medical journals for style. So Secondly, our bias is to publish. We want to build a huge database of cases. If we are too snotty about language we won't succeed.Thirdly, we want to be a democratic, bottom up journal – a Web 2.0 journal. It would thus be very odd to get all hoity toity about language.Fourthly, we publish in English (or something close to it), but we don't want to be biased against those whose first language is not English. Often those people write arresting English – because they don't know the cliches and dead metaphors that clutter up our language and they may create exciting sentences by translating into English the unfamiliar cliches of other languages.Fifthly, spelling and grammar don't matter a hoot so long as you can grasp the meaning. This is, of course, sacrilege to the "language fanatics," of whom there are many. When I was editor of the BMJ I received a steady stream of letters from these people on infelicities of language in the journal. Interestingly, however, I don't ever remember receiving such a letter about our rapid responses, which were posted on our website unedited and included some very strange language and spelling. Perhaps the language fanatics never accessed the website or maybe they thought the barbarians were through the gates and it was too late. They were right.So where do we draw the line? How low will we go? "As low as we can" is the answer. We are concerned with content and meaning not style. If we can understand it we'll take it. But do we have to understand every sentence? Again, I say no. Much of what I read in journals, newspapers, and books includes sentences that either I can't understand at all or that are incomprehensible because riddled with ambiguity. To demand 100% understanding is too much. We'll settle for 90%.Cases Journal is electronic we have the possibility of dialogue. Being misunderstood is routine even if your language is perfect. Wise doctors, for example, will ask patients to repeat back to them what they have understood. Often they find that patients have misunderstood even when they say they have understood clearly. So if readers cannot understand what authors have written then they should ask them to explain, and we will ensure that authors respond.Then because


Dear Readers,PLoS Pathogens has lived up to its stated goals of publishing “the highest quality work that embodies a significant advance across microbial pathogenesis.”In the fall of 2004, John Young was approached by Harold Varmus and the PLoS founders to start a new PLoS journal in the field of microbial pathogenesis. The need for such a journal was immediately recognized by the community. Since the initial call for papers in 2005, the journal has grown steadily and, at times, dramatically, with consistent increases in both the number of manuscripts considered and manuscripts published, and with a significant expansion of the Editorial Board. Under John's direction, and by dint of the tireless and outstanding work of the Editorial Board, each of whom volunteer their time, John's leadership is manifest at all levels of the journal, and we now encounter our biggest editorial transition to date as he steps aside as Editor-in-Chief. Particularly important to this transition has been the development of a journal editorial structure that ensures a smooth adjustment of responsibilities as board members balance the complex demands of time, both professional and personal. In this way, former Deputy Editor Kasturi Haldar will now assume EIC duties, and Grant McFadden, one of the Virology Section Editors, will take on the Deputy Editor role; John will remain an active member of the community and, in the role of Associate Editor, the journal.PLoS Pathogens.We are indebted to John for his expert guidance of the journal and expect to continue to build off of his example. We are also naturally excited about the possibilities inherent with changes in journal leadership, pathogens research, and open-access publishing. We look forward to another dynamic year ahead with you, the community of Thanks for your continued support and best wishes,Kasturi, Grant, and John


Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons is now indexed with PubMed. I proudly convey this message to members of the Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons and other readers of JIAPS. This means that now one can search for articles published in JIAPS from 2008 onwards, through PubMed. The full texts of JIAPS articles are archived with PubMed Central (PMC) and searchable separately from Entrez PubMed.We are already indexed with several important bibliographic databases as Bioline International, Hinari, Index Copernicus, IndMed, MedInd, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOPUS, etc. but indexing in PubMed was a long pending issue with the journal in the past few years. Achieving this feat has taken a dedicated editorial team and the publisher who have strived hard towards the indexing goal.The Journal was started in October 1995 by the then Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Subir K. Chatterjee. I put on record my appreciation of the services of various editorial teams, D. Basak, A.K. Basu, D.K. Gupta, Sandeep Agarwala and my colleague Ravi Kanojia for shouldering the responsibilities tirelessly. I would take this opportunity to thank all the other editorial team members and Medknow Publishers whose efforts have made this paradigm shift happen today with JIAPS.With this achievement, we now hope that the journal will have an inflow of quality scientific work both from India and abroad. The onus of the quality of the journal still lies on the author who favors a particular journal; the editorial team is just a catalyst to improve the outcome. The journal now needs to scale greater heights and strive to achieve citations and impact factor. This can be done by publishing greater number of original articles. Unfortunately, at present, only 20% of the submitted manuscripts are original and review articles, and rest of the submissions are case reports. I would request all prospective authors, publishing papers in international journals just because they are indexed, to choose JIAPS over the others now, as we are now in equivalence with international journals as far as indexing is concerned.Once again I congratulate all the authors, reviewers, editorial team members and the publisher for making this happen to JIAPS.


It is that time of the year when we reflect on the past with an eye to the future. The past has been short and it seems like yesterday when the inaugural issue of the Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology (MEAJO) was published online, and thereafter the print edition made its debut at the MEACO meeting in Bahrain. A group of highly enthusiastic and motivated members of the editorial board and International Advisory Board attended the meeting and resolved that they would work towards making MEAJO the flagship journal of MEACO. This prescient group of individuals had a vision to publish high-quality, peer reviewed, evidence-based manuscripts focused on research related to issues in the region, and also publish theme-based reviews that would educate the ophthalmology community in the Middle East and Africa. With the help of the editorial and advisory board, the editorial team, the global community of scientific reviewers and most importantly the authors who submitted their work for publication, we have made great strides in creating a Journal of Excellence in the last year.This is reflected by the privilege of now being listed on PubMed with which comes great responsibility to ensure that the culture of excellence is maintained.In 2009, 169 manuscripts were submitted to MEAJO online which represents more than a threefold increase in submissions compared to the previous year. Manuscripts were submitted by authors from the region and internationally including Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Turkey, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, United States, and Yemen. The scope of submission indicates the broad reach of the Journal facilitated by online submission and access. In keeping the highest standards of peer review, all submissions continue to be reviewed in a double blinded manner. The acceptance rate for the Journal was 33% in 2009. In the second quarter of 2009, we published the first theme-based edition-a review of glaucoma surgery-followed by a comprehensive update on uveitis contributed by the Society for Ophthalmo-Immunoinfectiology in Europe. The current issue features an update on corneal disease and refractive surgery review articles from well-known specialists across the globe. Future issues in 2010 will address pediatric ophthalmology and plastics, retina, ocular oncology and public health. Such theme-based issues allow the ophthalmic community to access current treatment and surgical paradigms in a timely manner that may otherwise take years to publish in a textbook. Our hope is that these theme-based issues prove to be an excellent clinical reference occupying space among the trusted manuals on the surgeon's book shelf.We also gauge the effectiveness of a new journal by other metrics provided by the publisher. The average time from submission to acceptance was 73 days in 2009. The Journal in the past year has been accessed 6000-8000 times per month. The number of individuals requesting the table of contents continues to increase monthly. This online activity portends the growing importance of a fledgling Journal such as MEAJO. More importantly such activity confirms the requirement of such a Journal for the region. It is not a question of if the Journal was required but rather how can it best educate and enhance clinical and surgical practice within the Middle East and Africa.In consideration of the economic issues that often face countries in this region and the high priority the Council places on providing educational opportunities to its membership, it was resolved that the Journal remain an open access online Journal.One of the challenges identified in the past year has been working with authors in regions where English is not the native language. Although the science behind the submission is often excellent and warrants peer review, the language often required professional editing. MEAJO, with the assistance of the Executive board, now provides an English language editing service for articles that have scientific merit. The editing service has already helped several contributors refine their submissions. The Journal continues to emphasize the importance of study approval by institutional review boards, ethic committees, or animal care committees where appropriate. Although regional differences in the interpretation and recommendations exist, the documentation of such a review remains mandatory and a high priority for manuscripts received by the Journal.


