The new Clinical Kidney Journal, 4 years later

The February 2015 issue of ckj started a new era with renewed efforts to be useful to the training and practicing nephrologists and a new focus on Clinical and Translational Nephrology. Four years later, it has become a truly global journal with contributors and readers from all over the world. The increase in quality of the published material has resulted in a nearly exponential growth of citations. Since 2016, ckj is listed in the new Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) database from Clarivate Analytics and from January 2019 it will be listed in the full Science Citation Index. ckj will therefore receive its first official impact factor based upon 2018 citation to 2016 and 2017 articles. While no official impact factor was awarded for 2017, the estimated impact factors calculated from data available in Clarivate’s Web of Science database rose to 2.987 in 2017, which would correspond to an estimated journal impact factor percentile of 72.4% in the Urology and Nephrology field

VAF Vooronderzoek 'Verzameling audiovisuele data' : actieplan

Policy report for the Flemish Audiovisual Fund (Vlaams Audiovisueel Fonds/VAF) exploring the future data collection strategies for investigating the Flemish/Belgian audiovisual sector within a European and international context

Guidance for health care worker surveys in humanitarian contexts in LMICs

Developed by the Social Sciences Analysis Cell (CASS) and the Research Roadmap to support those working with communities and healthcare workers in humanitarian and emergency contexts This document has been developed for response actors working in humanitarian contexts who seek rapid approaches to gathering evidence about the experience of healthcare workers, and the communities of which they are a part. Understanding healthcare worker experience is critical to inform and guide humanitarian programming and effective strategies to promote IPC, identify psychosocial support needs. This evidence also informs humanitarian programming that interacts with HCWs and facilities such as nutrition, health reinforcement, communication, SGBV and gender. In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), healthcare workers (HCW) are often faced with limited resources, equipment, performance support and even formal training to provide the life-saving work expected of them. In humanitarian contexts1 , where human resources are also scarce, HCWs may comprise formally trained doctors, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, allied health professionals etc. as well as community members who perform formal health worker related duties with little or no trainingi . These HCWs frequently work in contexts of multiple public health crises, including COVID-19. Their work will be affected by availability of resources (limited supplies, materials), behaviour and emotion (fear), flows of (mis)information (e.g. understanding of expected infection prevention and control (IPC) measures) or services (healthcare policies, services and use). Multiple factors can therefore impact patients, HCWs and their families, not only in terms of risk of exposure to COVID-19, but secondary health, socio-economic and psycho-social risks, as well as constraints that interrupt or hinder healthcare provision such as physical distancing practices. The development and dissemination of training and guidance for HCWs is important for any new infectious disease outbreak. Equally, evaluation of their appropriateness and utility, their impacts on HCW performance and behaviour, and their effectiveness (perceived or measured against programmatic outcome indicators) is important to adapt and improve the appropriateness and effectiveness of resources for HCWs. We recommend HCW surveys are included as a critical component of research associated to humanitarian programming for communities and community health outcomes

Nomenclature for kidney function and disease: report of a Kidney Disease:Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Consensus Conference

The worldwide burden of kidney disease is rising, but public awareness remains limited, underscoring the need for more effective communication by stakeholders in the kidney health community. Despite this need for clarity, the nomenclature for describing kidney function and disease lacks uniformity. In June 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened a Consensus Conference with the goal of standardizing and refining the nomenclature used in the English language to describe kidney function and disease, and of developing a glossary that could be used in scientific publications. Guiding principles of the conference were that the revised nomenclature should be patient-centered, precise, and consistent with nomenclature used in the KDIGO guidelines. Conference attendees reached general consensus on the following recommendations: (i) to use "kidney" rather than "renal" or "nephro-" when referring to kidney disease and kidney function; (ii) to use "kidney failure" with appropriate descriptions of presence or absence of symptoms, signs, and treatment, rather than "end-stage kidney disease"; (iii) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI), rather than alternative descriptions, to define and classify severity of AKD and AKI; (iv) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) rather than alternative descriptions to define and classify severity of CKD; and (v) to use specific kidney measures, such as albuminuria or decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR), rather than "abnormal" or "reduced" kidney function to describe alterations in kidney structure and function. A proposed 5-part glossary contains specific items for which there was general agreement. Conference attendees acknowledged limitations of the recommendations and glossary, but they considered standardization of scientific nomenclature to be essential for improving communication

The Fate of Triaged and Rejected Manuscripts

In 2011, Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (NDT) established a more restrictive selection process for manuscripts submitted to the journal, reducing the acceptance rate from 25% (2008-2009) to currently about 12-15%. To achieve this goal, we decided to score the priority of manuscripts submitted to NDT and to reject more papers at triage than in the past. This new scoring system allows a rapid decision for the authors without external review. However, the risk of such a restrictive policy may be that the journal might fail to capture important studies that are eventually published in higher-ranked journals. To look into this problem, we analysed random samples of papers (similar to 10%) rejected by NDT in 2012. Of the papers rejected at triage and those rejected after regular peer review, 59 and 61%, respectively, were accepted in other journals. A detailed analysis of these papers showed that only 4 out of 104 and 7 out of 93 of the triaged and rejected papers, respectively, were published in journals with an impact factor higher than that of NDT. Furthermore, for all these papers, independent assessors confirmed the evaluation made by the original reviewers. The number of citations of these papers was similar to that typically obtained by publications in the corresponding journals. Even though the analyses seem reassuring, previous observations made by leading journals warn that the risk of 'big misses', resulting from selective editorial policies, remains a real possibility. We will therefore continue to maintain a high degree of alertness and will periodically track the history of manuscripts rejected by NDT, particularly papers that are rejected at triage by our journal.Wo

Projet scientifique et pratiques éditoriales de la Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances

International audienceThis article retraces the scientific and editorial project behind the Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances (RAC), launched in 2007, and in particular the convergence of multiple disciplines that promoted the founding of the journal. It then presents the editorial policy, practices and choices having fashioned it and whose procedures are no less important than its content and epistemic focus. These procedures concern reviewing work but also choice of media (online electronic access), article format, publication language, dissemination (open access to readers) and business model