Results for “scholarly publishing”

DOE OSTI2025

The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): Bringing Open-Source Software Practices to the Scholarly Publishing Community for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers

Open-source software (OSS) is a critical component of open science, but contributions to the OSS ecosystem are systematically undervalued in the current academic system. The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) contributes to addressing this by providing a venue (that is itself free, diamond open access, and all open-source, built in a layered structure using widely available elements/services of the scholarly publishing ecosystem) for publishing OSS, run in the style of OSS itself. A particularly distinctive element of JOSS is that it uses open peer review in a collaborative, iterative format, unlike most publishers. Additionally, all the components of the process—from the reviews to the papers to the software that is the subject of the papers to the software that the journal runs—are open. We describe JOSS’s history and its peer review process using an editorial bot, and we present statistics gathered from JOSS’s public review history on GitHub showing an increasing number of peer reviewed papers each year. We discuss the new JOSSCast and use it as a data source to understand reasons why interviewed authors decided to publish in JOSS. JOSS’s process differs significantly from traditional journals, which has impeded JOSS’s inclusion in indexing services such as Web of Science. In turn, this discourages researchers within certain academic systems, such as Italy’s, which emphasize the importance of Web of Science and/or Scopus indexing for grant applications and promotions. JOSS is a fully diamond open-access journal with a cost of around US$\$$5 per paper for the 401 papers published in 2023. The scalability of running JOSS with volunteers and financing JOSS with grants and donations is discussed.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Software Citation in HEP: Current State and Recommendations for the Future

In November 2022, the HEP Software Foundation and the Institute for Research and Innovation for Software in High-Energy Physics organized a workshop on the topic of Software Citation and Recognition in HEP. The goal of the workshop was to bring together different types of stakeholders whose roles relate to software citation, and the associated credit it provides, in order to engage the community in a discussion on: the ways HEP experiments handle citation of software, recognition for software efforts that enable physics results disseminated to the public, and how the scholarly publishing ecosystem supports these activities. Reports were given from the publication board leadership of the ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb experiments and HEP open source software community organizations (ROOT, Scikit-HEP, MCnet), and perspectives were given from publishers (Elsevier, JOSS) and related tool providers (INSPIRE, Zenodo). This paper summarizes key findings and recommendations from the workshop as presented at the 26th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2023).

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Language Barriers in Organismal Biology: What Can Journals Do Better?

Synopsis In the field of organismal biology, as in much of academia, there is a strong incentive to publish in internationally recognized, highly regarded, English-language journals to promote career advancement. This expectation has created a linguistic hegemony in scientific publishing, whereby scholars for whom English is an additional language face additional barriers to achieving the same scientific recognition as scholars who speak English as a first language. Here, we surveyed the author guidelines of 230 journals in organismal biology with impact factors of 1.5 or greater for linguistically inclusive and equitable practices and policies. We looked for efforts that reflect first steps toward reducing barriers to publication for authors globally, including the presence of statements that encouraged submissions from authors of diverse nationalities and backgrounds, policies regarding manuscript rejection based on perceived inadequacies of the English language, the existence of bias-conscious reviewer practices, whether translation and editing resources or services are available, allowance for non-English abstracts, summaries, or translations, and whether journals offer license options that would permit authors (or other scholars) to translate their work and publish it elsewhere. We also directly contacted a subset of journals to verify whether the information on their author guidelines page accurately reflects their policies and the accommodations they would make. We reveal that journals and publishers have made little progress toward beginning to recognize or reduce language barriers. Counter to our predictions, journals associated with scientific societies did not appear to have more inclusive policies compared to non-society journals. Many policies lacked transparency and clarity, which can generate uncertainty, result in avoidable manuscript rejections, and necessitate additional time and effort from both prospective authors and journal editors. We highlight examples of equitable policies and summarize actions that journals can take to begin to alleviate barriers to scientific publishing.

