The Role of Cultural Humility in Intercultural Representations

Not peer reviewe

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

PURPOSE To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. METHODS In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a~broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. RESULTS A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a~high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A~double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal's articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. CONCLUSION The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a~high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a~double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. Methods In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. Results A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. Conclusion The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process

Combating the effects of climatic change on forests by mitigation strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Forests occur across diverse biomes, each of which shows a specific composition of plant communities associated with the particular climate regimes. Predicted future climate change will have impacts on the vulnerability and productivity of forests; in some regions higher temperatures will extend the growing season and thus improve forest productivity, while changed annual precipitation patterns may show disadvantageous effects in areas, where water availability is restricted. While adaptation of forests to predicted future climate scenarios has been intensively studied, less attention was paid to mitigation strategies such as the introduction of tree species well adapted to changing environmental conditions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We simulated the development of managed forest ecosystems in Germany for the time period between 2000 and 2100 under different forest management regimes and climate change scenarios. The management regimes reflect different rotation periods, harvesting intensities and species selection for reforestations. The climate change scenarios were taken from the IPCC's Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). We used the scenarios A1B (rapid and successful economic development) and B1 (high level of environmental and social consciousness combined with a globally coherent approach to a more sustainable development). Our results indicate that the effects of different climate change scenarios on the future productivity and species composition of German forests are minor compared to the effects of forest management.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The inherent natural adaptive capacity of forest ecosystems to changing environmental conditions is limited by the long life time of trees. Planting of adapted species and forest management will reduce the impact of predicted future climate change on forests.</p

Innovative radiation oncology Together – Precise, Personalized, Human : Vision 2030 for radiotherapy & radiation oncology in Germany

Purpose Scientific and clinical achievements in radiation, medical, and surgical oncology are changing the landscape of interdisciplinary oncology. The German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) working group of young clinicians and scientists (yDEGRO) and the DEGRO representation of associate and full professors (AKRO) are aware of the essential role of radiation oncology in multidisciplinary treatment approaches. Together, yDEGRO and AKRO endorsed developing a German radiotherapy & radiation oncology vision 2030 to address future challenges in patient care, research, and education. The vision 2030 aims to identify priorities and goals for the next decade in the field of radiation oncology. Methods The vision development comprised three phases. During the first phase, areas of interest, objectives, and the process of vision development were defined jointly by the yDEGRO, AKRO, and the DEGRO board. In the second phase, a one-day strategy retreat was held to develop AKRO and yDEGRO representatives’ final vision from medicine, biology, and physics. The third phase was dedicated to vision interpretation and program development by yDEGRO representatives. Results The strategy retreat’s development process resulted in conception of the final vision “Innovative radiation oncology Together – Precise, Personalized, Human.” The first term “Innovative radiation oncology” comprises the promotion of preclinical research and clinical trials and highlights the development of a national committee for strategic development in radiation oncology research. The term “together” underpins collaborations within radiation oncology departments as well as with other partners in the clinical and scientific setting. “Precise” mainly covers technological precision in radiotherapy as well as targeted oncologic therapeutics. “Personalized” emphasizes biology-directed individualization of radiation treatment. Finally, “Human” underlines the patient-centered approach and points towards the need for individual longer-term career curricula for clinicians and researchers in the field. Conclusion The vision 2030 balances the ambition of physical, technological, and biological innovation as well as a comprehensive, patient-centered, and collaborative approach towards radiotherapy & radiation oncology in Germany

4D dose simulation in volumetric arc therapy: Accuracy and affecting parameters

<div><p>Radiotherapy of lung and liver lesions has changed from normofractioned 3D-CRT to stereotactic treatment in a single or few fractions, often employing volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)-based techniques. Potential unintended interference of respiratory target motion and dynamically changing beam parameters during VMAT dose delivery motivates establishing 4D quality assurance (4D QA) procedures to assess appropriateness of generated VMAT treatment plans when taking into account patient-specific motion characteristics. Current approaches are motion phantom-based 4D QA and image-based 4D VMAT dose simulation. Whereas phantom-based 4D QA is usually restricted to a small number of measurements, the computational approaches allow simulating many motion scenarios. However, 4D VMAT dose simulation depends on various input parameters, influencing estimated doses along with mitigating simulation reliability. Thus, aiming at routine use of simulation-based 4D VMAT QA, the impact of such parameters as well as the overall accuracy of the 4D VMAT dose simulation has to be studied in detail–which is the topic of the present work. In detail, we introduce the principles of 4D VMAT dose simulation, identify influencing parameters and assess their impact on 4D dose simulation accuracy by comparison of simulated motion-affected dose distributions to corresponding dosimetric motion phantom measurements. Exploiting an ITV-based treatment planning approach, VMAT treatment plans were generated for a motion phantom and different motion scenarios (sinusoidal motion of different period/direction; regular/irregular motion). 4D VMAT dose simulation results and dose measurements were compared by local 3% / 3 mm <i>γ</i>-evaluation, with the measured dose distributions serving as ground truth. Overall <i>γ</i>-passing rates of simulations and dynamic measurements ranged from 97% to 100% (mean across all motion scenarios: 98% ± 1%); corresponding values for comparison of different day repeat measurements were between 98% and 100%. Parameters of major influence on 4D VMAT dose simulation accuracy were the degree of temporal discretization of the dose delivery process (the higher, the better) and correct alignment of the assumed breathing phases at the beginning of the dose measurements and simulations. Given the high <i>γ</i>-passing rates between simulated motion-affected doses and dynamic measurements, we consider the simulations to provide a reliable basis for assessment of VMAT motion effects that–in the sense of 4D QA of VMAT treatment plans–allows to verify target coverage in hypofractioned VMAT-based radiotherapy of moving targets. Remaining differences between measurements and simulations motivate, however, further detailed studies.</p></div

Motion characteristics: maximum and mean peak-to-peak amplitudes, mean breathing cycle lengths.

<p>Motion characteristics: maximum and mean peak-to-peak amplitudes, mean breathing cycle lengths.</p

Study design and evaluation strategy.

<p>Illustration of performed experiments for the SI-only sinusoidal motion with 4.5 s period (i. e. case 1d); for details see text. Left column: planned dose distribution (top), simulated motion-affected dose (middle; arc discretization of 2.3°), <i>γ</i>-map for comparison of the two (bottom). Middle column: measured static dose (top), measured dynamic dose (middle), <i>γ</i>-comparison (bottom). Right column: <i>γ</i>-comparison of planned and measured static dose (top), <i>γ</i>-comparison of simulated motion-affected and corresponding measured dose (middle), <i>γ</i>-comparison of repeat dynamic measurements (bottom).</p

Total <i>γ</i>-passing rates for comparison of static dose measurements to dynamic measurements (lines ‘Day 1’ and ‘Day 2’) and <i>γ</i>-passing rates for comparison of the statically planned dose and the dose distributions containing simulated motion effects.

<p>Total <i>γ</i>-passing rates for comparison of static dose measurements to dynamic measurements (lines ‘Day 1’ and ‘Day 2’) and <i>γ</i>-passing rates for comparison of the statically planned dose and the dose distributions containing simulated motion effects.</p