Publicação técnico-científica: afinal, de que se trata?

Dependendo do conceito empregado, não haverá, necessariamente, equivalência entre o que se convenciona chamar de “publicação acadêmica” e o “artigo técnico-científico”. A “primeira” poderá significar a publicação editada sob a responsabilidade de uma instituição de ensino; o “segundo”, o corpo de informações versando sobre técnica e ciência. Há casos, naturalmente, do interlocutor que utiliza o conceito generalizado de que tudo o que se refere à academia está, automaticamente, sob a condição de ciência, no sentido restrito, ou de ciência e tecnologia, no sentido amplo. O termo acadêmico toma-se, portanto, ambíguo. A menos que o significado deixe mais explicitado, se no sentido institucional, jurídico, que identifica a unidade universitária de ensino e pesquisa; se caracteriza, genericamente o corpo de professores e investigadores – a academia—; ou se adjetiva o subsistema social devotado à “geração do saber como bem cultural”, noto incluída a ciência mas não — obviamente – a tecnologia (uma vez que esta contém elementos de natureza particular, de valor econômico e político). É importante reconhecer que vários textos – publicados com a intenção de “científicos” — não contêm informações sobre ciência. É o que ocorre em artigos de conteúdo inquestionável – porém dedicados a notas técnicas, catalogações, listagens, estudos de casos, levantamentos. Por isso prefere-se a delimitação dos termos: “a publicação técnico-científica”, definida pelo conteúdo, e a “organização editora”, responsável, institucionalmente, pela produção e distribuição. Portanto, o termo acadêmico — como organização jurídica ou como sinônimo de saber e cultura — será evitado, por ser ambíguo. O conceito acadêmico — quando usado — dirá respeito à comunidade que compõe a academia, isto é, os “scholars” envolvidos em ciência e tecnologia, de acordo com os conceitos definidos mais à frente.  

Strengthening the integration of eye care into the health system: methodology for the development of the WHO package of eye care interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rational for, and the methods that will be employed to develop, the WHO package of eye care interventions (PECI). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of the package will be conducted in four steps: (1) selection of eye conditions (for which interventions will be included in the package) based on epidemiological data on the causes of vision impairment and blindness, prevalence estimates of eye conditions and health facility data; (2) identification of interventions and related evidence for the selected eye conditions from clinical practice guidelines and high-quality systematic reviews by a technical working group; (3) expert agreement on the inclusion of eye care interventions in the package and the description of resources required for the provision of the selected interventions; and (4) peer review. The project will be led by the WHO Vision Programme in collaboration with Cochrane Eyes and Vision. A Technical Advisory Group, comprised of public health and clinical experts in the field, will provide technical input throughout all stages of development. RESULTS: After considering the feedback of Technical Advisory Group members and reviewing-related evidence, a final list of eye conditions for which interventions will be included in the package has been collated. CONCLUSION: The PECI will support Ministries of Health in prioritising, planning, budgeting and integrating eye care interventions into health systems. It is anticipated that the PECI will be available for use in 2021

EpIG‐DB: A database of vascular epiphyte assemblages in the Neotropics

Vascular epiphytes are a diverse and conspicuous component of biodiversity in tropical and subtropical forests. Yet, the patterns and drivers of epiphyte assemblages are poorly studied in comparison with soil‐rooted plants. Current knowledge about diversity patterns of epiphytes mainly stems from local studies or floristic inventories, but this information has not yet been integrated to allow a better understanding of large‐scale distribution patterns. EpIG‐DB, the first database on epiphyte assemblages at the continental scale, resulted from an exhaustive compilation of published and unpublished inventory data from the Neotropics. The current version of EpIG‐DB consists of 463,196 individual epiphytes from 3,005 species, which were collected from a total of 18,148 relevés (host trees and ‘understory’ plots). EpIG‐DB reports the occurrence of ‘true’ epiphytes, hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines, including information on their cover, abundance, frequency and biomass. Most records (97%) correspond to sampled host trees, 76% of them aggregated in forest plots. The data is stored in a TURBOVEG database using the most up‐to‐date checklist of vascular epiphytes. A total of 18 additional fields were created for the standardization of associated data commonly used in epiphyte ecology (e.g. by considering different sampling methods). EpIG‐DB currently covers six major biomes across the whole latitudinal range of epiphytes in the Neotropics but welcomes data globally. This novel database provides, for the first time, unique biodiversity data on epiphytes for the Neotropics and unified guidelines for future collection of epiphyte data. EpIG‐DB will allow exploration of new ways to study the community ecology and biogeography of vascular epiphytes