Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

8 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Biophysical Reviews' "Meet the Editors Series"-a profile of Wilma K. Olson.

ABSTRACT: As one of the five Executive Editors of Biophysical Reviews I have been asked to provide this short biographical sketch for the readers of the journal. I have been a member of the Editorial Board since the inception of the journal in 2008 and an Executive Editor since 2014. I hold a B.S. degree in Chemistry from the University of Delaware and a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Stanford University. Except for a year as a Damon Runyon Postdoctoral Fellow at Columbia University, I have spent my entire professional career at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, where I am currently the Mary I. Bunting Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology. I served for many years as Founding Director of the Rutgers University Center for Molecular Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry, and have trained undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students from a variety of academic disciplines.

SUBMITTER: Olson WK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7040138 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Biophysical Reviews' "Meet the Editors Series"-a profile of Wilma K. Olson.

Olson Wilma K WK

Biophysical reviews 20200120 1

As one of the five Executive Editors of Biophysical Reviews I have been asked to provide this short biographical sketch for the readers of the journal. I have been a member of the Editorial Board since the inception of the journal in 2008 and an Executive Editor since 2014. I hold a B.S. degree in Chemistry from the University of Delaware and a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Stanford University. Except for a year as a Damon Runyon Postdoctoral Fellow at Columbia University, I have spent my ent ...[more]

PMID: 31956968

Similar Datasets

Biophysical Reviews' national biophysical society partnership program.

Project description:This Special Issue is focused on the Biophysical Society of Japan. It represents the first in a series tasked with introducing an individual national biophysical society to the wider biophysical community. In this Editorial for Volume 12 Issue 2, I first outline the nature and goals of this program before going on to describe the contents of the Special Issue that relate to the activities organized by the Biophysical Society of Japan and the scope of the research performed by its members.

| S-EPMC7242517 | biostudies-literature

Pulmonary Therapy 2020 Update and Podcast: Meet the Journal's Editors-in-Chief.

Project description:The Editors-in-Chief of Pulmonary Therapy have prepared podcasts summarizing their current research, recent highlights from the field, and future predictions. Audio-only versions and the transcripts can be downloaded here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11938863. Following this is a written summary of the journal's recent developments and the transcripts from the podcasts.

| S-EPMC7229109 | biostudies-literature

Pulmonary Therapy 2020 Update and Podcast: Meet the Journal's Editors-in-Chief.

| S-EPMC7144824 | biostudies-literature

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

Project description:BackgroundSynthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.MethodsWe identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.ResultsThe editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.DiscussionCurrently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.

| S-EPMC3341385 | biostudies-literature

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do.

Project description:Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.

| S-EPMC9472299 | biostudies-literature

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.

Project description:ObjectivesIn 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research.DesignWe conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors.ParticipantsAll editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals.MethodsWe contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study.ResultsWe received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty.ConclusionThe majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.

| S-EPMC6720555 | biostudies-literature

ESDCs meet Salmonella Typhimurium

Project description:We investigated the interaction of Salmonella Typhimurium with Embryonic stem cell derived Dendritic Cells (ESDCs) as a new model to study host-pathogen interaction.

2013-04-01 | E-MTAB-1392 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Editors’ Introduction

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC5423487 | biostudies-literature

Matrix Profile-Based Interpretable Time Series Classifier.

Project description:Time series classification (TSC) is a pervasive and transversal problem in various fields ranging from disease diagnosis to anomaly detection in finance. Unfortunately, the most effective models used by Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems for TSC are not interpretable and hide the logic of the decision process, making them unusable in sensitive domains. Recent research is focusing on explanation methods to pair with the obscure classifier to recover this weakness. However, a TSC approach that is transparent by design and is simultaneously efficient and effective is even more preferable. To this aim, we propose an interpretable TSC method based on the patterns, which is possible to extract from the Matrix Profile (MP) of the time series in the training set. A smart design of the classification procedure allows obtaining an efficient and effective transparent classifier modeled as a decision tree that expresses the reasons for the classification as the presence of discriminative subsequences. Quantitative and qualitative experimentation shows that the proposed method overcomes the state-of-the-art interpretable approaches.

| S-EPMC8564499 | biostudies-literature

Editorial for the Special Issue of Biophysical Reviews focused on the Biophysical Society of Japan with select scientific content from the 57th BSJ annual meeting, Miyazaki, Japan.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7242520 | biostudies-literature