2012 年 8 月份，科学网知名博主刘全慧老师发表了一篇博文：“ 中国物理学家 Reviews of Modern Physics 论文知多少 ? ”从这刘老师这篇博文里了解到，《 Reviews of Modern Physics 》是国际公认物理类最高水平评论类刊物，影响因子超过 CNS 。 《 Reviews of Modern Physics 》自 1929 年创刊以来，截止到 2012 年，中国拥有或部分拥有知识产权的文章才区区 7 篇！而发表的 CNS 文章，最近几年，每年都接近或超过了 3 位数。 2014 年 5 月，北航孙茂教授以唯一单位、唯一作者身份在《 Reviews of Modern Physics 》发表长篇综述论文： Ins ect flightdynamics:Stability and control 。 http://news.buaa.edu.cn/dispnews.php?type=1nid=110098s_table=news_txt 文章回顾了昆虫飞行力学的发展历史，系统阐述了拍动飞行的运动方程和求解方法、拍动飞行的动稳定性和可控性、机动飞行的控制等问题，并展望了昆虫飞行的空气动力学和飞行力学的未来发展趋势。 《 Reviews of Modern Physics 》以综述为主，目前为季刊。基本不接受自由投稿，投稿必须经过美国物理学会邀请，作者基本是引领一个领域的泰斗级人物。中国物理学界目前主要希望攻下 PRL ，对 RMP 还只能仰望。
The fall of faculty: the rise of all administrative university and why it matters Author: Benjamin Ginsberg, Oxford University Press, 2011 April 8, 2014 It is well recognized that higher education institutions are adding more and more administrators to their payrolls over years. The reasons for doing so are allegedly numerous, ranging from meeting government mandates, serving new student demands to creating jobs for faculty spouses, among some others. So far, the consequences of more administrators on campus have not been well addressed. This book draws on much of the author’ personal experience and professional training to discuss why the rise of administrators on campus matters and how it relates to power distribution between administrators and faculties. The book starts with numerous cases where faculty members have been more and more disadvantaged in exercising power on campus issues and the shared governance model has not been well respected by incumbent administrators. A good case in point has been the strong attacks on faculty tenure from higher education administrators. In contrast, universities have demonstrated a universally sharp increase in deploying the number of administrators, with the rates being as high as 240% during the past four decades. Numerically speaking, higher education institutions are now dominated by administrators, with a shrinking share going to faculties. This numerical imbalance has significant implications. The author proceeds to discuss the functions of administrators on campus. Not without personal bias, it is claimed that administrators are mainly engaged in the following activities: meetings, retreats and conferences, planning, polishing image and fundingraising. Satirically, the author presents a great deal of cases in these regards, which expose the negative sides of administrative efforts. The book adopts the theory of public choices, contending that administrators are self serving individuals, who maximize their own power and resources at the cost of other groups, mainly faculties’. All the functions administrators engaged in are to serve their best interest and expand their power and resource basis. The author ignores the positive functions from administrators, despising them as unwanted, self serving grits on campus. Along the same line, more cases are presented regarding managerial pathologies, including administrative sabotage,shirking, squandering, corruption, theft and academic fraud, among others. Scandals after scandals are used to prove that all administraitve university will suffer significant management problems due to administrators being full time and fully dedicated to their own interests, which often come at the expense of faculty autonomy and public interests. No doubt that administrators may be engaged in these activities and that monitoring and better governance may be needed, nevertheless it would be too arbitrary to judge the group purely based on their negative efforts. The discussion further touches on sensitive issues such as race and gender. The proliferation of women studies programs, African American studies, and multicultural programs are argued as efforts on the part of administrators to please those well organized groups and efforts to expand their own control over academic issues. To further expand their power basis, administrators are claimed to encroach the traditional territories that faculties often are protected with: faculty recruitment. By imposing faculty diversity, administrators now are able to wield more power on recruitment decisions. Administrators also resort to speech and civility codes to mitigate possible reluctance and lack of cooperation among faculties, even these codes may not be supported by the courts. Administrators create shadow curriculum to rip faculties of power in core academic functions. Together, the traditional autonomy faculties enjoy are largely encroached by administrators, who use these opportunities to further marginalize faculties’ power on campus. One of the most controversial issues on campus is tenure. Both proponents and opponents have legitimate reasons. Chapter 5 explains how the tenure system evolves and has been institutionalized on campus. The main driving forces are that administrators, in face of great increase on student enrollment in the first half 20th century, need faculties to be cooperative in either performing core functions, or serving parttime management duties. The tenure is the reward and motivation for faculties members to be cooperative and committed to higher education institutions. Now, with