Prevalence of amyloid deposition in long standing rheumatoid arthritis in Iranian patients by abdominal subcutaneous fat biopsy and assessment of clinical and laboratory characteristics

BACKGROUND: The study was aimed at determining the prevalence of secondary amyloidosis in a group of Iranian patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), and the assessment of its correlation with the clinical and laboratory findings and data. METHOD: A total number of 220 patients (167 female and 53 male) with a minimum five-year history of RA were selected. Congo red staining method was used for staining the specimens obtained by abdominal subcutaneous fat biopsy (ASFB) method. All of the specimens were examined for apple-green birefringence under polarized light microscope. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of the patients were assessed. Chi-square test and unpaired student's t-test were run for intergroup comparisons. RESULTS: Amyloid deposition test yielded positive results in 15 out of the 220 cases (6.8%) examined by the ASFB technique. Thirteen patients were found to have minimal amyloid deposits. Of all the clinically significant cases, 8 (53%) presented with proteinuria, and 7 cases (46.6%) had severe constipation. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of fat amyloid deposits in Iranian patients with RA is low. In up to half of the study group the deposits were subclinical. Follow up studies are required to determine whether this subclinical amyloidosis can develop into full-blown clinically significant amyloidosis

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table

Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1741-0An abstract construction for general weighted impact factors is introduced. We show that the classical weighted impact factors are particular cases of our model, but it can also be used for defining new impact measuring tools for other sources of information as repositories of datasets providing the mathematical support for a new family of altmet- rics. Our aim is to show the main mathematical properties of this class of impact measuring tools, that hold as consequences of their mathematical structure and does not depend on the definition of any given index nowadays in use. In order to show the power of our approach in a well-known setting, we apply our construction to analyze the stability of the ordering induced in a list of journals by the 2-year impact factor (IF2). We study the change of this ordering when the criterium to define it is given by the numerical value of a new weighted impact factor, in which IF2 is used for defining the weights. We prove that, if we assume that the weight associated to a citing journal increases with its IF2, then the ordering given in the list by the new weighted impact factor coincides with the order defined by the IF2. We give a quantitative bound for the errors committed. We also show two examples of weighted impact factors defined by weights associated to the prestige of the citing journal for the fields of MATHEMATICS and MEDICINE, GENERAL AND INTERNAL, checking if they satisfy the increasing behavior mentioned above.Ferrer Sapena, A.; Sánchez Pérez, EA.; González, LM.; Peset Mancebo, MF.; Aleixandre Benavent, R. (2015). Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals. Scientometrics. 105(3):2089-2108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1741-0S208921081053Ahlgren, P., & Waltman, L. (2014). The correlation between citation-based and expert-based assessments of publication channels: SNIP and SJR vs. Norwegian quality assessments. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 985–996.Aleixandre Benavent, R., Valderrama Zurián, J. C., & González Alcaide, G. (2007). Scientific journals impact factor: Limitations and alternative indicators. El Profesional de la Información, 16(1), 4–11.Altmann, K. G., & Gorman, G. E. (1998). The usefulness of impact factor in serial selection: A rank and mean analysis using ecology journals. Library Acquisitions-Practise and Theory, 22, 147–159.Arnold, D. N., & Fowler, K. K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 434–437.Beliakov, G., & James, S. (2012). Using linear programming for weights identification of generalized bonferroni means in R. In: Proceedings of MDAI 2012 modeling decisions for artificial intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7647, pp. 35–44.Beliakov, G., & James, S. (2011). Citation-based journal ranks: The use of fuzzy measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 167, 101–119.Buela-Casal, G. (2003). Evaluating quality of articles and scientific journals. Proposal of weighted impact factor and a quality index. Psicothema, 15(1), 23–25.Dorta-Gonzalez, P., & Dorta-Gonzalez, M. I. (2013). Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics, 95(2), 645–672.Dorta-Gonzalez, P., Dorta-Gonzalez, M. I., Santos-Penate, D. R., & Suarez-Vega, R. (2014). Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 406–418.Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2002). A general frame-work for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(1), 29–48.Gagolewski, M., & Mesiar, R. (2014). Monotone measures and universal integrals in a uniform framework for the scientific impact assessment problem. Information Sciences, 263, 166–174.Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.Habibzadeh, F., & Yadollahie, M. (2008). Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 164–172.Klement, E., Mesiar, R., & Pap, E. (2010). A universal integral as common frame for Choquet and Sugeno integral. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy System, 18, 178–187.Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2365–2369.Li, Y. R., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 746–755.Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 265–277.NISO. (2014). Alternative metrics initiative phase 1. White paper. http://www.niso.org/apps/group-public/download.php/13809/Altmetrics-project-phase1-white-paperOwlia, P., Vasei, M., Goliaei, B., & Nassiri, I. (2011). Normalized impact factor (NIF): An adjusted method for calculating the citation rate of biomedical journals. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 44(2), 216–220.Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management, 12, 297–312.Pinto, A. C., & Andrade, J. B. (1999). Impact factor of scientific journals: What is the meaning of this parameter? Quimica Nova, 22, 448–453.Raghunathan, M. S., & Srinivas, V. (2001). Significance of impact factor with regard to mathematics journals. Current Science, 80(5), 605.Ruiz Castillo, J., & Waltman, L. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 102–117.Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 42–46.Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2008). The h-index and the number of citations: Two fuzzy integrals. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy System, 16, 795–797.Torres-Salinas, D., & Jimenez-Contreras, E. (2010). Introduction and comparative study of the new scientific journals citation indicators in journal citation reports and scopus. El Profesional de la Información, 19, 201–207.Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2008). Some comments on the journal weighted impact factor proposed by Habibzadeh and Yadollahie. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 369–372.Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2013). Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 272–285.Zitt, M. (2011). Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 89, 329–344.Zitt, M., & Small, H. (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1856–1860.Zyczkowski, K. (2010). Citation graph, weighted impact factors and performance indices. Scientometrics, 85(1), 301–315

