Search

Now more than ever, complex socio-ecological challenges require timely and integrated responses from scientists and policymakers. Air quality is one such challenge. Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency establishes ambient air quality standards to protect public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects of air pollutants. As our understanding of the environment and awareness of social values grow, there is a need to improve characterization of "adversity to the public welfare." Scientific assessment can link ecological effects to public welfare using modern scientific approaches that incorporate ecological complexity and multiple value systems held by the public. We propose ideas for the future of scientific assessments meant to inform air quality and other environmental decision-making, including concrete ways we can focus on vulnerable species and ecosystems, incorporate a multiplicity of values, climate and multiple stressors, and partner to diversify the knowledge upon which protective policies are based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cuban university is a scientific, technological and humanistic university. There are shortcomings in the forms of monitoring and evaluation of scientific output that are manifested in the absence of computer tools that allow monitoring and evaluating the progress and results of the strategic project, the limited development and visibility of a scientific-technical information and science communication and the need to continue advancing in internal processes, projecting an increase in the socialization of results and greater interoperability between systems, especially those that represent primary sources of information. These shortcomings hinders not only the management of science, but also the exchange and reuse of data with other higher education institutions attached to the Ministry of Higher Education and its STI system. Therefore, the objective of this research is to establish guidelines for the implementation of research information systems in Cuban universities to facilitate the institutional management of research information for the scientific assessment. As part of these guidelines, the Business Model, Requirements, Architecture and Components of the System are presented, as well as the lessons learned. The paper shows a starting point of key considerations for the audience of researchers and/or IT teams that intend to implement a research information system adequate to the context of STI management in a university. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Angle Health Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Este artículo presenta los significados que un grupo de expertos internacionales atribuye a las altmetrics como instrumentos de evaluación científica y componentes de una futura Política de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (CTI) en Latinoamérica. Se aplica una metodología cualitativa de tipo descriptiva y se recoge la información mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas realizadas a investigadores de Chile, Argentina, Perú, Colombia, España y Estados Unidos, expertos en altmetría, métricas de información y/o políticas de información. Los resultados arrojan que las altmetricsfortalecen su valor analizándose junto a otros indicadores, ya que no miden por sí solas el impacto o calidad de la investigación, pero aportan noveles y relevantes datos de rápida acumulación, amplio alcance disciplinar y diverso origen, promoviendo el uso de nuevos canales de comunicación científica. Algunos de los indicadores altmétricos más provechosos, son las menciones en políticas públicas, en patentes de invención y en plataformas sociales de alto uso en la región, como Facebook, Twitter y Mendeley; indicadores de vinculación con el entorno, revisión por pares y otros criterios cualitativos también son relevantes. Se recomienda integrar los criterios cuantitativos y cualitativos en las políticas de CTI latinoamericanas, las cuales deben, además, ajustarse a las realidades y presupuestos locales. = This article presents the meanings that a group of international experts attribute to altmetrics as instruments of scientific evaluation and components of a future Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy in Latin America. A descriptive qualitative methodology is applied and information is collected through semi-structured interviews with researchers from Chile, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Spain, and the United States; experts in altmetrics; information metrics and/or information policies. The results show that altmetrics strengthen their value when analyzed together with other indicators, since they do not measure the impact or quality of research on their own, but provide novel and relevant data of rapid accumulation, broad disciplinary scope and diverse origin, promoting the use of new channels of scientific communication. Some of the most useful altmetrics indicators are the mentions to public policies, invention patents, and social platforms of high use in the region, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Mendeley; indicators of linkage with the environment, peer review, and other qualitative criteria are also relevant. It is recommended to integrate quantitative and qualitative criteria into Latin American STI policies, which should also be adjusted to local realities and budgets.

Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the IPCC guidance note than other experts, and they followed it more often; (2) experts' confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts' estimated probability intervals for climate variables were wider when likelihood terms were presented with "medium confidence" rather than with "high confidence" and when seen in context of IPCC sentences rather than out of context, and were only partly in agreement with the IPCC guidance note. Our findings inform recommendations for communications about scientific evidence, assessments, and related uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Documentación Científica is the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

An honest communication of uncertainty about quantities of interest enhances transparency in scientific assessments. To support this communication, risk assessors should choose appropriate ways to evaluate and characterize epistemic uncertainty. A full treatment of uncertainty requires methods that distinguish aleatory from epistemic uncertainty. Quantitative expressions for epistemic uncertainty are advantageous in scientific assessments because they are nonambiguous and enable individual uncertainties to be characterized and combined in a systematic way. Since 2019, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommends assessors to express epistemic uncertainty in conclusions of scientific assessments quantitatively by subjective probability. A subjective probability can be used to represent an expert judgment, which may or may not be updated using Bayes's rule to integrate evidence available for the assessment and could be either precise or approximate. Approximate (or bounded) probabilities may be enough for decision making and allow experts to reach agreement on certainty when they struggle to specify precise subjective probabilities. The difference between the lower and upper bound on a subjective probability can also be used to reflect someone's strength of knowledge. In this article, we demonstrate how to quantify uncertainty by bounded probability, and explicitly distinguish between epistemic and aleatory uncertainty, by means of robust Bayesian analysis, including standard Bayesian analysis through precise probability as a special case. For illustration, the two analyses are applied to an intake assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the elements that have a recognized weight in studies on the distribution of citations and their behavior in different documentary typologies and disciplines is non-citation, an element that is also affected by time (half-life, aging of citations, etc.). All these facts have been studied profusely for years, and from very different perspectives, but little has been done in the framework of scientific monographs despite being an area in which criticisms of evaluation systems continue to appear. This work aims to study the evolution of non-citation in monographs analyzing the results of previous works; for this, the studies of Rong Tang (2008) and Jeppe Nicolaisen and Tove Faber Frandsen (2019) are taken, and, after the necessary normalizations, replications of steps and data treatment, they are comparatively analyzed from the point of view of said evolution. The results suggest a relationship between the non-citation ratios and the document typology, allowing a better understanding of the current panorama of the publication and use of scientific information, and making the non-citation ratio an interesting indicator to measure the varying impact of scientific monographs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales is the property of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Today in Russia the system of the state scientific certification undergoes significant changes: the powers of federal executive authorities are delegated to the educational and scientific organizations. As a result, independence in the choice of mechanisms, orders and procedures of formation of dissertation committees and criteria of awarding academic degrees is allowed. At the same time reinterpretation of axiological bases of dissertation culture through overcoming the problems connected with authenticity and quality of dissertation researches, by increase in reputation responsibility of the organizations and scientists takes place. On May 31, 2019 it will be a year to the moment of transition of the MGIMO University to a new model of the state scientific certification. According to the model developed by the MGIMO University, awarding an academic degree comes by the results of the defense of a thesis at a meeting of the dissertation committee of 5 doctors of science, three of which are employees of the MGIMO University, and two are invited scientists from other organizations. Two of five are experts with publications in the scope of the research combining the role of a member of the dissertation committee and an official opponent. The result of the defense is politically variable: alongside with the possibility of taking the negative decision awarding an academic degree without completions of the text and also under the condition of insignificant and considerable completions of the text of a research is allowed. The lack of such opportunities in the practice of awarding academic degrees existing in the domestic dissertation culture excluding modification of the manuscript submitted to defence after holding a meeting of dissertation committees, as well as other defects of the historically developed model of awarding academic degrees, defined the fastest transition of the MGIMO University to a new model of certification. «MGIMO Review of International Relations» discussed the main milestones of formation and key problems of development of the domestic dissertation culture with P. Kasatkin and E. Antyukhova.