more fulltime administrators, the need of faculty cooperation is lessened, and the attacks on tenure rise.Regarding teaching and research, significant shift is being witnessed on campus with all administrative nature. Teaching is being asked to incorporate out of classroom teaching, which is largely coordinated by administrators. Core curriculums are reduced, more shadow curriculums are created. Students are now being more and more taught by adjunct professors and even administrators. Research is pressed to be more geared toward funding and income sources like paten and licensing. Alladministrative universities are claimed to push research in certain ways to maximize their overhead cost and income flows. It is certainly arguable whether the focus on more funding and revenues in research areas is purely driven by all administrative nature. Some evidence is posed suggesting that the shift toward more commercial consideration is shaped by multiple general social forces, including policy changes and others out of university domains. Pessimistically, the author argues that it is too late to do anything for a large part of universities. However, he does offer some prescriptions, including that board members reassert public values, faculties fight for more power, alumnus be more attentive to ongoing status and parents and students demand better educational benefits. No doubt, the author has nostalgic feelings for those good old times. However, judging administrators with the old benchmark may per se is not a legitimate activity. As a political science professor, it reflects his own laments that he is lost in all administrative universities. There is certainly some truth there and the book is provocative and awakening, however, truth is still a little further away. end! The fall of faculty.docx
创举： 用假的审稿人意见来发表论文。下文提到了韩国，中国和伊朗的几位科研人员： Hyung-In Moon 韩国 Guang-Zi He, 中国 Akbar Tayebi, of the University of Qom, and Esmaeil Peyghan, of Arak University, 伊朗 http://chronicle.com/article/Fake-Peer-Reviews-the-Latest/134784/?key=HDogcFNtYClGN3trNjoWMDlTb3JuZEt7Y39FYn0obl1dGA%3D%3D Fake Peer Reviews, the Latest Form of Scientific Fraud, Fool Journals Dong-A U. Suspicions that Hyung-In Moon, a professor at Dong-A U., in South Korea, wrote his own peer reviews have prompted several journals to retract his papers. Enlarge Image Dong-A U. Suspicions that Hyung-In Moon, a professor at Dong-A U., in South Korea, wrote his own peer reviews have prompted several journals to retract his papers. By Josh Fischman Scientists appear to have figured out a new way to avoid any bad prepublication reviews that dissuade journals from publishing their articles: Write positive reviews themselves, under other people's names. In incidents involving four scientists—the latest case coming to light two weeks ago—journal editors say authors got to critique their own papers by suggesting reviewers with contact e-mails that actually went to themselves. The glowing endorsements got the work into Experimental Parasitology, Pharmaceutical Biology, and several other journals. Fake reviews even got a pair of mathematics articles into journals published by Elsevier, the academic publishing giant, which has a system in place intended to thwart such misconduct. The frauds have produced retractions of about 30 papers to date. "I find it very shocking," said Laura Schmidt, publisher in charge of mathematics journals at Elsevier. "It's very serious, very manipulative, and very deliberate." This "has taken a lot of people by surprise," wrote Irene Hames, a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, in an e-mail to The Chronicle. The committee is an international group of science editors that advises journals on ways to handle misconduct. "It should be a wake-up call to any journals that don't have rigorous reviewer selection and screening in place," she wrote. Blame lies with those journals, she said, that allow authors to nominate their own reviewers and don't check credentials and contacts. What's worse, said Ivan Oransky, co-publisher of the blog Retraction Watch, which first uncovered this pattern, is that some editors saw red flags but published the papers anyway. Later retractions don't undo the harm created by introducing falsehoods into the scientific literature, he said, noting that some of these papers were published years ago and have been cited by several other researchers. 'Do-It-Yourself' Reviews Claudiu Supuran, editor in chief of the Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, became suspicious that one of his authors was engaged in "do-it-yourself" peer review in 2010. Hyung-In Moon, now an assistant professor at Dong-A University, in Busan, South Korea, had submitted a manuscript along with the names of several potential reviewers. Mr. Supuran, then an associate editor at the journal, duly sent the article out for review and became suspicious when good reviews came back in one or two days. "Reviewers never respond that quickly," he said. So he sent the manuscript to two scientists whom he picked himself. Their reviews suggested revisions but were also positive, so the article was published. But he was still skeptical of Mr. Moon. The following year, Mr. Moon was still submitting