Dear colleagues, June is a hot month in many parts of the world, it is also a hot month for journal editors and many authors. Impact Factor (IF) is usually released in June. Yesterday I saw many editors' zealotry and excitement when their SCI-Indexed journals' impact factors have greatly increased and their journal rankings have climbed to a new height. JMS's impact factor increases a little from last year's 1.135 to present year's 1.423, and the journal ranking also climbes a little from 22.1% to 24.2%. Our progress in the IF and the ranking is not so satisfactory yet. Yes, impact factor is one of the important factors that we should pay special attention to. However it is only a figure to show that one journal got higher cites and probably it has published better papers compared with other journals. Sometimes it is also an easy to manipulate figure! No matter how, to publish best manuscripts, to provide better service just as Mr. James Testa said, is important elements to increase journal IF and is what journal editors should persistently stick to! We have only made slight progress in IF, but most importantly I think we have disseminated academic research and publication philosophy among scholars and graduate students via scientific writing workshops and on the social media. Thus I believe the good public reputation will reward us more in the upcoming years! Thank you all for submitting high quality manuscripts to JMS and give active and concrete support to the journal in many aspects. That is the important impetus for the journal progress! All the best QIU Dunlian
After a long time planning and several days' busy preparation, the editorial board workshop was finally completed yesterday. Prof. LIU Shiyin coming from Lanzhou, Dr. Paolo Tarolli from University of Padova coming from Beijing attended this workshop. In fact, it should be fixed to hold a editorial board workshop once a year to discuss the journal's development and faced difficulties or challenges, and seek help or suggestions from the editorial members and editors, and also establish a platform for the editorial members to meet and discuss further cooperation.Next year, we should prepare much earlier and invite more overseas editorial members and editors, and also invite important reviewers and authors to attend this workshop. Besides, Paolo gave a presentation to the students and researchers in our institute. Both his PPT and presentation are great with beautiful pictures and figures! A really busy month! Poster for informing the editorial board workshop, one pasted in the lobby of Buidling 1, and one besids the elevator gate of the first floor in Building 2. It cost me some time to design it. Next time, it will be much easier to do this! A banner to hang across the wall of the meeting room. It was printed in a company. The agenda for the editorial workshop on October 23 morning. Editorial members and editors attending this workshop Prof. CUI chairs the workshop and made a welcome speech, and then every member attending this workshop made a self introdution. Prof. YU Dafu,the former executive editor in chief of the Journal of Mountain Science recalled the journal history, which showed the difficult time at the very beginning of the journal foundation Prof. QIU,the present executive editor-in-chief made a summary on our past work and on the journal's developmental trends, and listed the problems we met presently and our future challenges we need to face and solve. Prof LIU Shiyin introduced his strategy to organize special issues and suggestions on how to organize more high quality papers. Dr. Paolo told his ideas on how to raise journal influence and impact factor: publish hot topic papers at the right time and suggested some possible hot topics. He will chair two sessions on next year's EGU Conference and he hopes the journal will dispatch editor to do journal promotion in this conference. Free dicsussion on three topics: 1) The key columns the journal should set in next year; 2) special issue or special topics strategy for the journal; 3) how to raise the journal impact fact and impact factor.