The point I wish to make is not what we all know: that the methods to assess the quality of research achievement are controversial. I do not wish to call into question the raison d'être of scientometric approach, its methodology or its particular indicators either. Nor am I aiming at coming up with systematic solutions of the contradictions (although I hope to offer some thoughts in that direction later below). Many have called and keep calling attention to the rigid and uniform application of the numerical approach (counting publications), arguing that it is doing injustice to certain areas of science.1 With that as a starting point, this study is intended to serve two purposes. One, in a much sharper tone than generally used in discussions of the topic, I wish to call attention to how extremely harmful the present scientometric practice may be for many scholars and scientists. Two, also partly in support of the former argument, I propose to demonstrate—to the degree of breadth and depth that the size-constraints of this paper make possible—how the crucial contradiction in question at the core of the present practice follows from the myths generated by scientometry itself. Here is the paradox: it is the mechanical application and overvaluation of the scientometric assessment of research performance, the very objectivity designed to guarantee equal and fair treatment that does, in fact, lead to the devaluation of quality research effort and discourages even kills the will to conduct research in several disciplines. That is to say, the partly true, part-fun proverbial "publish or perish" principle, which urges the research scientist or academic to keep publishing for the sake of career advancement and academic survival, turns into the trap of what we can describe as "publish and perish." How a well-intentioned and basically most welcome development, scientometry, or rather, its method of application as well as the myths it generated yield the "publish and perish" phenomenon is the subject I will address below. 1 inanimate (physical) natural sciences and mathemathical sciences, animate (life) natural sciences, human- and social sciences

[Display omitted] • Green and sustainable synthetic pathways for metal hexacyanoferrates nanomaterials. • Five years' scientific assessment data of MHCF nanomaterials. • Comprehensive discussion on photocatalytic properties of MHCF nanomaterials. • Advances in treatment of water pollutants by green-synthesized MHCF nanocatalysts. Metal hexacyanoferrates (MHCFs) are attracting much scientific interest due to their intense properties, which include variable energy band structures, unique redox properties, stability, availability, low cost, and eco-friendly catalysts compared with traditional photocatalysts. Transition metal oxides, metal sulfides, carbon derivatives, and polymers could extend electron-hole creation, improving photocatalytic efficiency and adsorption properties of MHCFs. The band gaps of MHCF are usually between 1.31 and 2.52 eV, generating e− and h+ pairs that degrade pollutants. The surface area, charge, and functional groups of MHCFs impact the adsorption and degradation of contaminants. The shift towards green synthesis is necessary for environmental sustainability, health, and safety. This article concludes that the green synthesis of MHCFs and various applications of MHCFs, like adsorbing and degrading pollutants and selective removal of heavy metals and radioactive ions, make them efficient candidates for water treatment. These are effective for water treatment over a long period due to their stability under various environmental conditions. A handful of reviews on MHCFs individually discuss one of their applications, but this review provides all the information about their green synthesis and environmental applications. A comprehensive study of MHCFs has been conducted for five years. The investigation analyzed sustainable MHCFs, production, challenges, and potential future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial Volume 8 Issue 2

This study analyzes the development of Latin American scientific publications from 1980 to present day in the context of the scientific assessment policies during that period. The analysis leads to the proposal of three eras in the development of Latin American scientific journals, which are analyzed in relation to the creation of regional systems such as Latindex, SciELO, and RedALyC. In the context of the third period –“internationalization”– the new journal evaluation policies of Mexico and Colombia (2016) are further analyzed and inconsistencies with the objectives of the previous periods are identified. In particular, the document analysis highlights how these policies shift the discourse and approach away from those seeking visibility and quality and towards citation as the only valued measure of publications. This change in approach is discussed along with the perceived advances and setbacks from the previous periods. The authors conclude that the scientific community would do well to return to the principles and values established in the first two periods where science and scientific publications were moving towards a regional and cooperative model under the governance of the scientific community.

