Apple pomace as an emerging cosmetic ingredient: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study will present a review on the emerging use of apple pomace as a cosmetic ingredient, exploring its processing methods, antioxidant activity analyses, application in cosmetic formulations and cosmetics with apple pomace analyses. By employing systematic review and meta-analysis methodologies, the authors aim to identify specific areas involving apple pomace in cosmetic context such as types of antioxidant activity analyses (TPC, DPPH and others) or methods of processing apple pomace. The study aligns with current trends in the cosmetic industry, emphasizing sustainability and the incorporation of natural ingredients, contributing valuable insights to the innovative utilization of fruit and vegetable waste in cosmetic industry. The Preferred Reporting standards for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will guide the search and screening process across electronic bibliographic databases: Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. The anticipated outcomes include a comprehensive overview of the types of apple pomace processing methods, antioxidant activity analyses, methods of application in cosmetics, and analyses of cosmetic products with apple pomace. The review is scheduled to be conducted from May to October 202

Bottlenecks in the Open-Access System: Voices from Around the Globe

A level playing field is key for global participation in science and scholarship, particularly with regard to how scientific publications are financed and subsequently accessed. However, there are potential pitfalls of the so-called “Gold” open-access (OA) route, in which author-paid publication charges cover the costs of production and publication. Gold OA plans in which author charges are required may not solve the access problem, but rather may shift the access barrier from reader to writer. Under such plans, everyone may be free to read papers, but it may still be prohibitively expensive to publish them. In a scholarly community that is increasingly global, spread over more and more regions and countries of the world, these publication access barriers may be quite significant. In the present paper, a global suite of colleagues in academe joins this debate. The group of colleagues, a network of researchers active in scholarly publishing, spans four continents and multiple disciplines in the natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences, as well as diverse political and economic situations. We believe that this global sampling of researchers can provide the nuance and perspective necessary to grasp this complex problem. The group was assembled without an attempt to achieve global coverage through random sampling. This contribution differs from other approaches to the open-access problem in several fundamental ways. (A) It is scholar-driven, and thus can represent the ‘other side of the coin’ of scholarly communication. (B) It focuses on narrative report, where scholars were free to orient their responses as they saw fit, rather than being confined to binary or scalar choices. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, (C) it distinguishes among institutions and countries and situations, highlighting inequalities of access among wealthy and economically-challenged nations, and also within countries depending on the size and location of particular institutions