Cotton in the new millennium: advances, economics, perceptions and problems

Cotton is the most significant natural fibre and has been a preferred choice of the textile industry and consumers since the industrial revolution began. The share of man-made fibres, both regenerated and synthetic fibres, has grown considerably in recent times but cotton production has also been on the rise and accounts for about half of the fibres used for apparel and textile goods. To cotton’s advantage, the premium attached to the presence of cotton fibre and the general positive consumer perception is well established, however, compared to commodity man-made fibres and high performance fibres, cotton has limitations in terms of its mechanical properties but can help to overcome moisture management issues that arise with performance apparel during active wear. This issue of Textile Progress aims to: i. Report on advances in cotton cultivation and processing as well as improvements to conventional cotton cultivation and ginning. The processing of cotton in the textile industry from fibre to finished fabric, cotton and its blends, and their applications in technical textiles are also covered. ii. Explore the economic impact of cotton in different parts of the world including an overview of global cotton trade. iii. Examine the environmental perception of cotton fibre and efforts in organic and genetically-modified (GM) cotton production. The topic of naturally-coloured cotton, post-consumer waste is covered and the environmental impacts of cotton cultivation and processing are discussed. Hazardous effects of cultivation, such as the extensive use of pesticides, insecticides and irrigation with fresh water, and consequences of the use of GM cotton and cotton fibres in general on the climate are summarised and the effects of cotton processing on workers are addressed. The potential hazards during cotton cultivation, processing and use are also included. iv. Examine how the properties of cotton textiles can be enhanced, for example, by improving wrinkle recovery and reducing the flammability of cotton fibre

Trend of Knowledge Production of Research Centers in the Field of Medical Sciences in Iran

Establishment of medical research centers at universities and health-related organizations and annually evaluation of their research activities was one of the strategic policies which followed by governmental organization in last decade in order to strengthening the connections between health research system and health system. The aim of this study is to scrutinize the role of medical research centers in medical science production in Iran. This study is a cross sectional which has been performed based on existing reports on national scientometrics and evaluation results of research performance of medical research centers between years 2001 to 2010. During last decade number of medical research centers increased from 53 in 2001 to 359 in 2010. Simultaneous scientific output of medical research centers has been increased especially articles indexed in ISI (web of science). Proper policy implementation in the field of health research system during last decades led to improving capacity building and growth knowledge production of medical science in recent years in Iran. The process embedding research into the health systems requires planning up until research products improves health outcomes and health equity in country

Health Research Evaluation and Its Role on Knowledge Production

Background: Knowledge production and evaluation are two important functions of health research system (HRS). In this article, we aimed to reveal the correlation between evaluation of health research organizations and health knowledge production promotion.Methods: A comprehensive evaluation system was developed to evaluate the academic performance of national medical science universities on an annual basis. It assess following domains; stewardship, capacity building and knowledge production. Measurable indicators for each domain were assigned, a research profiles; for each department was provided. In this study, we compared the results of annually national Health Research System evaluation findings during 2005-2008.Results: The number of scientific articles has been increased from 4672 to 8816 during 2005 to 2008. It is mentionable that, the number of articles which has been published in indexed data bases has risen too. This fact could be related to directed policy for more international publication of scientific articles from Iran. The proportion of total articles to the number of academic members was 1.14 in 2008, comparing to 0.84 in 2005. It means that this proportion have increased about twice (0.7 Vs 0.45) during mentioned time. Moreover, other scientific products such as authored books based on domestic researches and cited articles in textbooks have increased according to special attention to knowledge production by policy makers.Conclusion: We conclude that Health System Research evaluation could be used as a mean for implementing policies and promoting knowledge production

Research Assessment of Iranian Medical Universities, an Experience from a Developing Country

"nInternational ranking of universities by bibliometric assays has received a great attention in recent years. The developing countries have commenced to build their own infrastructure of research and post graduate training during the past couple of years. In 2000, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education of Iran began an annual national survey for assessing research activities in medical universities and their affiliated institutions by applying a customized ranking method. Research indi­cators were scored in three topics; Stewardship, Capacity Building, and Knowledge Production. In 2000, there were about 300 published medical articles in ISI/Thomson and PUBMED from the whole country. This number increased up to 3376 in 2007. The score of indexed papers in international databases per academic member rose from 0.1 in 2000 to 0.63 in 2007. The share of global articles (in the field of Medicine) grew from 0.06% in 2000 to 0.55% in 2007. This rising in article output led to a change from grade 57th in 2000 to 27th in 2007 in the ranking system of Scopus database. The number of local medi­cal journals, which were 53 in 2000, increased to 141 at the end of 2008.  This rising scores was ongoing while the growth of the total staff of the academic members was about 25% (from 9086 in 2000 to 11324 in 2007). The number of the short training courses rose from 458 in 2000 to 1097 in 2007. The registered research projects in health topic rose from less than 3878 in 2000 to 6816 in 2007