Mycotoxins are naturally occurring toxins produced by certain fungi. Exposure to mycotoxins may occur through the consumption of contaminated foods or from animals that are fed contaminated feed. To safeguard the nation's food supply, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) utilizes a comprehensive mycotoxin program which samples and analyzes foods for surveillance and compliance purposes, including enforcing action levels. Mycotoxin analysis is at the center of the mycotoxin program, as concentration data are needed for data analysis, scientific assessments, and risk management. This review focuses on the Agency's continuous efforts to develop and incorporate fit-for-purpose analytical tools for mycotoxin analysis with particular focus on the relationship between analytical methodologies and scientific assessments. The discussion further highlights challenges and advancements in analytical methods and discusses future possibilities to develop analytical tools and preventative risk management approaches to meet the evolving regulatory needs.

This study aims to know the habits and assessments of researchers in Social Sciences and Humanities of Brazil in relation to scientific publications and especially on academic books. Thus, there are several aspects that are addressed: their publishing habits; their opinions on the book format as a means of communication, and their assessments of academic publishers based on their experience. Other specific issues of the monographs that are addressed are the payment to be published, university publishers, and open access. In this case, the data compilation has been based on a survey sent to Brazilian coordinators of Social Sciences and Humanities research groups (16,542 researchers). The response rate was of 12% (1,977 researchers). The analysis of the answers received stand out the value that these academics grant to the book as a scientific publication and identifies the weaknesses of the Brazilian academic sector: the lack of transparency in editorial processes, financing, and distribution. In certain cases, the prestige of publishers, and their rigor and transparency were positively evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of national academic characteristics is an imperative task for the understanding of national scientific production and the creation of effective science policy. Using a dataset of more than 3.2 million Brazilian curricula, we explore the academic community of PhDs working in Brazil in order to identify characteristics of the whole national network and in the knowledge area level. We used metrics from social network analysis and text mining techniques, as well as the patterns of collaboration between areas and the regional distribution of PhDs. The results show different general characteristics of the PhDs working in each Brazilian state and knowledge area, according to the social and economic characteristics of each of the five Brazilian regions. Different interaction profiles were described, like a less connected network in Linguistics, Letter, and Arts, in which each researcher is related, on average, to less than three other PhDs; on the opposite side, Agricultural Sciences each researcher is related, on average, to more than nine other PhDs of the network. It is clear that besides the capital and one or other major city, the Northeast Region is devoid of PhDs, a situation that is particularly problematic for the most destitute region of Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Offering safer alternatives to cigarettes, such as e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products, to smokers who are not willing to quit could reduce the harm caused by smoking. Extensive and rigorous scientific studies are conducted to assess the relative risk of such potentially modified risk tobacco products compared with that of smoking cigarettes. In addition to the peer review of publications reporting individual studies, we aimed to gauge the plausibility of the evidence to the scientific community and appreciate likely necessary additions prior to regulatory submission. Therefore, we sponsored a two-tier peer review organized by an independent third party who identified, recruited, and managed 7 panels of 5–12 experts whose identity remains unknown to us. The reviewers had access to all publications and raw data from preclinical and clinical studies via a web portal. The reviewers were asked questions regarding study design, methods, quality of data, and interpretation of results to judge the validity of the conclusions regarding the relative effects of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 compared with cigarettes. Once their conclusions were submitted, the experts had the opportunity to participate in an anonymized online debate with their fellow panel members. We present here the results obtained from this innovative peer review effort which revealed supportive or very supportive of the study methods and results, and support the robustness of the studies and validity of the conclusions. Image 1 • Five panels of experts (tier 1) reviewed nonclinical and clinical studies assessing THS 2.2. • Two panels of more senior experts (tier 2) reviewed and summarized the outcome of the first tier review. • Overall expert reviews were supportive of the methods, results, and conclusions drawn by the authors of the studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A discussion on the new metrics for the measurement of science and the direction that the system must take in terms of evaluation of scientific production is presented. The differentiation between some of the proposals presented to the European Commission and the AmeliCA developments is proposed. We observe the importance to recognize concepts that describe the development of science, not only from the visibility perspective, including those means derived from open science, but also the recovery of aspects such as the creation of communities, training, communicability, among other issues. The role of the metrics is highlighted especially as a tool for decision making and a form of accountability to society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Uncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is therefore relevant in all EFSA's scientific assessments and also necessary, to ensure that the assessment conclusions provide reliable information for decision‐making. The form and extent of uncertainty analysis, and how the conclusions should be reported, vary widely depending on the nature and context of each assessment and the degree of uncertainty that is present. This document provides concise guidance on how to identify which options for uncertainty analysis are appropriate in each assessment, and how to apply them. It is accompanied by a separate, supporting opinion that explains the key concepts and principles behind this Guidance, and describes the methods in more detail.

