Search

In mechanical weed control research, there is a tendency to prioritise practical application over the establishment of a solid theoretical foundation. This emphasis can lead to a fragmented knowledge base and relatively modest research progress. The widespread use of ANOVA exacerbates this issue by primarily focusing on the differences between treatments, neglecting an exploration of the mechanisms behind the observed results. In response to these limitations and in line with rapid advances in sensor and robotics technology, this paper presents a proposal to establish a theoretical framework for mechanical weed control. The framework aims to emphasise understanding of the underlying mechanisms of mechanical weed control, rather than solely focusing on their observable outcomes. As part of this proposal, a simulation model known as HarrowSim based on regression parameters is presented. Simulation runs show the importance of factors such as treatment intensity, selectivity, crop tolerance and weed pressure in relation to crop yield response to post‐emergence weed harrowing. While currently parameterised for post‐emergence weed harrowing, it is argued that HarrowSim is relevant for all post‐emergence mechanical weed control methods, and is useful for teaching purposes and for inspiring future research. While the theoretical framework and HarrowSim have their weaknesses, these can also be perceived as opportunities since they can help focus attention on key issues for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review in journals is in crisis, and its current situation and sustainability are increasingly concerning for academics and scientific communities. We identify this crisis as part of an evolutionary step in the continuous development of science, arguing that peer review maintains a central role. We analyse the emergence and historical development of peer review, identifying its role as crucial to the legitimisation of global science, particularly in guaranteeing quality control in the scientific process of massification—despite its flaws. We then focus on the crisis as part of the recent second wave of massification stemming from 'publish or perish' dynamics, which overburden those involved in peer review management and activities. Based on this crisis and given that the alternative models to peer review rely on the same core ideals, we argue that the current scenario represents a golden opportunity for the peer‐review process to adapt by correcting some of its known biases, becoming more inclusive and relevant, and gaining recognition for its crucial role in career progression and in the training of the researchers of tomorrow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation? Design/methodology/approach: This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them. Findings: This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations. Originality/value: The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its pursuit of global university rankings, Indonesia introduced a series of higher education policies, one in 2014 to grant autonomy to a select group of universities, and another in 2017 to tie financial and promotional incentives to scientific publications for all researchers. To examine scientific productivity surrounding these policies, we use bibliometric data from Scopus spanning three decades from 1990 to 2020. We investigate the patterns of publication and collaboration and analyze them across journal quartiles, academic fields, and researcher cohorts. Our findings reveal that publications increased dramatically for both autonomous and non-autonomous higher education institutions after 2014. Single-university authorship was common practice and skewed publication quality towards Q3 and Q4 journals, while co-authorships with foreign organizations pulled the shift towards Q1 journals consistently across all fields. New researchers starting in 2014 published fewer Q1 and more Q3 and Q4 publications than the earlier cohort. We highlight policy implications on the need for a balance between publication quantity and quality and call on Indonesian policymakers to introduce holistic higher education reforms rather than introducing reforms that focus on the performance of the university for ranking purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Starting from the tension between scientific autonomy and state governing in research policy, the aim of this article is to examine how researchers who apply for funding in Sweden perceive the legitimate grounds for a new research policy in which sex and gender perspectives are integrated as criteria in assessing scientific quality. Our results show that researcher's perception of themselves, and of the purpose of research, is compatible with dominant ideals in contemporary academic landscape, where knowledge is treated as a deliverable to external stakeholders or to meet politically formulated goals. However, according to researchers, the legitimate sources of policy influence originate from their own profession or the common interest of the people, explicitly expressed by citizens. Researchers are questioning, and find strategies to avoid, top-down state governing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The dehiscence of the posterior semicircular canal is a rare vestibulopathy, of low prevalence and whose symptomatology is explained by the phenomenon of the third window. It was not until 2003 that Krombach described the first cases. Objective: Evaluate the scientific production about the dehiscence of the posterior semicircular canal (DCSP) by a bibliometric and thematic analysis and observes its incidence at the scientific community level. Method: A search with subsequent review, selection and study was carried out using items related to DCSP indexed in the Pubmed, Web of Science, Alcorze and Scopus databases, from 2003 to 2019, selecting a total of 90 articles. Results: The 90 articles have been published in a total of 48 magazines. 52% were originals, 38% clinical cases, 9% reviews and 1% conferences. Clinical (32%) and etiology (27%) were the main themes. The articles were written in eight different languages, predominantly English (85%), and the United States has been the country with the highest number of publications (42%). Institutional activity and authorship rates are low. The quality of the journals is high: 70% of the publications were in the Q1-Q2 quartiles. The main area corresponds to otorhinolaryngology, with a total of 66 works, followed by radiology (14). The total number of downloads was 6958, with an average of 77.31 per article and the total citations were 1193, 13.25 per article. Conclusions: The bibliometric results reveal how the works on dehiscence of the posterior semicircular canal present a small scientific production, the subject is in a phase of sustained growth, the authorship, institutional and collaboration index are low, the publications are concentrated in a few journals of high quality and important visualization, with a clearly anglophone orientation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Signos is the property of Universidad Santo Tomas 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.)