There is a paucity of published scientific data from the Middle East region in the fields of respiratory and critical care medicine. There is also limited information regarding the types of respiratory diseases prevalent in this region. This is www.thoracicmdicine.org) was founded by The Saudi Thoracic Society to allow original research, experience, and ideas to be communicated to the national and international scientific community. The journal was also expected to encourage local physicians to conduct and publish clinical and basic research related to local diseases. The ATM has also taken the initiative to publish locally applicable guidelines for the management of diseases such as pulmonary hypertension, lung cancer, and bronchial asthma. ATM has often invited national and international experts to write articles on the latest developments in the fields of respiratory and critical care medicine. Furthermore, the journal strives to adhere strictly to international standards and ensures that each issue is released on time. There is also emphasis on the ethics of research so as to avoid research misconduct. All manuscripts are initially screened with a computer software to detect fraud and plagiarism. The availability of ATM on the Web as an open access has made the journal accessible from all over the world [www.journalonweb.com/atm). The number of articles submitted to ATM has increased over the last 3 years [The Annals of Thoracic Medicine (ATM) (he world . ATM all 3 years . As part


Surgical Neurology International, has a history going back to Chicago, Illinois, and is very close to me personally. When I was trained, there was only one American journal pertaining to neurosurgical residents, The Journal of Neurosurgery. Dr. Paul C Bucy, who in 1973 was the Professor of the Division of Neurosurgery at Northwestern University, decided that a new journal was needed in the field. He had been trained, as had I, both in Neurology and Neurosurgery, which was the custom in those days both at the University of Chicago where Bucy was trained, and at the University of Illinois, where he was Professor until 1952 when he took the post as Professor of Neurosurgery at Northwestern, where I was trained. In those days there was no Neurosurgical Society in Chicago, although there was a regional society, the Central Neurosurgical Society, encompassing several Midwestern states. Most neurosurgeons in and around the city were members of the Chicago Neurological Society, and regularly that society had presentations that were neurosurgical in character. When one graduated from the University of Illinois program, that graduate was eligible to take either or both of the tests for the Boards of Neurology and Neurosurgery. We all thought of ourselves as operating neurologists.This new journal, Surgical Neurology, thus the name, which he did using his own funds and therefore became not only the journal's first editor, but also its first owner. He dedicated the journal to his mentor and later associate at the University of Chicago, Percival Bailey, who was a neurologist, neurosurgeon, and a neuropathologist as well, and who, when he was associated with the founder of American neurosurgery, Harvey Cushing, was responsible for clearing up the hopeless mess of classification of brain tumors that existed in those days. The new journal took on the lives of both neurology and neurosurgery, encompassing the concept of an operating neurologist.It was this concept, as I recall, that led Paul Bucy to found the journal Surgical Neurology, a new dimension was added. Although articles originating outside of the United States were sometimes included in the journal before his time, Ausman made an effort to proselytize such articles, which was part of his long-standing goal of bridging the gap between surgeons in the United States and those in other countries. As Chairman of Neurosurgery at the University of Illinois, and Chairman at Henry Ford Hospital before that, Ausman regularly sought out and trained foreign students from throughout the world. I had forebodings about that when he came to the University of Illinois originally, but that was soon assuaged. The foreign residents he brought with him were not only articulate in English as well as their own primary language, but they were also highly competent surgeons (I had regular occasion to operate with them), with an acute sense of diagnosis. One, Fady Charbel, became Chairman of Neurosurgery at the University after Ausman left and continues to do an outstanding job to this day.After James Ausman, who had been Chairman of Neurosurgery at the University of Illinois , took over the editorial helm of Surgical Neurology – which he will certainly continue to do with Surgical Neurology International.Ausman also visited institutions of neurosurgery outside of the United States on a regular basis and continues to do so to this day. He has established relationships with countless neurosurgeons throughout the so-called first, second and third worlds. He studied the practical problems that neurosurgeons encounter in their own societies, and presented these issues to the neurosurgical audience of Lastly, he has added the dimension of the Internet, so that publication is quick and easily accessed, since computers will be provided for those who do not have them. This last dimension brings neurosurgery into the modern world. I am proud to be associated with him and with this journal.