Abstract To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work.

Abstract Applicability of the EFSA Scientific Committee revised draft Guidance on uncertainty in EFSA scientific assessment is tested in the context of an EFSA Reasoned Opinion on the modification of pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs). EFSA purchased services for the preparation of a non‐regulatory Evaluation Report with example non‐standard uncertainties related to a fictitious application for the modification of MRLs. The Evaluation Report was assessed by EFSA in the format of a Reasoned Opinion and case‐specific examples of non‐standard uncertainty in the acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were analysed. Methods were selected from the general framework outlined in the Scientific Committee draft Guidance in order to apply a relatively simple strategy that could be considered for use in a regulatory context. The individual non‐standard uncertainties were assessed by sensitivity analysis with iterative back‐calculation of the parameter values that would lead to exceedance of the toxicological reference value (exceedance limit calculation), and quantified by subjective probability estimation. Non‐standard uncertainties affecting the chronic risk assessment were quantified by subjective upper bound probability percentile estimation and the combined estimated non‐standard uncertainty calculated by probability bounds analysis. Probability bounds analysis provides a relatively simple approach for calculating the probability related to a combination of uncertainties. The draft Guidance was found to provide a comprehensive range of methods for uncertainty analysis. However, process‐specific guidelines and practical procedures may need to be developed in order to implement the uncertainty assessment framework in routine pesticide risk assessments. The uncertainty assessment is intended to provide additional information on how certain the conclusions of the risk assessment are and thereby support the risk‐based decision‐making process by enabling risk managers to take account of uncertainty. The outcome of the pilot study will inform the EFSA Scientific Committee Working Group on how to further tailor the draft Guidance on uncertainty for the needs of the EFSA panels and units.

Abstract EFSA is committed to assess and communicate the risks occurring in the food and feed chain from farm to fork and to provide other forms of scientific advice. This work, carried out by EFSA since its inception, has resulted in the adoption of thousands of scientific assessments. EFSA is obliged to re‐assess past assessments in specific regulatory contexts such as those on food and feed additives, active substances in plant protection products and genetically modified food and feed. In other sectors, the consideration for updating past EFSA scientific assessments is taken on an ad hoc basis mainly depending on specific requests by risk managers or on EFSA self‐tasking. If safety is potentially at stake in any area within EFSA's remit, the readiness to update past scientific assessments is important to keep EFSA at the forefront of science and to promote an effective risk assessment. Although this task might be very complex and resource demanding, it is fundamental to EFSA's mission. The present EFSA Scientific Committee opinion deals with scientific motivations and criteria to contribute to the timely updating of EFSA scientific assessments. It is recognised that the decision for updating should be agreed following careful consideration of all the relevant elements by the EFSA management, in collaboration with risk managers and stakeholders. The present opinion addresses the scientific approaches through which it would be possible for EFSA to increase the speed and effectiveness of the acquisition of new data, as well as, to improve the consequent evaluations to assess the relevance and reliability of new data in the context of contributing to the better definition of whether to update past scientific assessments.