Context: Tourism plays a critical role in biodiversity conservation with at least 12 of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets being directly or indirectly related to tourism. Aims: As Target 19 aims to raise the generation, transfer and application of knowledge on biodiversity, the objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of Aichi Biodiversity Targets on the interdisciplinary research output, quality, and collaboration at the national scale regarding biodiversity and tourism. Methods: The Hamiltonian Markov Chain Monter Carlo technique, incorporating the bibliometric analysis, was performed on 1176 documents extracted from the Web of Science database. Key results: The current investigation revealed two prominent findings. First, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets positively affected scientific productivity, quality and international collaboration at the national level. Still, more than half of the countries on Earth (53.41%) had not acquired any interdisciplinary publication on the topic of biodiversity and tourism. Second, international collaboration was found to be an effective measure to improve scientific quality and quantity in both periods before and after the Aichi Targets. Although the impact of international collaboration on scientific output was similar between the two periods, its impact on scientific quality during 2011–2020 was lower than during 1991–2010. Conclusions: Thus, we argue that international cooperation cannot be used as a 'silver bullet' strategy for advancing knowledge in the interdisciplinary field between biodiversity and tourism due to the trilemma between quantity, quality and cost. Implications: We recommend policymakers, funding evaluators and researchers put culture into perspective to lessen the cost of interdisciplinary research. Aichi Biodiversity Targets induced positive effects on scientific productivity, quality and international collaboration in the interdisciplinary topic at the national level. Although we found international collaboration to be an effective measure to improve scientific quality and quantity, its effects were constrained by the trilemma between quantity, quality and cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista CienciaUAT is the property of Universidad Autonoma de Tamaulipas 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.)

ABSTRACT Transparency of evaluation criteria and monitoring recommendations for research grants require careful judgment and frequent reassessment of guiding parameters. The aim of this study is to inform the scientific community and funding agencies about the applicants profile for research productivity grants (PQ) in the field of Agronomy of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and to contribute to the analysis of grant distribution using the grant applicants of the 2018 call as a study sample. The data registered in the Lattes Curriculum platform were used to quantify the scientific production index. This index considers the number of published articles with different weights for the different segments of the journal’s impact factor values, in addition to the number of patents and books, and human resources training index that considers the number of supervisions and their level (scientific initiation, master’s, doctorate and post-doctorate) completed as principal advisor. The H index (ISI-Web of Science base and Scopus base), scientific age (equal to the number of years after doctorate thesis defense), and the m index (H index divided by scientific age) were also considered, as well as the gender of the fellows. The results show that more than three quarters (75.8 %) of Agronomy PQ fellows are male. At the Category 1 levels and on the Agronomy Committee itself, the relative participation of female researchers is even lower. Women are more involved in human resource training, publish more in non-JCR journals, and are older (scientific age) at the lower level of fellow and among candidates, while men have greater scientific production, H and m indices, and m increase as scientific age advances. The indices of scientific production and human resources training, and national/international insertion (H index) are not homogeneous within the same level/category, despite the search for more transparent and verifiable evaluation indices/indicators. There are fewer opportunities for success and advancement for women, which characterizes a space for achieving gender equity. Objective, easily calculated indices/indicators are absolutely necessary for a large number of researchers, while the critical evaluation and the search for more such parameters must move forward and be compatible with the peer-review process. We suggest that CNPq collect data on citations to Google Scholar and, in particular, share information on gender and interruptions due to illness, maternity and paternity, and care for the sick, elderly or dependent.