Nolde-Lopez, B.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Estimation of elastic properties of an additively manufactured lattice using resonant ultrasound spectroscopy

Development of improved approaches in the characterization of additively manufactured structures continues to be a topic of interest for the advanced manufacturing community. This article will investigate an approach using resonant ultrasound spectroscopy (RUS) to determine the effective elastic constants of an orthotropic lattice structure. The evaluation is performed on a cube shaped 316 L stainless steel test specimen, constructed using selective laser melting techniques. The approach uses RUS techniques in conjunction with the assumption that in the frequency regime of interest, the wavelength of the diagnostic ultrasound is greater than the discrete structural features of the unit cell of the lattice; thus, the AM structure can be treated as an anisotropic continuum with effective material properties and symmetry inherited from the unit cell. The RUS analysis estimates the nine elastic coefficients associated with orthotropic sample symmetry, which, in turn, are used to determine the elastic moduli and Poisson ratios. Current results show good agreement between experiments and modeled data. Comparisons to published results are also in good agreement, indicating the potential applicability of this characterization technique for estimating the linear elastic properties of innovative additive manufactured metal lattice structures.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

Direct comparison of wire, foil, and hybrid X-pinches on a 200 kA, 150 ns current driver

Wire X-pinches (WXPs) have been studied comprehensively as fast (~1 ns pulse width), small (~1 μm) x-ray sources, created by twisting two or more fine wires into an “X” to produce a localized region of extreme magnetic pressure at the cross-point. Recently, two alternatives to the traditional WXP have arisen: the hybrid X-pinch (HXP), composed of two conical electrodes bridged by a thin wire or capillary, and the laser-cut foil X-pinch (LCXP), cut from a thin foil using a laser. We present a comparison of copper wire, hybrid, and laser-cut foil X-pinches on a single experimental platform: UC San Diego’s ~200 kA, 150 ns rise time GenASIS driver. All configurations produced 1–2 ns pulse width, ≤5 μm soft x-ray (Cu L-shell, ~1 keV) sources (resolutions diagnostically limited) with comparable fluxes. WXP results varied with linear mass and wire count, but consistently showed separate pinch and electron-beam-driven sources. LCXPs produced the brightest (~1 MW), smallest (≤5 μm) Cu K-shell sources, and spectroscopic data showed both H-like Cu K α lines indicative of source temperatures ≥2 keV, and cold K α (~8050 eV) characteristic of electron beam generated sources, which were not separately resolved on other diagnostics (within 1–2 ns and ≤200 μm). HXPs produced minimal K-shell emission and reliably single, bright, and small L-shell sources after modifications to shape the early current pulse through them. Benefits and drawbacks for each configuration are discussed to provide potential X-pinch users with the information required to choose the configuration best suited to their needs.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2019

Charles Kittel

We discuss solid-state physicist Charles Kittel, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, passed away peacefully at his home in Berkeley on 15 May 2019, two months before his 103rd birthday. Born in New York City on 18 July 1916, Charlie entered MIT in 1934. He moved to Cambridge University in 1936 and received his BA there two years later. He earned his PhD degree in 1941 from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where his adviser was Gregory Breit. From 1940 to 1942, Charlie worked on problems in degaussing and magnetic mine warfare at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. He served in the US Navy as a research physicist at a British Admiralty research establishment in Scotland and as a naval attaché at the US Embassy in London; he went on to work on antisubmarine warfare and operations research in Washington, DC, and London. In 1945 he returned to MIT, taking a position in the Research Laboratory of Electronics.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Geometric adiabatic angle in anisotropic oscillators

We discuss a classical anisotropic oscillator and the Foucault pendulum as examples illustrating non-conservation of action variables in integrable classical mechanical systems with adiabatically slow evolution. We also emphasize the importance of the mass parameter of a harmonic oscillator, alongside its frequency, in explicitly time-dependent situations.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

DOE OSTI2023

EXCHANGE Campaign 1: A Community-Driven Baseline Characterization of Soils, Sediments, and Water Across Coastal Gradients