In the context of ongoing debates about the place of knowledge and expertise in the governance of global challenges, this article seeks to promote cross-sectoral learning about the politics and pitfalls of global science advice. It begins with the intertwined histories of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the global climate policy regime, before examining the politics of different ‘framings’ of the climate problem and the challenges of building and communicating scientific consensus. We then identify three important trade-offs which the IPCC has had to negotiate: global versus local; scientific disinterestedness versus policy-relevance; and consensus versus plurality. These lessons are especially timely as global institutions begin to convene knowledge to address urgent sustainable development challenges posed by anti-microbial resistance (AMR). While the IPCC experience does not provide a wholly transportable model for science advice, we show why similar trade-offs need to be addressed at an early stage by architects of advisory systems for AMR as well as other global challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnologia y Sociedad is the property of Centro de Estudios sobre Ciencia, Desarrollo y Educacion Superior and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background The Health Claims Regulation entered into force in January 2007. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has evaluated more than 3000 health claims since then, but EFSA's responsibilities in this area and the extent to which its scientific assessments are in accordance with the current legal framework are still not fully understood. Scope and approach The scope of this paper is to provide insight on the use of scientific knowledge in the area of nutrition for the substantiation of health claims made on food. The reasons why a positive evaluation by EFSA may not be sufficient for the authorisation of a health claim are also discussed. Concrete examples are used to illustrate these aspects. Key findings and conclusions How health claims are scientifically assessed by EFSA has not been fully understood by stakeholders yet. Thorough knowledge on how EU legislation translates into scientific requirements for substantiation is essential to building successful applications. Other factors which may play a role in the authorisation of a claim and which are not evaluated by EFSA, such as the legal status of the food/constituent, its safety, or the compatibility of the claim with national and international dietary recommendations, should also be considered early in the process. EFSA is committed to providing further guidance to stakeholders on how to prepare applications for authorisation by making use of its 10 years of experience on the scientific evaluation of health claims made on food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecologia is the property of Universidad de Antioquia, Escuela Interamericana de Bibliotecologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document providing generic issues and criteria to consider biological relevance, particularly when deciding on whether an observed effect is of biological relevance, i.e. is adverse (or shows a beneficial health effect) or not. The guidance document provides a general framework for establishing the biological relevance of observations at various stages of the assessment. Biological relevance is considered at three main stages related to the process of dealing with evidence: Development of the assessment strategy. In this context, specification of agents, effects, subjects and conditions in relation to the assessment question(s): Collection and extraction of data; Appraisal and integration of the relevance of the agents, subjects, effects and conditions, i.e. reviewing dimensions of biological relevance for each data set. A decision tree is developed to assist in the collection, identification and appraisal of relevant data for a given specific assessment question to be answered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relatively few studies have conducted quantitative assessments of historically important heritage trails. Their current conditions, relative to their long maintenance history, are even less well examined. This research aims to apply trail assessment techniques developed in a recreational context to the heritage trails of the Nakahechi route-which is part of the Kumano Kodo pilgrimage network-located in the vast forests of Japan's Kii Peninsula. Point sampling was used to gather data on the trails' surface characteristics, conditions, designs, and use-related variables. Trail conditions and design characteristics were summarized according to their surface characteristics, in order to identify the underlying environmental factors that potentially influenced the choice of different managerial methods. A series of exploratory multivariate regressions were then performed to examine the factors that influenced trail incisions. Regression analyses revealed that trail grades, trail widths, and use types are robust predictors for trail incisions. Managerial practices exemplified by the trails' surface characteristics were found to influence trail design variables. For example, the additions of log water-bars and step construction on trail incisions along the trails were analyzed. The findings suggested that managers must address different trail characteristics when considering their historical context. Trail assessment surveys have been widely reported in the recreational literature, yet they have rarely been applied to heritage trails in mountainous areas. Assessing heritage trails, however, can be of great importance for their sustainable management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA is committed to assess and communicate the risks occurring in the food and feed chain from farm to