manuscripts and Mr. Supuran, promoted to the top editing job, decided to look harder at the latest one. Mr. Moon "listed names of reviewers and affiliations, like the University of Florida, but he gave a Gmail or Yahoo e-mail address as the contact," Mr. Supuran said. "And once again the positive reviews came back within two days. But this time I called some contacts at the University of Florida, and they said they never heard of Moon's supposed reviewers." Mr. Supuran then e-mailed Mr. Moon. "It was a very difficult conversation," he said. "I told Moon I really needed to speak to these people directly. First he said he didn't have any other contact information. But I persisted. Then he said that they didn't exist. He also admitted to me that he falsified data in his papers." Anyone can open a Gmail or similar account under a name that isn't his or her own, as long as that name hasn't been taken by another user. For instance, Haroldvarmus@gmail.com was available last week, but e-mail sent there will not reach Mr. Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning virologist and director of the National Cancer Institute. Mr. Moon, said Mr. Supuran, must have done something similar and then written the reviews himself. "I asked him if he realized how serious this was," Mr. Supuran said. "He said yes, he did. I told him I couldn't publish his paper under these circumstances. He then said I was going to destroy his career." ( The Chronicle attempted to contact Mr. Moon and the other scientists whose papers have been retracted but did not get any responses.) Mr. Supuran, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Florence, alerted the journal publisher, Informa Healthcare, about these problems. He also contacted several other journal editors to warn them about Mr. Moon. Informa began an investigation of articles that Mr. Moon had written. That was last December. The first retraction notices appeared this past August: "The peer-review process for the above article has been found to have been compromised and inappropriately influenced by the corresponding author, Professor HI Moon." To date, 28 papers have been retracted, with Mr. Moon's agreement. (His papers prompted seven earlier retractions as well, but the reasons for those are vague.) The medicinal-chemistry journal has now changed its policy to require that every paper have two reviewers not suggested by an author. 'Something Suspicious' A retraction notice published in July highlighted another case. It recanted a paper published in February in Experimental Parasitology by Guang-Zi He, a researcher at the Guiyang College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, in China. The paper identified a potential target for a vaccine against a bacterial infection. Mr. He gave e-mail addresses of several suggested reviewers, but all of the e-mail services were in China, while some of the reviewers were not, which raised editors' eyebrows. That and some other oddities triggered an investigation, which led to the retraction. An unusual feature of that incident was that the journal is published by Elsevier, which has a database of reviewers. Even if an author suggests a reviewer, editors are supposed to use contact e-mails from that database. Elsevier officials say they do not want to reveal details of how the database may have been accessed or manipulated. They do say that the company discovered a vulnerability in the system and has corrected it. But not, apparently, before that vulnerability may have been exploited to the advantage of two mathematicians—Akbar Tayebi, of the University of Qom, and Esmaeil Peyghan, of Arak University, both in Iran. Retraction notices for three of their papers, published this year in the Journal of Geometry and Physics and the Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Application, appeared in mid-September. "We were alerted by another publisher in May that there was something suspicious about these two authors," said Elsevier's Ms. Schmidt. She looked at the reviewers of their papers for the Elsevier journals "and noticed they had generic e-mail contacts, not institutional e-mails. So I contacted these referees at their institutions. ... They said they were not even aware of the papers." Then she contacted the authors and told them what she had found. "The authors did not provide any convincing evidence to the contrary," she said. It is possible that someone else planted the false reviews. But the end result was retraction. Pressure on both authors and journal editors is a major factor in this new type of fraud, observers say. Authors need publications to advance their careers, and as grant money and the job market tighten, some appear willing to lie. "I think this is probably on the rise, but we don't really know the extent," Ms. Schmidt said. On the journal side, editors are handling more submissions than ever—Mr. Supuran said he and three other editors work on 500 to 600 papers each year, about 20 percent more than when he started—and due diligence can be a casualty. When swamped, said Lance W. Small, a member of the ethics committee and a professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of California at San Diego, "editors may cut corners."