A word from former and present Editors Journal was ‘given to me to do’ – and the first issue was published in 1988. In 2003, after reaching Issue 47, the fulfilling task of Editor was handed on to a very able and experienced colleague, Victoria Francis. In 2007, Elmien Wolvaardt Ellison became our third Editor, bringing a wealth of expertise to further enhance the original vision and purpose of the Journal.Many years ago, in Central Asia, the Through the role of Editor, I have had the opportunity and privilege of meeting and working with many colleagues and friends, truly an international community of health professionals who have sufficient vision and selfless purpose to work together, seeking to eliminate avoidable blindness worldwide.Community Eye Health Journal has sought to provide a service to health workers – not only to specialists, but to those who are simply ‘faced with eye problems’ – ophthalmologists, doctors, ophthalmic nurses, general nurses, optometrists, refractionists, ophthalmic medical assistants, ophthalmic technicians, community health workers, and many others.During the past twenty years, the Journal from the outset to bring health workers up to date with current thinking and practice – a process of continuing medical and health education. In 2004–2005, a survey found that the Journal was the only source of up-to-date information for 73% of our readers and 72% said that the Journal had changed or influenced their practice.It has been the ethos and purpose of the Journal has played some part in providing knowledge and disseminating information, interpreting views and policy in health care practice to its readers and, thereby, preventing blindness and visual impairment around the world.Perhaps appropriately, the last twenty years have seen a growth in the development of eye care services – policies for disease control, human resource development, and infrastructure and appropriate technology provision – all central to VISION 2020: The Right to Sight. It is an encouraging thought that the  Community Eye Health Journal (CEHJ) was during its early beginnings as the ‘Bulletin of Community Eye Health’ – a simple biannual publication that aimed to extend the arm of a burgeoning training programme at the International Centre for Eye Health. The courses addressed the public health dimensions of ophthalmology and provided training relevant to resource-poor settings. As a postgraduate student at the Institute of Education, I was fascinated by the educational approach of both the courses and the extended learning materials, including the Bulletin. Twenty years on, the courses in community eye health and the CEHJ, now based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, continue to contribute to the global prevention of blindness. Two things strike me as remarkable about this. First, the contiguous development of the academic programme and the Journal, which ensures that content remains current and is continuously fed by international staff and students who contribute in many ways to its relevance. Second, the contrast in technological possibilities between ‘then’ and ‘now’. This has presented a great challenge in terms of maximising the potential of the digital revolution for those living comfortably on the digital highway, while at the same time not forsaking print as the only way to reach those without internet, who may in fact be working even beyond the end of a dirt track road. It has always been the purpose of the CEHJ to serve those who have limited access to information and I feel privileged to have been part of this during my period of Editorship. I wish the CEHJ continued success and growth in the coming 20 years!My first encounter with the  Journal is that we hope to remain a reliable source of information and continued professional education for eye care workers who would otherwise not have access to such resources. Some news is that we will be adapting key parts of the curriculum of the MSc in Community Eye Health, which is taught at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as an educational series in the Journal . This will be in the form of a four-page spread in the centre of the Journal, which readers can take out and keep. It will appear in every issue from 2010 until 2015. We will also keep striving to not just provide eye care information, but to provide information in a form that readers can immediately understand and use. Readers will have noticed an increase in the number of ‘boxes’ in the Journal, where we summarise key points and procedures as bulleted lists. We hope that some readers will cut these out and keep them handy, so they can refer to them during the course of their work – or use them to educate colleagues and students.What I wanted to say about the future of the


Perhaps some of you remember an editorial we wrote for our journal almost ten years ago entitled ‘On the revival of an old and venerable journal’. We gave reasons for why our society should go on publishing Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences (UJMS) given the premises ‘that it is not free of charge to run a business of this kind, despite the fact that the journal has grown thinner over the last couple of years’. We argued that the most relevant move to make should be to have the journal published also by electronic means. We also gave measures on how to increase the number of good submitted manuscripts. The final statement of that editorial was: ‘we don't intend to perish’.Well, what happened? The articles showed up in a fairly short time on the web site of UJMS, and anyone interested could read them due to the open access facility that we offered. The problem, however, was that the abstracts and full papers had to be easily recognized at for instance PubMed. We have struggled quite a lot with this extremely important aspect of electronic publishing, and with that experience in mind we recently decided to go for a publisher with broad expertise in the field. And that is why you are just now viewing an extensively updated issue of our journal. We dared to take this step, since we have experienced over the last years a significant increase of the number of submitted manuscripts , the number of total citations according to Journal Citation Reports reaching an all-time high (229 citations last year), and the number of hits in PubMed for the month of June last year exceeding 1500 . Due to the increased submission rate our acceptance rate for the submitted manuscripts has decreased well below 50%. And the impact factor has steadily increased at least over the last 4 years, but still it can be much improved.www.informaworld.com/ujms. All manuscripts will now be handled online-only through Manuscript Central. This will further improve our manuscript handling and the quick electronic release (iFirst) of accepted papers. There will be a printed version as well, as you can easily realize from holding the latest issue in your hands. In fact we have been brave enough to increase the publication rate from three to four issues per year. Most importantly, we have decided to stay with the open access offer to all interested readers. Moreover, giving up delivering the articles in printed form has not been an option keeping in mind that each time our members receive their private copy it is a sign of the activity of their society. As can be seen from the slightly modified Aims and Scope of the journal we will continue our efforts to publish reports on both clinical and experimental work. We have, however, now stressed that contributions dealing with aspects of medical sciences that are frequently challenged by researchers at our own faculty are especially welcomed. That of course also means that we would like to encourage all our scientists, young and old, to submit some of their papers to our journal.We recommend that you all visit the new web site of our journal, We didn't perish. Rather, we intend to serve as an efficient contributor of medical science reports.


Several months ago, the President of the International Organization of Medical Physics (IOMP) asked me to write a Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers. His request subsequently endorsed by the IOMP Council, reflected concerns about the intrusion of political, cultural, and religious pressures on the research of scientists and engineers, and on the dissemination of the results of research to governmental policy-makers and to the public at large. The Bill of Rights reproduced below responds to the IOMP President's request, and has been approved by the IOMP Council and by the Executive Committee of the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering. The Bill of Rights is currently under consideration by the International Council for Science.A few months ago, the IOMP Publications Committee, which I chair, approved an editorial on, “A Concern about Plagiarism” that has been published in many of the world's medical physics journals, including the Journal of Medical Physics. The IOMP Publications Committee intends to disseminate the present editorial in which the Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers is embedded, to the same journals for potential publication. The Publications Committee is composed of the editors of all of the world's medical physics journals, so a decision to disseminate the editorial by the Publications Committee is in effect a proposal to the editors to publish the editorial on ‘Bill of rights for scientists and engineers.A scientist or engineer (S/E) uses understanding, insight, and ingenuity to add to existing knowledge and to create new technologies that benefit both individuals and societies at large. In pursuing these goals, an S/E must be free to theorize and experiment, unimpeded by political pressures, religious dogma, or fear of reprisal. Preservation of this freedom is the purpose of the Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers. The Bill of Rights is consistent with the Statement on the Universality of Science of the International Council for Science (ICSU).An S/E is an individual who uses a logical and systematic approach in the pursuit of new knowledge and technologies. An S/E is not required to possess any specific credential such as an academic degree, appointment in an institution, funding by an agency, or membership in an organization.Science and engineering may be practised in any location; they are not confined to academic institutions, government facilities, or industrial settings. An individual using a scientific approach in a home laboratory is pursuing science or engineering as is an S/E employed by an institution, industry, or government agency. No prejudice towards the work of an S/E shall be exercised based on an individual's affiliation or lack thereof, with a particular institution, organization, or agency.An S/E shall not be dissuaded from pursuing scientific inquiry because of political or religious concerns, or because the inquiry deviates from a conventional perspective.An S/E shall be able to use any approach to new knowledge and technologies, limited only by the restrictions that the approach follows sound scientific principles and does not violate societal ethical precepts.An S/E shall be free to collaborate with other individuals in the same or other locations, with the understanding that collaboration may require covenants protecting confidentiality and intellectual property.An S/E shall not be subject to restraints in the presentation and publication of results that are imposed by political or religious entities or because the findings conflict with traditional knowledge. Scientific and engineering results should always be evaluated on their merits and not because of preconceived notions of “truth.”An S/E shall decide who should co-author scientific publications based on well-established guidelines for co-authorship. Courtesy authorship to senior personnel in an S/E's laboratory or institution is unacceptable.An S/E shall strive to ensure that scientific results are widely accessible to the scientific community.An S/E should object to the misuse of research findings for political, ideological, or financial purposes.An S/E shall always adhere to universal ethical and moral standards.