fork and to provide other forms of scientific advice. This work, carried out by EFSA since its inception, has resulted in the adoption of thousands of scientific assessments. EFSA is obliged to re-assess past assessments in specific regulatory contexts such as those on food and feed additives, active substances in plant protection products and genetically modified food and feed. In other sectors, the consideration for updating past EFSA scientific assessments is taken on an ad hoc basis mainly depending on specific requests by risk managers or on EFSA self-tasking. If safety is potentially at stake in any area within EFSA's remit, the readiness to update past scientific assessments is important to keep EFSA at the forefront of science and to promote an effective risk assessment. Although this task might be very complex and resource demanding, it is fundamental to EFSA's mission. The present EFSA Scientific Committee opinion deals with scientific motivations and criteria to contribute to the timely updating of EFSA scientific assessments. It is recognised that the decision for updating should be agreed following careful consideration of all the relevant elements by the EFSA management, in collaboration with risk managers and stakeholders. The present opinion addresses the scientific approaches through which it would be possible for EFSA to increase the speed and effectiveness of the acquisition of new data, as well as, to improve the consequent evaluations to assess the relevance and reliability of new data in the context of contributing to the better definition of whether to update past scientific assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The worldwide prestige of economists in the lay media lies significantly higher than scientists and academics from other fields of expertise. Brazil is not an exception as well. A point that calls attention to this fact is that the most prestigious international economists, who are frequently present in the lay media, are also distinguished in the academic environment. The lay prestige may be measured by their presence in the media and by surveys of public opinion, whereas academic prestige may be evaluated using database indicators of publications and citations of academic articles. One indicator that became frequently used is the h-index, measuring publications and citations simultaneously. A relevant finding regarding international economists is that both lay prestige and academic prestige are high and, apparently, mutually dependent. Among Brazilian economists, lay prestige is not accompanied by academic prestige. This last one is significantly low, even though doctorate studies in international universities of excellence are commonplace in these economists' curricula. The data point to a low intensity of academic life in Brazilian economics schools.O prestígio internacional de economistas junto à comunidade leiga é significativamente superior ao dos cientistas e acadêmicos de outras áreas do conhecimento. Os economistas brasileiros não são uma exceção. Um ponto que chama a atenção é que os economistas de maior prestígio internacional, aqueles que aparecem frequentemente na mídia leiga, são também altamente reputados no ambiente acadêmico. O prestígio junto aos leigos pode ser medido pela presença na mídia e por consultas à opinião pública, enquanto que o prestígio acadêmico pode ser avaliado através de bases de dados de indicadores de publicações e citações de artigos acadêmicos. Um destes indicadores que se tornou frequentemente utilizado é o índice-h, que mede simultaneamente publicações e citações. Um achado relevante foi que, para economistas internacionais, tanto o prestígio entre os leigos como o entre os acadêmicos são elevados e, aparentemente, mutuamente dependentes. Entre os economistas nacionais o prestígio entre os leigos não é acompanhado pelo prestígio acadêmico. Este é significativamente baixo, a despeito de que seus currículos frequentemente denotam títulos de doutor por universidades internacionais de excelência. Os dados apesentados indicam uma baixa intensidade de vida acadêmica nas universidades brasileiras.

Abstract The EFSA 2nd Scientific Conference ‘Shaping the Future of Food Safety, Together’ gathered an international audience composed of scientists, risk assessors, risk managers, as well as non‐governmental organisations and industry representatives. This article summarises the final plenary session where a panel was asked to draw out overall impressions and conclusions for the EFSA to take away for its strategic planning into the future. The main conclusions of the conference are presented under five major themes. With new methodologies, technologies, big data and the increased societal demand for enhanced engagement in the risk assessment process, there is a clear need to maintain levels of expertise from traditional areas and to consider the inclusion of new areas and sources of expertise to perform scientific assessments. Academia, industry, research and regulatory science should work together to achieve this goal. As science progresses at pace, the continued development of assessment methodologies to deal with increasingly complex assessment questions is necessary, as is the need for applied research to underpin the support to policy development that EFSA provides. Greater collaboration is needed to reach agreement on best methods and practices for scientific assessment not just internationally, but also, equally importantly, across legislative areas and scientific disciplines, and in consultation with society at large. The communication of complex science, including important concepts such as uncertainty and risk perception, is not a trivial task, and must be integrated into the scientific process. As such, the relationship between risk assessment and risk management must continue to mature, remaining close, yet independent.