A new life of Hans Christian Andersen : a study of the ‘peculiar nature’ of an author’s life

A review of "Hans Christian Andersen : European Witness" by Paul Binding (Yale UP, 2014). How a writer bears witness to his age is necessarily the expression of many things, not least the possibly quite peculiar nature of an author’s life. Literary works often emerge from complex upbringings, from periods of youthful isolation spent reading and writing. More still seem to have been written as a result of the fraught relationships that befall authors, perhaps because authors so often view their relationships with a degree of creative and critical distance. And yet, if a writer’s output evidences an unusual life, it also witnesses broader questions being asked by a community as a whole. At some level, even the most remarkable figures are typical of their age, and reflections of it. By the close of Paul Binding’s study of the life and works of Hans Christian Andersen (1805–75), we are reminded that extraordinary feats of originality and imagination are often the result of how unique minds enter wider discourses...

Reply by authors to J.C. Wilcox

This is a reply to "Comment on 'Online Estimation of Allan Variance Parameters' " by James C.Wilcox published in JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS Vol. 24, No. 3, May–June 2001. OUR statement “Modern gyros provide angular rate measurements directly, and hence, angular quantization is meaningless” made in the original paper should first be read with the accompanying sentences in the paragraph. The meaning of the sentence would perhaps have been clearer if written". . .

Supporting the needs of public health decision-makers and review authors in the UK

Introduction Systematic reviews, through the synthesis of multiple primary research studies, can be powerful tools in enabling evidence-informed public health policy debate, development and action. In seeking to optimize the utility of these reviews, it is important to understand the needs of those using them. Previous work has emphasized that researchers should adopt methods that are appropriate to the problems that public health decision-makers are grappling with, as well as to the policy context in which they operate.1,2 Meeting these demands poses significant methodological challenges for review authors and prompts a reconsideration of the resources, training and support structures available to facilitate the efficient and timely production of useful, comprehensive reviews. The Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) was formed in 2008 to support reviews of complex, upstream public health topics. The majority of CPHG authors are from the UK, which has historically been at the forefront of efforts to promote the production and use of systematic reviews of research relevant to public health decision-makers. The UK therefore provides a suitably mature national context in which to examine (i) the current and future demands of decision-makers to increase the use, value and impact of evidence syntheses; (ii) the implications this has for the scope and methods of reviews and (iii) the required action to build and support capacity to conduct such reviews.

Benchmarking Scientific Journals from the Submitting Author’s Viewpoint

Authors of scholarly papers to a large extent base the decision on where to submit their manuscripts on the prestige of journals, taking little account of other possible factors. Information concerning such factors is in fact often not available. This paper argues for the establishment of methods for benchmarking scientific journals, taking into account a wider range of journal performance parameters than is currently available. A model for how prospective authors determine the value of submitting to a particular journal is presented. The model includes eight factors that influence an author’s decision and 21 other underlying factors. The model is a qualitative one. The method proposes to benchmark groups of journals by application of the factors. Initial testing of the method has been undertaken in one discipline.

A Method for Comparing Scholarly Journals as Service Providers to Authors

When authors of scholarly articles decide where to submit their manuscripts for peer review and eventual publication, they often base their choice of journals on very incomplete information abouthow well the journals serve the authors’ purposes of informing about their research and advancing their academic careers. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a new method for benchmarking scientific journals, providing more information to prospective authors. The method estimates a number of journal parameters, including readership, scientific prestige, time from submission to publication, acceptance rate and service provided by the journal during the review and publication process. Data directly obtainable from the web, data that can be calculated from such data, data obtained from publishers and editors, and data obtained using surveys with authors are used in the method, which has been tested on three different sets of journals, each from a different discipline. We found a number of problems with the different data acquisition methods, which limit the extent to which the method can be used. Publishers and editors are reluctant to disclose important information they have at hand (i.e. journal circulation, web downloads, acceptance rate). The calculation of some important parameters (for instance average time from submission to publication, regional spread of authorship) can be done but requires quite a lot of work. It can be difficult to get reasonable response rates to surveys with authors. All in all we believe that the method we propose, taking a “service to authors” perspective as a basis for benchmarking scientific journals, is useful and can provide information that is valuable to prospective authors in selected scientific disciplines.

Where to Submit? Journal Choice by Construction Management Authors

Publishers of academic journals can be seen as service providers to authors, in addition to the traditional role of providers of research results to readers. The purpose of this study was to analyse how author choices of journal in construction management are affected by quality and service perceptions. Seven journals were identified and for each 2006 article, one author e-mail address was extracted. A web based questionnaire was sent to 397 authors and 35% responded. It was found that there were three journals regularly followed by at least half the respondents. Most of the other four journals have scopes broader than construction management and receive lower scores for characteristics such as impact on researchers. No open access journals were included, and authors in the field of construction management rarely post openly accessible copies of their manuscripts or publications on the web. Author ranking of journals for their next submission is found to be related to general criteria such as academic status, circulation figures and ISI indexation.

Authors reply to "On uniqueness, transfer and combination of acoustic sources in one-dimensional systems"

The use of electroacoustic analogies suggests that a source of acoustical energy (such as an engine, compressor, blower, turbine, loudspeaker, etc.) can be characterized by an acoustic source pressure ps and internal source impedance Zs, analogous to the open-circuit voltage and internal impedance of an electrical source. The present paper shows analytically that the source characteristics evaluated by means of the indirect methods are independent of the loads selected; that is, the evaluated values of ps and Zs are unique, and that the results of the different methods (including the direct method) are identical. In addition, general relations have been derived here for the transfer of source characteristics from one station to another station across one or more acoustical elements, and also for combining several sources into a single equivalent source. Finally, all the conclusions are extended to the case of a uniformly moving medium, incorporating the convective as well as dissipative effects of the mean flow.