The EXploration of Coastal Hydrobiogeochemistry Across a Network of Gradients and Experiments (EXCHANGE) program is a consortium of scientists working together to improve our understanding of how the two-way exchange of water between estuaries or large lake lacustuaries and the terrestrial landscape influence the state and function of ecosystems across the coastal interface. EXCHANGE Campaign 1 (EC1) focuses on the spatial variation in biogeochemical structure and function at the coastal terrestrial-aquatic interface (TAI). In the Fall of 2021, the EXCHANGE Consortium gathered samples from 52 TAIs. Samples collected from EC1 were analyzed for bulk geochemical parameters, bulk physicochemical parameters, organic matter characteristics, and redox-sensitive elements.Please download ec1_README.pdf for a complete list of available data in each .zip folder, package version history, and detailed information about the project. This README will serve as the central place for EC1 Data Package updates. Experimental setup and v1 methods are documented in Myers-Pigg and Pennington et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02548-7).EC1 Data Package Structure:ec1_README.pdfec1_methods.pdfec1_metadata_v3.zip...ec1_dd.csv...ec1_flmd.csv...ec1_sample_catalog.csv...ec1_metadata_kitlevel.csv...ec1_metadata_collectionlevel.csv...ec1_data_collectionlevel.csv...ec1_igsn_metadata.csvec1_soil_v3.zipec1_sediment_v3.zipec1_water_v3.zipec1_processingscripts_v3.zipThis data package is on v3 and was originally published May 2023 (v1). Subsequent updates will be published here with new version numbers. Please see the Change History section in ec1_README.pdf for detailed changes.---Acknowledging EXCHANGE: General Support and Data Product UseWe ask that users of EXCHANGE data add the following acknowledgement when publishing data in scholarly articles and data repositories:"This research is based on work supported by COMPASS-FME, a multi-institutional project supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research as part of the Environmental System Science Program."

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Greenhouse gas and dissolved oxygen production and consumption rates associated with Regier et al. (2023)

Tidal inundation along the coastal terrestrial-aquatic interface controls soil and sediment biogeochemistry and gas dynamics. Although a rich literature exist on studies of the influence of tidal waters on the biogeochemistry of coastal ecosystem soils, few studies have experimentally addressed the reverse question: How do soils (or sediments) from different coastal ecosystems influence the biogeochemistry of the tidal waters that inundate them? We conducted short-term microcosm laboratory experiments where seawater was amended with sediments and soils collected across regional gradients of inundation exposure (i.e., frequently to rarely inundated) and measured changes in dissolved oxygen and greenhouse gas concentrations to calculate gas consumption or production rates occurring during seawater exposure to terrestrial materials. This data package contains dissolved oxygen and greenhouse gas data collected during incubation of soils and sediments collected at 18 sites, which were used in the publication Regier et al. (2023) entitled “Coastal inundation regime moderates the short-term effects of sediment and soil additions on seawater oxygen and greenhouse gas dynamics: a microcosm experiment” which is published in Frontiers in Marine Science (DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1308590).---Acknowledging EXCHANGE: General Support and Data Product UseWe ask that users of EXCHANGE data add the following acknowledgement when publishing data in scholarly articles and data repositories:"This research is based on work supported by COMPASS-FME, a multi-institutional project supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research as part of the Environmental System Science Program."

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2018

Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions

Academic publishers claim that they add value to scholarly communications by coordinating reviews and contributing and enhancing text during publication. These contributions come at a considerable cost: US academic libraries paid $1.7 billion for serial subscriptions in 2008 alone. Library budgets, in contrast, are flat and not able to keep pace with serial price inflation. Here, we have investigated the publishers’ value proposition by conducting a comparative study of pre-print papers from two distinct science, technology, and medicine corpora and their final published counterparts. This comparison had two working assumptions: (1) If the publishers’ argument is valid, the text of a pre-print paper should vary measurably from its corresponding final published version, and (2) by applying standard similarity measures, we should be able to detect and quantify such differences. Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions. These findings contribute empirical indicators to discussions of the added value of commercial publishers and therefore should influence libraries’ economic decisions regarding access to scholarly publications.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2014