What is scientific quality and how can it be achieved? Recent developments in clinical biomedicine gave prominence to transparency as a new core value for scientific research. Without transparency, other characteristics and values remain unknown. But how can abstract concepts and values be implemented in day-to-day scientific practices and what gets lost on the way? In order to answer this question, this study investigates the role of the PRISMA reporting guideline for writing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. By combining a document analysis and expert interviews with its developers, it attempts to bridge the gap between research practice and current modes of evaluation. Beside showing how the guideline was designed to be applicable and acceptable as a new standard, the analysis revealed crucial distinctions between transparency as an abstract quality goal and its practical implementation in the form of specifically formulated rules. Although PRISMA relies on transparency in order to be meaningful, it blurs the concept in order to circumvent some of its main disadvantages.

AbstractIntroduction:Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs).Methods:SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations.Results:Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures.Conclusions:The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations.

In this short essay, I re‐emphasize the inter‐relationship between mentoring doctoral students or postdocs and the never ending problem of assessing the quality of scientific outputs. It includes the plea to mentees and mentors not to employ an overblown language in papers, posters and lectures, which constitute a gross exaggeration of the true state of affairs. Doubt is also cast on the present use of Hirsch‐factors and other bibliometric data as well as certain social media claiming to be effective in assessing scientific quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, it is pertinent to remember how the current direction of the Journal was assumed: Which were the disadvantages faced back then and how were they overcome. In the previous issue, a historical tour was made and editorial committees and teams that have contributed to the RIB continue were remembered. In this opportunity, we will focus on the editorial process carried out since 2013, and on the projection to face the changes posed by the current scientific communication model, because it is clear that each change of time and technological advance have represented, and represent, a new challenge for the Editorial Team of the RIB.

Introduction: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). Methods: SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. Results: Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. Conclusions: The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial Volume 8 Issue 2

Copyright of Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. 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.)

Copyright of Investigación Bibliotecológica is the property of UNAM, Centro Universitario de Investigaciones Bibliotecologicas 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.)

In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many scientific congresses and conferences are held every year around the world. The aim of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) was to develop a simple mathematical parameter as an indicator of academic quality and scientific validity of a congress. In this opinion article, a new metric, the Congress Impact Factor (IFc), is proposed taking into consideration the widely used Impact Factor as an indicator of journals’ prestige and using H-index analysis. The IFc is derived from the mathematical ratio between the mean H-index of invited lecturers normalized for lecture topic and number of lectures in the conference. In case of multiple sessions, the mean of all IFc is calculated along with its standard deviation. We conclude that the IFc can be a useful measure for evaluating and comparing congress prestige, and may also represent a potentially useful parameter for improving academic curriculum and helping participants to choose the more prestigious meetings for their education.

Many scientific congresses and conferences are held every year around the world. The aim of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) was to develop a simple mathematical parameter as an indicator of academic quality and scientific validity of a congress. In this opinion article, a new metric, the Congress Impact Factor (IFc), is proposed taking into consideration the widely used Impact Factor as an indicator of journals’ prestige and using H-index analysis. The IFc is derived from the mathematical ratio between the mean H-index of invited lecturers normalized for lecture topic and number of lectures in the conference. In case of multiple sessions, the mean of all IFc is calculated along with its standard deviation. We conclude that the IFc can be a useful measure for evaluating and comparing congress prestige, and may also represent a potentially useful parameter for improving academic curriculum and helping participants to choose the more prestigious meetings for their education.