Immunology: annurev-physiol-021909-135846 .pdf Macrophages are a heterogeneous population of cells..pdf The ins and outs of phospholipid asymmetry in the plasma..pdf Functional plasticity of macrophag.pdf REGULATION OF IMMUNE CELLS BY..pdf Neurobiology: Shulman et al._ ARP 11.pdf
Writing Technical Reviews In many professions, people give back to their community by doing volunteer work. In technical fields such as computer science, we volunteer our time by reviewing papers that are written by other researchers in our field. I recommend that you approach your reviews in this spirit of volunteerism. Sure, your reviews make you a gatekeeper in helping decide which papers are ready for publication. Just as important, however, is to provide feedback to the authors so that they may improve their work. Try to write your review in a way that the authors can benefit from your review. I like reading a paper and then thinking about it over the course of several days before I write my review. "Living" with a paper for a few days gives you time to make thoughtful decisions about it. This is the best way to come up with helpful suggestions for improving the paper. To do this, you need to carve out some time in your day to think about the paper that you are reviewing. The tone of your review is important. A harshly written review will be disregarded by the authors, regardless of whether your criticisms are true. If you take care, it is always possible to word your review diplomatically while staying true to your thoughts about the paper. Put yourself in the mindset of writing to someone you wish to help, such as a respected colleague who wants your opinion on a concept or a project. Here are some specific issues to keep in mind as you write your reviews: Short reviews are unhelpful to the authors and to other reviewers. If you have agreed to review a paper, you should take enough time to write a thoughtful and detailed review. Be specific when you suggest that the writing needs to be improved. If there is a particular section that is unclear, point it out and give suggestions for how it can be clarified. Don't give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers. If you don't think the paper is right for the SIGGRAPH Technical Papers program, suggest other publication possibilities (journals, conferences, workshops) that would be a better match for the paper. Avoid referring to the authors by using the phrase "you" or "the authors." These phrases should be replaced by "the paper." Directly talking about the authors can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you do not mean it this way. Be generous about giving the authors new ideas for how they can improve their work. Your suggestions may be very specific (for example, "this numerical solver would be better for your application") or may be more general in nature. You might suggest a new dataset that could be tried, or a new application area that might benefit from their tool. You may tell them how their idea can be generalized beyond what they have already considered. A thoughtful review not only benefits the authors, but may well benefit you, too. Remember that your reviews are read by other reviewers, including several who know your identity. Being a helpful reviewer will generate good will toward you in the research community. Greg Turk, March 2008
Nobel Laureate in Physics reviews major breakthroughs in atomic physics By Mirror Fung The renowned physicist and Nobel Laureate Professor Claude Cohen-Tannoudji gave a lecture at City University of Hong Kong (CityU) on major breakthroughs in the evolution of atomic physics during the last few decades on 13 January as part of the France–Hong Kong Distinguished Lecture series. Professo r Arthur Ellis , Acting President of CityU, and Professor Gregory Raupp , Vice-President (Research Technology), welcomed the guests, staff and students attending the lecture. “ Professor Cohen-Tannoudji is Honorary Professor of Atomic and Molecular Physics at the Collège de France and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for the development of methods to cool and trap atoms using laser light ,” Professor Ellis said. “He has shown creativity, innovation and determination that is fully emblematic of what we at CityU are hoping to inspire our students to do when we officially launch the D iscovery-enriched curriculum this fall, ” he added . At the beginning of his lecture, titled “Advances in Atomic Physics f rom Optical Pumping to Quantum Gases ”, Professor Cohen-Tannoudji presented a comprehensive overview of the significant advances made in atomic physics from 1950 to 2010 , such as the development of optical pumping methods first proposed 60 years ago, the availability of laser sources 50 years ago, the invention of new methods, such as laser cooling and trapping, evaporative cooling, and Feshbach resonances. Professor Cohen-Tannoudji played a major role in these developments . His research into radiative forces on atoms in laser light fields, laser cooling and trapping has had a deep impact on many aspects of physics , enabl ing researchers to observe atoms for a longer period of time, increasing considerably the precision of many different kinds of measurements and helping to better understand the interaction of radiation with matter. “The possibility to achieve ultra-cold gaseous samples of strongly interacting atoms and to control all experimental parameters allows one to explore new physical situations, to realise simple models of more complex quantum systems found in other fields of physics, and to get a better understanding of their behaviour,” he explained. H is contributions and achievements have won him many awards, medals and prizes, including the Gold Medal from the French National Center of Scientific Research , the Research Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Harvey Prize in Science and Technology from the Technion Isral Institute of Technology. He is now an active researcher at the Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, cole Normale Supérieure in Paris, and a Member of the French Academy of Sciences and a Foreign Member of many academies, including the US National Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Mr Arnaud Barthelemy , Consul General of France in Hong Kong , thanked CityU for co-organising the France–Hong Kong Distinguished Lecture series. “France and Hong Kong have a long and fruitful partnership in research and higher education, and CityU is the cornerstone of this booming higher education cooperation ,” he said. Th is lecture series is co-organised by the French Academy of Sciences, the Consulate General of France in Hong Kong, and CityU.
标签: Reviews