BOARD STATEMENT For all those who are inspired by flight, and for the nation where powered flight was first achieved, the year 2003 had long been anticipated as one of celebration – December 17 would mark the centennial of the day the Wright Flyer first took to the air. But 2003 began instead on a note of sudden and profound loss. On February 1, Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed in a disaster that claimed the lives of all seven of its crew. While February 1 was an occasion for mourning, the efforts that ensued can be a source of national pride. NASA publicly and forthrightly informed the nation about the accident and all the associated information that became available. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board was established within two hours of the loss of signal from the returning spacecraft in accordance with procedures established by NASA following the Challenger accident 17 years earlier. The crew members lost that morning were explorers in the finest tradition, and since then, everyone associated with the Board has felt that we were laboring in their legacy. Ours, too, was a journey of discovery: We sought to discover the conditions that produced this tragic outcome and to share those lessons in such a way that this nationʼs space program will emerge stronger and more sure-footed. If those lessons are truly learned, then Columbiaʼs crew will have made an indelible contribution to the endeavor each one valued so greatly. After nearly seven months of investigation, the Board has been able to arrive at findings and recommendations aimed at significantly reducing the chances of further accidents. Our aim has been to improve Shuttle safety by multiple means, not just by correcting the specific faults that cost the nation this Orbiter and this crew. With that intent, the Board conducted not only an investigation of what happened to Columbia, but also – to determine the conditions that allowed the accident to occur – a safety evaluation of the entire Space Shuttle Program. Most of the Boardʼs efforts were undertaken in a completely open manner. By necessity, the safety evaluation was conducted partially out of the public view, since it included frank, off-the-record statements by a substantial number of people connected with the Shuttle program. In order to understand the findings and recommendations in this report, it is important to appreciate the way the Board looked at this accident. It is our view that complex systems almost always fail in complex ways, and we believe it would be wrong to reduce the complexities and weaknesses associated with these systems to some simple explanation. Too often, accident investigations blame a failure only on the last step in a complex process, when a more comprehensive understanding of that process could reveal that earlier steps might be equally or even more culpable. In this Boardʼs opinion, unless the technical, organizational, and cultural recommendations made in this report are implemented, little will have been accomplished to lessen the chance that another accident will follow. From its inception, the Board has considered itself an independent and public institution, accountable to the American public, the White House, Congress, the astronaut corps and their families, and NASA. With the support of these constituents, the Board resolved to broaden the scope of the accident investigation into a far-reaching examination of NASAʼs operation of the Shuttle fleet. We have explored the impact of NASAʼs organizational history and practices on Shuttle safety, as well as the roles of public expectations and national policy-making. In this process, the Board identified a number of pertinent factors, which we have grouped into three distinct categories: 1) physical failures that led directly to Columbiaʼs destruction; 2) underlying weaknesses, revealed in NASAʼs organization and history, that can pave the way to catastrophic failure; and 3) “other significant observations” made during the course of the investigation, but which may be unrelated to the accident at hand. Left uncorrected, any of these factors could contribute to future Shuttle losses. To establish the credibility of its findings and recommendations, the Board grounded its examinations in rigorous scientific and engineering principles. We have consulted with leading authorities not only in mechanical systems, but also in organizational theory and practice. These authoritiesʼ areas of expertise included risk management, safety engineering, and a review of “best business practices” employed by other high-risk, but apparently reliable enterprises. Among these are nuclear power plants, petrochemical facilities, nuclear weapons production, nuclear submarine operations, and expendable space launch systems. NASA is a federal agency like no other. Its mission is unique, and its stunning technological accomplishments, a source of pride and inspiration without equal, represent the best in American skill and courage. At times NASAʼs efforts have riveted the nation, and it is never far from public view and close scrutiny from many quarters. The loss of Columbia and her crew represents a turning point, calling for a renewed public policy debate and commitment regarding human space exploration. One of our goals has been to set forth the terms for this debate. Named for a sloop that was the first American vessel to circumnavigate the Earth more than 200 years ago, in 1981 Columbia became the first spacecraft of its type to fly in Earth orbit and successfully completed 27 missions over more than two decades. During the STS-107 mission, Columbia and its crew traveled more than six million miles in 16 days. The Orbiterʼs destruction, just 16 minutes before scheduled touchdown, shows that space flight is still far from routine. It involves a substantial element of risk, which must be recognized, but never accepted with resignation. The seven Columbia astronauts believed that the risk was worth the reward. The Board salutes their courage and dedicates this report to their memory. 原文见 http://anon.nasa-global.speedera.net/anon.nasa-global/CAIB/CAIB_lowres_intro.pdf
Dear Dr. Zheng, We are in the process of launching a new peer-reviewed, open access journal titled Dataset Papers in Atomic and Molecular Physics, which will publish Dataset Papers in all areas of atomic and molecular physics, and I am writing to invite you to join the Editorial Board of this new journal. Best regards, Reem Mounib -- ------------------------------ Reem Mounib Journal Developer Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com/ -----------------------------
Each year before the Christmas, one important thing for the editorial board is sending Christmas cards to the members of the editorial board around the world to show our thanks for their support to the JMS. Just making a one page card is easy. But it can't express what we want to say. It's not aneasy jobtoget a beautiful and expressful ChristmasPPT. This year, I made a ChristmasPPT by using the following steps: One, search beautiful Christmas pictures and Christmas musicfrom the internet; Two, modify and beuatify the pictures, and add some JMS typical elements; Three, prepare PPT, add Christmas pictures and write the corresponding words; Four, insert song or music at the first slide, and then do some necessary adjustment. Then a Christmas PPT is finished! The following is one Christmas e-cardI made forthe JMS editorial boardmembers. Christmas PPT for members of JMS editorial board
标签: board