Dear Sir,Thank you for your mail. Let me assure you that International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEM) is not silent on the issue. We are aware of the letter published in the said journal by Dr. T.K. Joshi from India. Dr. Joshi has misrepresented the issues and used false premises to defame the IAOH. We have our views on the bonafides and personal agenda of Dr. Joshi, which we are tackling separately.st National Conference of IAOH in Delhi prior to the IAOH's formal stand on the issue. Based on scientific data, the Central Council of the association took a stand in the year 2003 in favour of Banning Asbestos. The association has not taken any financial support from any industry connected with asbestos after the decision. IJOEM has also supported the Ban Asbestos stand in the Editorial written by me in the issue of Vol. 5, No. 1, January-March 2001. Dr. T.K. Joshi has himself written an editorial in IJOEM Vol. 6, No. 3, July-September 2002 on “Precautionary principle and need to ban all forms of Asbestos use in India”. Now, how can he malign the IAOH and its commitment to advancing the ethical practice of occupational health in India?Dr. Joshi is a member of the IAOH and was the Chair of scientific committee of the 51In the light of the above, it is indeed surprising that Dr. Joshi has shot of a volley of blatantly misleading information. In the same note, he mentions about no one protecting his job. We wonder if all this is about personal glory or a genuine concern for the health of workers? I leave this for the readers to judge in the light of our response backed by evidence of Dr. Joshi utilizing IAOH's support in his crusade against asbestosis. It may be pertinent to mention here that Dr. Joshi has continued to be associated with us and has accepted awards and invitations, in spite of holding such negative opinions about the association. We wonder what his ulterior motives are. We therefore feel that the views expressed by Dr, Joshi about the IAOH should be taken in the proper perspective and with a pinch of salt. To us in the IAOH, this is a case of a crusade going horribly wrong tinged, as it is with an ulterior motive of one individual projecting himself as a martyr at the altar of occupational health in India. It may win him “brownie points” and in his mind help in holding on to his chair at this institution with the so-called help and support of people outside the country, but it has portrayed Dr. Joshi's institution, the IAOH and indeed the government in poor light - a stand unacceptable to the members of the IAOH.With respect to the other issues raised by you regarding the functioning of NIOH and the Government of India, they do not fall in the ambit of the IAOH's mandate and we would advise you to correspond with the concerned authorities and get their views. You may also like to take up the issue with the government and try to scientifically convince them rather that raking up such issues in scientific publications and politicizing the scientific community.


Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia (SJA) is the official Journal of the Saudi Anaesthetic Association (SAA). Since its establishment (in 2006), the SJA showed rapid and great progress. With the full support of his Excellency the President of King Saud University, Professor Abdullah Al Othman, we have carried out these new changes. The previous issue of the journal, in its new look, has been published by a well-recognized and established International publisher. In the last year you may have noticed that the SJA has been published online and this has given more strength to the journal, which is now on the path to international indexing. Since the SJA has come online, the number of articles is increasing and frankly the editorial board of the journal is paying more attention and working very hard to run the reviewing process in a closed loop module. Actually, the reviewing process takes time and effort, and this is cheerfully performed by the well-organized editorial board.Till last year we were publishing two issues per year; from 2010 we are planning to publish three issues in a year. Also, we are working on special issues, which would include some key articles from anesthesia conferences held in the kingdom, besides other special issues on certain pre-specified topics. Our journal has been accepted for promotion by all the universities in the Kingdom and once it is indexed in PubMed, all the articles published previously will be indexed as well.As Editor-in-Chief, I would like to thank all the members on the editorial board of the SJA and the consulting editors for the precious time they have spent in the management of both the printed as well as the online versions of SJA. Also, I would like to encourage our colleagues to send their articles to the journal office as online submissions, and as you might have noticed, the reviewing process does not take much time for a final decision to be taken.The aim of the editorial board is to promote knowledge and research in anesthesia practice, besides bringing to the attention of the anesthesia community, all the new and forthcoming events, as a possible contribution.We will be happy to receive your comments and suggestions, for a better performance and for improving the status of SJA, in order to reach our goal of being indexed internationally in the near future.


A field test of use as an agricultural mulch sheet for mandarin oranges was carried out over two years. The mechanical properties of the mulch sheet were weakened with time during the field test, but the quality of the mandarin oranges increased, a result of the controlled degradation of the sheet. The most degradable modified starch degraded first, allowing control of the moisture on the soil. Accelerator mass spectroscopy was used for evaluation of the biomass carbon ratio. The biomass carbon ratio decreased by degradation of the biobased materials, PLA and modified starch in the mulch sheet.We have developed a mulch sheet made by inflation molding of PLA, Ecoflex By usin®) are being adapted as biodegradable mulch sheets .The percentage of modern carbon (pMC) for an oil-based carbon is 0%. The pMC for biomass made from the fixation of CO4.® and modified starch. The mulch sheet is an effective tool for the growth of mandarin oranges. Biodegradable mulch sheets are often used, however, the purpose is just for decreasing of waste after use. The mulch sheet consisting of PLA, Ecoflex® and modified starch has other good biodegradable properties. It seemed that PLA and Ecoflex® are hardly biodegraded by the soil after several months, meanwhile, modified starch has the same biodegradability as raw starch and is lost within a few months. We carried out the field test using the mulch sheets based on the growth of mandarin oranges. The quality of the mandarin orange became better by using the mulch sheets. Furthermore, the inclusion of the modified starch in the sheet made it even better. This advantage for the growth of mandarin oranges is derived from the difference in the degradability of the materials. By blending with some materials, which have different degradabilities, the properties can be controlled by time or condition. In this study, as modified starch is most the degradable material in the mulch sheet, the degradation of modified starch formed some voids in the mulch sheet. The degradation of modified starch induced the controlled effect of moisture regain by the soil, and the change was suitable for the growth of mandarin oranges. Finally, because three materials are fully biodegradable, the mulch sheet can degrade to CO2 and H2O. In addition to the control of the moisture regain by the soil, PLA and modified starch are biobased materials. Therefore, we evaluate the biomass carbon ratios by the ASTM D6866 standard method. It was confirmed that the mulch sheet includes theoretical biomass carbon ratios and the lack of biobased modified starch decreased the biomass carbon ratios after use in the mandarin orange grove. The evaluation method of the biomass carbon ratio is applicable for the degraded material.A mulch sheet with properties that change during mandarin orange fruit growth could be developed by the inflation molding of PLA, Ecoflex