Scholarly context not found: One in five articles suffers from reference rot

The emergence of the web has fundamentally affected most aspects of information communication, including scholarly communication. The immediacy that characterizes publishing information to the web, as well as accessing it, allows for a dramatic increase in the speed of dissemination of scholarly knowledge. But, the transition from a paper-based to a web-based scholarly communication system also poses challenges. In this paper, we focus on reference rot, the combination of link rot and content drift to which references to web resources included in Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM) articles are subject. We investigate the extent to which reference rot impacts the ability to revisit the web context that surrounds STM articles some time after their publication. We do so on the basis of a vast collection of articles from three corpora that span publication years 1997 to 2012. For over one million references to web resources extracted from over 3.5 million articles, we determine whether the HTTP URI is still responsive on the live web and whether web archives contain an archived snapshot representative of the state the referenced resource had at the time it was referenced. We observe that the fraction of articles containing references to web resources is growing steadily over time. We find one out of five STM articles suffering from reference rot, meaning it is impossible to revisit the web context that surrounds them some time after their publication. When only considering STM articles that contain references to web resources, this fraction increases to seven out of ten.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2020

A Curated Experimental Compilation Analyzed by Theory Is More than a Review

Macromolecules is an exceptional resource in the field of polymer science and now publishes more than 1000 original articles a year that set the standard for scientific rigor and creative insights. Over the years, these individual contributions have combined to build the foundation of polymer science, broadly and inclusively defined. In addition to the individual articles, many of which are being celebrated in this series of editorials, Macromolecules has published invaluable reviews and perspectives. These scholarly contributions integrate the insights and results from numerous sources into a unified whole and often recommend future directions for the field. Novices and experts alike benefit from these works that capture topics from emerging discoveries to long-pondered topics and everything in between. To explore the importance of Macromolecules’ reviews and perspectives, we considered their influence on the field and found the 1994 review by Fetters et al. entitled “Connection between Polymer Molecular Weight, Density, Chain Dimensions, and Melt Viscoelastic Properties”1 to be a singularity. This review expertly curates and compiles a trove of data to build robust correlations between molecular characteristics and macroscopic viscoelastic properties of polymer melts, in the context of the tube model of entanglements.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

Overview of the Second Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing

With the ever-increasing pace of research and high volume of scholarly communication, scholars face a daunting task. Not only must they keep up with the growing literature in their own and related fields, scholars increasingly also need to rebut pseudo-science and disinformation. These needs have motivated an increasing focus on computational methods for enhancing search, summarization, and analysis of scholarly documents. However, the various strands of research on scholarly document processing remain fragmented. To reach out to the broader NLP and AI/ML community, pool distributed efforts in this area, and enable shared access to published research, we held the 2nd Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) at NAACL 2021 as a virtual event (https://sdproc.org/2021/). The SDP workshop consisted of a research track, three invited talks, and three Shared Tasks (LongSumm 2021, SCIVER, and 3C). The program was geared towards the application of NLP, information retrieval, and data mining for scholarly documents, with an emphasis on identifying and providing solutions to open challenges.

Beltagy, Iz↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-00: Medical Physics Workshop: An Update On the Journal’s Improvement Activities and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-01: Vision for Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-02: Improving Manuscript Quality Via Structured Reviews, Enhanced Scientific Category Taxonomy, and Outreach

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-03: Writing Good Scientific Papers and Responding to Critiques

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Medication abortion via digital health in the United States: a systematic scoping review

Digital health, including telemedicine, has increased access to abortion care. The convenience, flexibility of appointment times, and ensured privacy to abortion users may make abortion services via telemedicine preferable. This scoping review systematically mapped studies conducted on abortion services via telemedicine, including their effectiveness and acceptability for abortion users and providers. All published papers included abortion services via telemedicine in the United States were considered. Articles were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases in September 2022. The findings were synthesized narratively, and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to report this study. Out of 757 retrieved articles, 33 articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2011 and 2022, with 24 published in the last 3 years. The study found that telemedicine increased access to abortion care in the United States, especially for people in remote areas or those worried about stigma from in-person visits. The effectiveness of abortion services via telemedicine was comparable to in-clinic visits, with 6% or fewer abortions requiring surgical intervention. Both care providers and abortion seekers expressed positive perceptions of telemedicine-based abortion services. However, abortion users reported mixed emotions, with some preferring in-person visits. The most common reasons for choosing telemedicine included the distance to the abortion clinic, convenience, privacy, cost, flexibility of appointment times, and state laws imposing waiting periods or restrictive policies. Telemedicine offered a preferable option for abortion seekers and providers. The feasibility of accessing abortion services via telemedicine in low-resource settings needs further investigation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