The field of gender studies has faced criticism for poor scholarship and methodology, both from within and outside academia. Here, we compare indicators of scientific quality across three samples of peer-reviewed journal articles with more, less and no gender perspective, on the assumption that gender studies tend to apply a gender perspective. The statements in the articles were content-analysed with respect to subject matter, their level of support in surrounding text, and other indicators of scientific quality. The higher the level of gender perspective, the lower was the scientific quality for seven out of nine indicators. Support was higher for the no gender perspective group, but did not differ across the two higher levels. We suggest that the impact of the field can be increased by implementing established research methods employed in other disciplines, especially in terms of bringing about desired social and societal change. [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.)

Gender studies (GS) has been challenged on epistemological grounds. Here, we compare samples of peer-reviewed academic journal publications written by GS authors and authors from closely related disciplines in the social sciences. The material consisted of 2805 statements from 36 peer-reviewed journal articles, sampled from the Swedish Gender Studies List, which covers >12,000 publications. Each statement was coded as expressing a lack of any of three aspects of objectivity: Bias, Normativity, or Political activism, or as considering any of four realms of explanation for the behaviours or phenomena under study: Biology/genetics, Individual/group differences, Environment/culture, or Societal institutions. Statements in GS publications did to a greater extent express bias and normativity, but not political activism. They did also to a greater extent consider cultural, environmental, social, and societal realms of explanation, and to a lesser extent biological and individual differences explanations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scientific quality of social and personality psychology has been debated at great length in recent years. Despite research on the prevalence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) and the replicability of particular findings, the impact of the current discussion on research practices is unknown. The current studies examine whether and how practices have changed, if at all, over the last 10 years. In Study 1, we surveyed 1,166 social and personality psychologists about how the current debate has affected their perceptions of their own and the field's research practices. In Study 2, we coded the research practices and critical test statistics from social and personality psychology articles published in 2003-2004 and 2013-2014. Together, these studies suggest that (a) perceptions of the current state of the field are more pessimistic than optimistic; (b) the discussion has increased researchers' intentions to avoid QRPs and adopt proposed best practices, (c) the estimated replicability of research published in 2003-2004 may not be as bad as many feared, and (d) research published in 2013-2014 shows some improvement over research published in 2003-2004, a result that suggests the field is evolving in a positive direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes to the literature on the factors explaining the regional university production of science and its quality in the field of Food Science and Technology (FS&T). We hypothesized that the regional quantity of science generated by universities is shaped not only by the amount of research and development (R&D) funds, as the main mainstream literature suggests, but also by the demand for science at the regional level. Furthermore, given the evolutionary nature of knowledge production, we suggest that the number of publications has a significant effect on the quality of scientific research at the regional level. Drawing on a sample of 48,207 scientific papers in FS&T over the period 1998-2010, we first map and examine the regional distribution of science and its quality across Europe-15. Second, we address our hypotheses by specifying several econometric models to identify the factors affecting the quantity and quality of scientific production. Our results show that the regional demand for FS&T-captured by the regional employment in the food and beverage industry-matters for the generation of science. Additionally, our findings support the hypothesis of a positive and significant effect of the production of papers on the scientific quality at the regional level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rebuttal to “Debate on the Chernobyl disaster: a response to Alison Rosamund Katz,” by Sergei Jargin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the criteria of truth in post-modern philosophy, taking into account the ways it is defined in both the classical and non-classical traditions. Specific to post-modern philosophy is the absence of a universal language of narration and the traditional methods in which knowledge is recognized as legitimate. Basing himself on these concepts, the author examines the problem of the ideal of scientific quality and the transformations this idea has undergone in contemporary philosophy. Truth is understood basically through two means which govern our relation to truth: the will to truth and the concern for truth. These also appear as defining factors of truth in various types of post-modern philosophy: social-operative, social-political, and aesthetic

Motivated by a current development in the physics community, this paper introduces the notion of a least interesting unit (LIU) in research as an investigation that is just interesting enough to pursue. A new general maxim for science is then that a researcher should pursue as many LIUs as possible. Although fulfilling this maxim enhances one's perspective for a career in the present publish-or-perish academic world, in particular when simultaneously publishing one's results in the form of as many least publishable units as possible, this paper concludes that it is an example of an unethical practice: it may undermine scientific progress, it may lead to a waste of valuable resources, and it may contribute to an erosion of norms and values in science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Kavilando is the property of Kavilando 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.)