I wish to thank Prof. K. L. N. Rao, Professor & Head, Dept. of Pediatric Surgery, my teacher and mentor, for asking me to be the Editorial Secretary of JIAPS during his tenure as The Editor-in-Chief. The Department of Pediatric Surgery at PGI, Chandigarh has been fortunate to be lead earlier by eminent men like Prof. I. C. Pathak, Prof. S. K. Mitra, and now by Prof. Rao. We have been lucky that we have a reasonable infrastructure and a large number of trainees and a huge population of sick children . Even with all these, we find it difficult to do basic research and we are just able to do some Clinical Research. Hence, the majority of the pediatric surgeons in this country who are outside the Institutions (90% of the pediatric surgeons) cannot find the resource, clinical material, or the time to do research or publish papers. Yet, we are encouraged to see that a large number of Community Pediatric Surgeons of India are trying to communicate to the rest of the world through JIAPS. This gives us hope that our journal will get indexed in the near future.About the future of the journal, we have two immediate objectives in our mind: (1) To get the journal indexed, (ii) To improve the finances of our journal. The indexing of the journal is possible only if outside peer reviewers in our field think that our journal is of a particular scientific standard laid down. Hence, we need series publications of good quality to be sent to the journal instead of case reports. It is for the good of all members of IAPS that we are requesting this favor. The editorial board is also thinking of financially rewarding the best papers every year. All the M.Ch. trainees are requested to submit their research work as a paper to the JIAPS.Prof. Rao has thought of an innovative idea to increase the number of good articles in the journal. All papers presented in the regional/zonal meeting of IAPS may be sent for consideration for publishing in the journal. These will be published without delay. We will help actively in improving the quality of the content of the articles by corresponding with the authors. Our idea is to make JIAPS a quality journal of the developing world. We also would like to bring out articles for the trainees – a trainee's corner, meant to be oriented toward the trainees and their exams. A practitioner's column, where interesting anecdotes or interesting cases are discussed, is also planned. This column is open only for practitioners in pediatric surgery not affiliated to teaching institutions.We would also like to see JIAPS as a forum, where the pediatric surgeons of the developed world, which is lacking the clinical material , interact with the developing world. The pediatric surgeons of the developing world are innovative and combat the resource crunch effectively to keep the community of sick children happy. Interaction between the surgeons of the two worlds will be mutually beneficial, as the trainee in the developed world does not get to see enough clinical material, whereas the trainee in the developing world does not get to see sophisticated infrastructure. We will have an interactive case presentation column, where we will have to pose difficult cases to eminent surgeons from renound centers of pediatric surgery. We would like to see the journal achieve the objectives during the current tenure when the journal office is in Chandigarh, and we solicit your cooperation and help. We would like to receive letters to editors on specific topics like (1) Introduction to health insurance for children, (2) Sub-specialization in Pediatric Surgery, and (3) Content of training/quality of training received in Pediatric Surgery by trainees. We would also like to have feedbacks regarding the journal e-mailed to us periodically. We request you, all the members of IAPS, to work to enhance the stature of our journal.


As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked.NPRC was conceived in the summer of 2007 at a meeting of editors and publishers of neuroscience journals. One of the working groups addressed whether it was possible to construct a system for permitting authors whose manuscript received supportive reviews at one journal but was not accepted  to send a revised manuscript together with its first round of reviews to a new journal for the second round. This would speed up the review process and reduce the work for reviewers and editors.http://nprc.incf.org. You will find information for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers there, as well as the information on how journals can join the Consortium.The working group not only designed a framework for transferring reviews among journals, but also implemented it as the NPRC. By the autumn of 2007, more than a dozen major journals had signed onto the NPRC, sufficient to launch the experiment in January, 2008. As of the autumn of 2008, 33 journals belong to the Consortium . For detThe editors of Consortium journals were recently polled to determine how the NPRC has been working. They responded that during the first 9 months about 1–2% of manuscripts that they received had been forwarded from another Consortium journal. A similar number had been sent out from each journal to other participants. In most cases, the papers had been expedited, because the editors at the second journal felt the previous reviews, and the authors’ response to them, were sufficiently positive to permit re-review by one or both of the original referees. In those cases when the editor at the second journal felt that they needed to get new reviews, the review time at the second journal was about what it would have been if the paper had been submitted there by ordinary means.So, the savings in time and labor are considerable for most of the papers that are transferred between journals via the NPRC. Why then are so few authors using this option?One reason may be that authors resubmit their manuscripts to a journal outside the NPRC. The Consortium includes journals with large volumes of submissions and publications, but the list is far from complete. For example, ISI Web of Knowledge lists 211 Neuroscience journals. The Consortium currently spans this spectrum of journals, from very general to highly specific. However, as more journals join the NPRC, the utility of the system will undoubtedly increase.A more likely reason for authors not using the NPRC is that they are simply not aware of it. Although there were attempts to publicize the NPRC at its onset, many authors may not know about the possibility, or know which journals participate.The process of transferring a paper from one journal to another could not be easier. The author simply revises the paper in response to the original reviews, and writes a cover letter that lists the changes that have been made, the name of the journal at which the paper was previously reviewed, and the accession number at the previous journal. When the paper is submitted to the second journal, the author notes the new accession number and then sends an email to the first journal , asking them to send the reviews for their manuscript to the second journal . The first journal will then send the reviews directly to the second journal, including the names of the reviewers (if they have agreed to have their names transferred). The editors at the second journal then can treat the paper as they see fit, based on the first set of reviews.Of course, not all papers (and reviews) lend themselves to this process. If the reason for rejection at the first journal is that the referees had substantive requirements for additional work or revisions, authors may decide to revise the paper, but then start fresh at the second journal. In the end, we estimate that it is not likely that more than about 10% of rejected manuscripts are appropriate to be handled via the NPRC. But given rejection rates between 50% and 80% at many of the consortium journals, many papers could benefit from the NPRC, and certainly many more than are currently using it.The current members of the NPRC decided in November to extend the life of the Consortium, which was originally a one-year experiment, by at least another year. The International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility (INCF), which provides the infrastructure for the NPRC, has agreed to provide its resources for another year. The intention is to continue forward on a year-to-year basis, at the voluntary participation of the member journals. We have in particular to thank Jan Bjaalie, the director of the INCF, and Elli Chatzopoulou, who has been doing all of the administrative work in the INCF, for supporting the NPRC.http://nprc.incf.org). Those who have questions are encouraged to contact us by Email.We invite authors who have not yet used the NPRC to try this method for appropriate manuscripts. We invite journal editors and publishers who have held back during the first year to join in. The NPRC entails virtually no cost or work, and provides a payoff in reduced work for authors, reviewers and editors. The methods for authors and editors to use the NPRC are clearly outlined in its website (


