Targeting the EIF2AK1 Signaling Pathway Rescues Red Blood Cell Production in SF3B1 Mutant Myelodysplastic Syndromes With Ringed Sideroblasts

View full abstracthttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/leading-edge/1025/thumbnail.jp

A and Benyoucef M. Similarity and ties in social networks: A study of the YouTube social network

The journal acceptance review process involves a minimum of three double-blind peer reviews, where both the reviewer is not aware of the identities of the authors and the authors are not aware of the identities of the reviewers. The initial reviews happen before the conference. At that point papers are divided into award papers (top 15%), other journal papers (top 30%), unsettled papers, and non-journal papers. The unsettled papers are subjected to a second round of blind peer review to establish whether they will be accepted to the journal or not. Those papers that are deemed of sufficient quality are accepted for publication in the JISAR journal. Currently the target acceptance rate for the journal is about 40%. Questions should be addressed to the editor at [email protected] or the publisher at [email protected]. AITP Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) Board of Director

2017 AITP Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) Board of Directors Information Systems Education Journal Editors 2016 ISEDJ Editorial Board Programming in the IS Curriculum: Are Requirements Changing for the Right Reason?

Abstract All curricula for any given academic discipline evolves over time. This is also true for the Information Systems (IS) model curriculum. Curriculum evolution is driven by several factors, such as changes in technologies, industry shifts to meet customer needs, and perceived student deficiencies. One outcome of such factors has been a change in the entry point into the IS major due to the perception that IS majors need a different method of entry from other computing majors (e.g., Computer Science (CS)). The current entry point for many IS majors is a programming course, often taken by a variety of majors. This paper addresses the question: is there a difference in performance in this initial programming course for students of different majors? More precisely, does major differentiate performance in the first programming course, such as CS1? The data clearly show this is not the case when there is a level playing field. The paper demonstrates that non-computing majors perform as well as computing majors given equal preparation. It is a misconception that changes to the IS curriculum are necessary when based on the belief that IS majors, as compared to other computing majors, need a different entry point. The data presented in this paper suggest the underlying presuppositions for IS curricular changes are misguided -supporting the need for preparation prior to a first programming course