BMC Genomics based on the peer reviews only. The conference committee was very grateful for the Plenary Keynote Lectures given by: Dr. Brian D. Athey , Dr. Vladimir N. Uversky (Indiana University School of Medicine), Dr. David A. Patterson  and Anousheh Ansari . The theme of the conference to promote synergistic research and education has been achieved successfully.The advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing technologies have fostered enormous potential applications of supercomputing techniques in genome sequencing, epi-genetics, metagenomics, personalized medicine, discovery of non-coding RNAs and protein-binding sites. To this end, the 2008 International Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (Biocomp) – 2008 World Congress on Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (Worldcomp) was designed to promote synergistic inter/multidisciplinary research and education in response to the current research trends and advances. The conference attracted more than two thousand scientists, medical doctors, engineers, professors and students gathered at Las Vegas, Nevada, USA during July 14–17 and received great success. Supported by International Society of Intelligent Biological Medicine (ISIBM), International Journal of Computational Biology and Drug Design (IJCBDD), International Journal of Functional Informatics and Personalized Medicine (IJFIPM) and the leading research laboratories from Harvard, M.I.T., Purdue, UIUC, UCLA, Georgia Tech, UT Austin, U. of Minnesota, U. of Iowa etc, the conference received thousands of research papers. Each submitted paper was reviewed by at least three reviewers and accepted papers were required to satisfy reviewers' comments. Finally, the review board and the committee decided to select only 19 high-quality research papers for inclusion in this supplement to  Gene expression levels are measured by fluoresce from hybridizes but quantification of the fluorescence of vast amount of spots on a chip are often unreliable from experiment to experiment. Furthermore many DNA samples can hybridize to more than one spot, thus, generating misleading results. Next-generation sequencing overcomes problems of Microarrays by generating actual sequence reads and is ideally detect genetic mutations. To measure the gene expression level reflected by the amount of a particular RNA molecule, simply tally up the number of sequence reads corresponding to that RNA molecule rather measuring an inaccurate fluorescent spot and trying to control for all sorts of experimental variation. Gene expression can be actually more accurately obtained by counting sequence reads. Next generation sequencing has distinct advantages to obtain regulatory markings in chromatin, and to identify neural regulatory protein binds in the genome, as well as to investigate differences between stem cells and differentiated cells such as cancerous cells, and to determine how gene regulatory network can be altered by an activated external signal. Next generation sequencing is cheaper, fast, and less time consuming but computational expensive. Given situations, the development of computational techniques is important for future bioinformatics data mining. To this end, the International Society of Intelligent Biological Medicine  works with academic conferences to promote the cutting edge research.With the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing technologies, gigabases of sequence information can be obtained in just a few days. The technologies offer drastically faster and cost-effective sequence throughput and are vastly superior to shotgun sequencing due to the high volume of data and the drastically short time to sequence a whole genome or disease genome, but genome assembly is much more computational expansive. Therefore, the next generation sequencing technologies will foster enormous potential applications of supercomputing techniques in genome sequencing, epi-genetics, metagenomics, personalized medicine, discovery of non-coding RNAs and protein-binding sites. Furthermore, Next-generation sequencing will substitute microarray, the mostly used technology in genomics and bioinformatics: Like next-generation sequencing, microarrays can be used to examine thousands of genes in one experiment and can be used to obtain gene profiles, but the drawback of Microarrays are based on Lianjiang Wang, Jack Y. Yang and Mary Qu Yang  presente, contains further information on future meetings. The meeting is a large international conference with more than two thousand attendees from more than 80 countries annually. The conference continuously aims at promoting computational science research and education in biomedical sciences. For articles from the 2008 conference, please see , and also  for further reading.The next annual conference will be held in same location in Las Vegas, Nevada on July 13–16, 2009. The web site, The authors declare that they have no competing interests.All authors provided professional services to the conferences and contributed in writing this introductory article. All authors reviewed and agreed on the content of this introductory article.


Computational biology is an international collaboration. Open scholarly exchange nurtures the development of our field. And scientists are not the only beneficiaries; international cooperation is a crucial part of any country's diplomatic relations. Our community, by actively engaging governments, needs to promote scientific exchange.http://www.iscb.org/) recently surveyed its members about the experience of non-US scientists visiting or working in the United States (http://www.iscb.org/US_visa_survey.html). The answers of 50 people of 20 nationalities revealed needless inefficiencies and problems. The results of the survey were shared with the National Academy of Sciences  in advance of a February 7, 2008, Senate hearing on the topic of barriers to scientific exchange (http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2064).In response to reports of visa difficulties, the International Society for Computational Biology . Visa agreements between countries are almost always reciprocal. For example, if China allows only single entry visas to US citizens, then the US allows only single entry visas to Chinese citizens. There is a need for all countries to work out better reciprocity agreements with each other in the name of international exchange and collaboration.While ISCB collected information only on US visa problems, enabling international scientific exchange is a matter of importance in all countries. A 2005 European Union (EU) directive designed to make it easier for non-European scientists to get working visas for the EU has been implemented by only some member countries  restriction.Perform the necessary MANTIS searches before the consular appointments.Professional societies and conference organizers should:Educate embassy decisionmakers about our field, to reduce the mistaken tagging of computational biologists as security risks. Give scientists advice about how to explain what they do in such a way to make it clear that they are not a security risk.Notify submitters to conferences earlier of acceptances, to allow enough time to go through the visa process.Give full refunds to attendees not able to make it due to visa problems.Lobby government for changes listed above.Provide direct help to conference attendees in processing their visas, including explaining what documents are necessary.What can you as a scientist do? A lot!http://www7.nationalacademies.org/visas/Visa_Questionnaire.html). This information is used to support international scientific exchange, and in some cases to help address specific cases.You can report US-visa–related issues to the NAS International Visitors Office . Many of these organizations have been very active in the issue of international scientific exchange.Work through scientific organizations such as ISCB, NAS, and FASEB (the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, And finally, share your experience, concerns, and ideas with other scientists. PLoS invites you to use the comments feature associated with this article to share your experience of traveling internationally, and your ideas about how to take action on this topic.Enabling open scientific exchange is an important issue to the future of our science; your voice is important!


It will bring together hair biologists, wool and hair fiber scientists, clinical dermatologists and hair transplant surgeons in their united pursuit for increased knowledge of hair in health and disease. We welcome all delegates to this special event in the vibrant tropical city of Cairns, Australia, from the 16th to the 19th of June, 2010.The 6th of June, will attract and merge both scientists and clinicians. Scientific sessions include Morphogenesis, Negenesis and Tissue Engineering; Genetics and Genodermatoses; Hair Structure (science and cosmetic); Stem Cells, Stem Cell Niches and Cicatricial Alopecia; Hormones, Hair Growth and Pattern Hair Loss; Comparative Biology and Transgenic Models; Immunobiology and Alopecia Areata; and Emerging Technologies and Therapies. The hair congress will end with a Free Papers session.An exciting program has been organized, including Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty (Physiology or Medicine 1996), Professor Ralf Paus, Professor George Cotsarelis, Professor Rod Sinclair, Dr. Yutaka Shimomura and Professor Seong-Jin Kim. Clinical symposia and specialized workshops preceding the main conference on Wednesday, the 16th and 20th of June. Invited international speakers include Paul Bowden, George Cotsarelis, Takashi Hashimoto, Pritinder Kaur, John McGrath, Irwin McLean, Ralf Paus, Hiroshi Shimizu and John Sundberg.An added bonus for attendees will be the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australasian Society For Dermatology Research, which follows immediately after the World Hair Research Congress on the 19Rainforestation Nature Park (http://www.rainforest.com.au/index.htm), where everyone will have a chance to cuddle a Koala, feed a Kangaroo, throw a boomerang and play the didgeridoo. If a visit to the Great Barrier Reef is on your list of things to do in your lifetime, there will never be a better time than June 16-19, 2010.In addition to the scientific events, we have organized a delightful social program in a beautiful environment. Cairns is the gateway to the Great Barrier Reef and other natural wonders. Cairns, being in Northern Australia (Queensland), is convenient for international travellers and has a wonderful climate. June is the best time of the year to visit Cairns-as they say in Queensland, "beautiful one day, perfect the next." The conference dinner will be held at We would like to thank our sponsors in advance for their support, specifically Johnson and Johnson, Kao Corporation and the Australian Hair and Scalp Foundation. We are grateful for all the efforts by members of the local and international advisory boards and session chairs in promoting this event.www.hair2010.org for registration and abstract submission information.Abstract submissions are now open. Please visit


PLoS Genetics is three years old this month—a milestone worth celebrating! As we do, and as we recognize all who have helped us reach this point in time, we thought this would be a good opportunity to share with you a summary of our brief history and a look ahead.PLoS Genetics will continue to be a journal by and for the entire genetics and genomics community.Our original intent was to provide an open-access journal for the community that would “reflect the full breadth and interdisciplinary nature of genetics and genomics research by publishing outstanding original contributions in all areas of biology.” Now, three years later, all of us on the Editorial Board are very pleased with the breadth of topics covered and with the diversity of approaches, organisms, and systems. Going forward, PLoS Genetics will actively consider such studies, while encouraging work that also contains some empirical validation or exploration, for example with “wet bench” experimentation or application to a real dataset. This criterion is not intended as a pejorative judgment, but rather echoes the consensus of the Editorial Board that published papers should continue to bring significant new biological insight to a respective field. More importantly, this example reflects the nature of scientific achievement—as a community, we should anticipate changes in the types of experiments we do and the types of papers we publish, with an overall guiding principle to learn more about how genes and genome sequences influence the world around us. Accordingly, we expect to regularly evaluate the journal's scope from a practical perspective and to then clearly guide prospective authors in terms of specific types of manuscripts we encourage and discourage.Together with diversity, an essential component of the journal is our emphasis on work that is rigorous, that significantly advances the field, and that has broad scientific appeal. These assessments (particularly the latter two) are not always straightforward, especially when advances in technology, knowledge, and/or public interest stimulate a large number of manuscript submissions from a particular area. In the past year, for example, the journal has naturally seen an increase in the number of submissions that deal with the cataloging and analysis of large-scale sequence, expression, and phenotype data, including meta-analyses and development of new computational methods. As has been the case to date, Judged by the rising rate of submissions, the journal has been successful . CertainPLoS Genetics has steadily added new Associate Editors to the Board, from 29 (in July 2005) to 59 at the time of writing. The current structure—with distinct groups of senior editors for the fields of epigenetics, evolution, natural variation, and gene expression, and a group for the remainder of submissions—continues to work well, with substantial communication among all of us to ensure balance and consistency. Several new senior editors, who  make “triage-level” decisions, who oversee Associate Editor assignments, and who review editorial decisions, have joined the Board (or soon will), and this will be a critical next step in ensuring the journal's ability to consider the work the community entrusts to us. As this Board expansion begins, we would like to thank our charter senior editors who worked hard over the past year to make PLoS Genetics a strong journal that retains the community spirit: Section Editors Greg Gibson , Gil McVean (evolution), and Wolf Reik (epigenetics).One price of success is, of course, an increased workload, which has led to the expansion of the Editorial Board at all levels. Over three years, PLoS Genetics also see the value of our front matter articles in their educational content  and in their ability to foster community discussion. Indeed, open-access publishing greatly facilitates both goals. PLoS Genetics has had a committed team of front-matter editors, including Lizzy Fisher, Nico Katsanis, Marcy MacDonald, and Susan Rosenberg (who commission and edit Review Articles), as well as Jane Gitschier, who single-handedly invites, writes, and edits our unique series of Interviews. As the journal matures and we fine-tune the “front matter” section, readers can expect to see a diversity of recruited articles appearing in the coming year. Hopefully, our readers will take full advantage of our recent migration to the Topaz publishing platform and use the Web tools now available to participate in discussions on and about our published content.The inclusion of Reviews, Perspectives, and Interviews, collectively known as “front matter” in the industry, contributes in many ways to the impact of a journal—both with respect to the content provided as well as, more literally, the part such articles play in the calculation of the journal's Impact Factor. While great value is often placed on the latter, the Editors of One of the attributes of the Editorial Board, including all senior editors, is that we are working scientists who volunteer their “free” time (as if there is such a thing…) for the cause. In other words, manuscripts are not only reviewed externally by peers, but editorial decisions are also made by individuals in the trenches. Our impression is that, whether manuscripts are published or eventually turned away, authors generally take comfort in this type of editorial process. That is, our Board members know well the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat in their own efforts. Although some authors may ultimately be disappointed by our decisions, we cannot imagine a more equitable system of scientific review.PLoS Genetics from the beginning, namely Gonçalo Abecasis, David Allison, David Beier, Andy Clark, Susan Dutcher, Jonathan Flint, Claire Fraser-Liggett, Greg Gibson, Takashi Gojobori, Jim Haber, Scott Hawley, Yoshihide Hayashizaki, Stuart Kim, Leonid Kruglyak, Trudy Mackay, Susan Mango, Mary Mullins, Harry Orr, Molly Przeworski, Wolf Reik, Derry Roopenian, Mike Snyder, David Stern, Barbara Trask, David Valle, and Veronica van Heyningen. On behalf of our Editorial Board, we would also like to thank over 2,450 reviewers and 60 or more guest Associate Editors who have very generously donated their time over the past 3 years. Their names can be found together in Most of the work on the ground is done by the Associate Editors of Research Articles, an extremely dedicated and thoughtful group, and the peer reviewers. We are grateful to all of our Associate Editors, and particularly would like to acknowledge those who have stuck with PLoS Genetics, we thank you for your support of the journal—and we look forward to serving you in the future.Finally, on behalf of all the editors at Table S1Reviewers and Guest Associate Editors, January 2005–May 2008(0.08 MB PDF)Click here for additional data file.


I am proud and happy to announce some pleasant news to all readers of Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery (JCAS) and members of ACSI (Association of Cutaneous Surgeons of India). JCAS has been approved for indexing in PubMed-an important milestone in the evolution of any journal. It is a matter of great satisfaction and pride that this has been achieved within two years of starting the journal. This has been accomplished with the cooperation, support and guidance from several sources - the editorial team, both national and international, in particular my deputy editor Dr Nischal KC, all the office-bearers of ACSI , all the editors and referees; and most importantly all the contributing authors. Our publishers, Dr Sahu and his hardworking staff at Medknow Publications, have been a constant source of support and guidance without whose support this recognition would not have been possible. I express my sincere gratitude to all of them.JCAS has also started a new initiative - starting with this issue, the journal will carry a FOCUS on a topic of relevance to the cutaneous and aesthetic surgeon.This issue's FOCUS is on fillers, an important aesthetic modality, with emphasis on different aspects of fillers such as materials of fillers, side-effects, longevity, biofilms and practical tips for the use of fillers. Guest editor Dr Maya Vedamurthy has compiled the invited articles and I wish to thank her for her valuable contribution.I hope the readers will appreciate this initiative. We welcome any feedback from the authors and readers to enhance the impact factor of the journal. The forthcoming issues in 2010 will include FOCUS on other topics in aesthetic and cutaneous surgery such as acne surgery, hair restoration, vitiligo surgery and teledermatology. I invite authors to contribute articles on these topics.


The year 2007 has been very hectic and eventful for the Indian Journal of Dermatology (IJD). This was the 52nd year of this journal. The web version of the journal www.e-ijd.org has always been quite popular and there has been a steady increase in the number of contributions to the journal over the last couple of years. In 2007, we had a record 195 submissions, of which 56 were original articles and 12 were review articles. The policy of the journal has been to invite Review and CME articles from academicians who have worked in some particular field for number of years; we have been overwhelmed by the growing number of good quality review articles being uploaded to IJD's website by various contributors. This enthusiastic response has encouraged us a lot in our efforts to make the journal better and richer in its content.The rejection rate of a journal reflects the quality control being exercised by the editorial staff with regard to its scientific material. The rejection rate of IJD rose to 32% in the year 2007. The figure is comparable with that of some of the most prestigious international journals devoted to the subject of dermatology, venereology and leprology.th among all Indian medical journals with Web presence. This is a quantum leap forward and a jump of seven ranks from 12th position last year. In the last few issues, in our section on basic research, we have published some fine research work of high scientific value. We are grateful to the contributors and look forward to their continued support and many more similar contributions.Ever since making its appearance on the Internet as the first journal of dermatology from India, IJD has enjoyed a steady increase in its popularity, as reflected by the number of hits on the site and its rising impact factor. A Google search shows that IJD ranks 5I must thank my two most able colleagues, both executive editors, Dr. Koushik Lahiri and Dr. Saumya Panda for their tireless efforts to make the journal perfect in all possible ways! I also thank all the members of my hard-working editorial team, the committed editorial board members, sincere reviewers, committed contributors, and above all my ‘vote bank’—the selfless, unbiased readers! The journal strives for perfection because of its readers; I don't ever dare forget that.Currently it takes about 6 to 7 months for an original contribution, and 12 to 18 months for a case report, to be published. We have been working hard to shorten the duration so as to make the journal more contributor / author friendly. We have been regularly publishing dermatology-related articles from different specialties in our journal. This, we know, makes the journal more interesting for its readers. In the next few issues we will be publishing some of the finest of such articles and readers can look forward to that.th rank. Maintaining the standard of the journal is only possible if we feel proud of our journal and are happy to publish our best work in it. Authors should realize that by publishing their work in an Indian journal they are better able to communicate with their colleagues in the country as they are more accessible to them. We need to feel proud to publish articles in Indian journals.I take this opportunity to thank Dr. D K Sahu of Medknow Publications for his help and support in improving the quality of the journal. His perseverance was instrumental in giving IJD its 5A journal can never run smoothly without funding from the pharmaceutical industry. I must thank GlaxoSmithKline (Derma), Galderma India, Fulford India (Ltd), Stiefel India (Pvt) Ltd., Gracewell Derma, and Ajanta Pharma who have supplied the necessary oxygen for this journal's viability.I, on behalf of the ‘Team IJD,’ sincerely thank all of you for your kind patronage of IJD and wish you a very happy, fruitful, and prosperous 2008.Sandipan DharEditor- IJD