Search results

When genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were put into the international trade, people in many countries, especially European countries, became skeptical of them. A perception developed that they are harmful to human, animal, plant life and health, and destructive to the environment. It is true that if there is no safe use of genetically modified living organisms (LMOs), other species might be affected causing loss to the environment. So as to ensure safe use of LMOs and GMOs, the Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement were, respectively, made. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine both the legal instruments and to explore ways to make them co‐existent, so that human, animal, plant life and health, and the environment are protected without affecting the international trade in LMOs and GMOs.

This paper undertakes a critical examination of the issues surrounding GMOs and LMOs.

The Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement serve two different purposes. It is for this reason that some of their provisions are not co‐extensive. But the conflict in them can be resolved. It is suggested that the provisions pertaining to the precautionary principle of the SPS Agreement should be brought in line with that of the Cartagena Protocol. It is also suggested that importing countries should conduct their own risk assessment preferably by following the CODEX procedure. In no case, risk assessment done by producing companies should be taken as conclusive.

If suggestions offered by the paper are followed, the two will then protect the human, animal and plant health and the environment in the best possible way.

For achieving its object, the paper presents a comparative assessment of the cases decided under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The purpose of this paper is to complement an available system of qualitative analysis of efficiency of scientific activities with assessment of novelty of a subject of research that gives a more complete pattern for evaluating the efficiency of efforts of both scientists and research teams.

The approach is based on detection of specified linguistic patterns with further evaluation of similarity and novelty scores of obtained definitions at the sentence level.

This work presents an algorithm of automatic search for a new subject of research in scientific papers on the basis of statistical and linguistic analyses of description of new terms. Application of patterns specified in a given manuscript with further utilization of well-known methods of similarity and novelty detection scores makes it possible to evaluate the degree of novelty of a subject of research.

As a practical application of the proposed algorithm, the algorithm of determination of authority of a scientist will facilitate assessment of personal contributions of certain authors made in a certain field of study.

The main contribution of a given manuscript is in application of linguistic patterns recognition and calculation of similarity and novelty scores to the area of scientific results with further proposition of the method of automatic search for a new subject of research in scientific manuscripts.

Over the past few decades, university reforms in line with management and enterprise ideals have been well documented. Changes in the ideals underlying the missions of universities have led to changes in their modes of governing and organizing, which in turn drive further transformation of their missions. One set of reforms in Swedish higher education has been the dissolution of collegial bodies and procedures. At the same time, in recent years, we have witnessed an increased interest in collegiality and a reintroduction of collegial bodies and procedures. New translations of collegiality appear not only in how universities are organized, but also in other core aspects of research and higher education. We review examples of peer reviewing, research assessment, and direct recruitment of professors and ask: Can these new translations of collegiality be understood as a revitalization of collegiality, or is it – to draw a parallel with greenwashing – rather a matter of collegiality-washing?

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.

The collision between climate science and climate policy was strikingly manifested during the Bush–Cheney Administration. Based on both the documentary record and direct observation, this chapter reviews multiple means by which the Administration controlled the flow of climate science communication from federal scientists and research programs when Administration officials saw a need to conform science communication with Administration politics. Government secrecy imposed via information control was evident, for example, in the editing of climate program reports; the suppression of official reference to an existing major climate impacts assessment; selective application of control over contacts between government scientists and the media; alteration of congressional testimony; shutting down of government Web sites; “stealth” release of reports to minimize public attention; and concealing a Supreme Court-mandated scientifically based draft document that would have triggered regulation of greenhouse gases to protect public welfare. With these political interventions, the response from the ranks of federal career science managers and research scientists varied, ranging from open criticism, anonymous leaks, and whistleblowing to silence, self-censorship, and active complicity.

This chapter employs multiple frameworks to establish the need for and the promise of culturally inclusive science literacy strategies for urban United States contexts. Relevant frameworks for inclusive science education include (but are not limited to) science literacy by discourse norms found in Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and National Research Council (NRC) reform documents and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Science education research has demonstrated that traditional notions of literacy have historically led to exclusion of diversity among successful science students. In part, an assessment driven narrow representation of science in schools has led to a growing opportunity gap for children of colour, particularly in urban settings in the United States. Culturally based best practices in teaching science literacy can aid in the achievement of underrepresented science students as research continues to demonstrate the need for culturally relevant curriculum materials which recognise diverse cultural perspectives and contributions in science.

The purpose of this paper is to review and compare the scientific and regulatory environments for nutrition and health claims on foodstuffs in the USA, Japan and the European Union.

A review of the literature and the relevant legislation in the three different countries is conducted. Regulations are reviewed and scientific evidence requirements are outlined in each country.

Full regulatory approval for claims across all three countries requires the support of robust scientific evidence. To obtain this, companies must submit comprehensive dossiers and detailed applications to the regulators with full descriptions of the tests and studies completed during product development. However in the USA and Japan, an alternative process exists. A health claim that is suggested but not supported by scientific evidence is known as a qualified health claim and is permitted in the USA and Japan, but not in the EU.

The paper demonstrates the difference in regulatory requirements in different countries which leads to different claims being permitted in different countries. It also leads to different levels of scientific support for similar claims which causes consumer confusion and develops an uneven playing pitch for the industry. Given that the industry operates in a global market place, it is imperative that a consensus is reached as to the level of scientific evidence required to approve a health claim. In that way, consumers can be safeguarded from being misled, consumer confusion will not be a concern and products can be globally distributed in line with the increasing liberalisation of trade.

This paper is of value to regulators and the food industry.

Scientific inquiry is a leading methodology that promotes science process skills to acquire scientific knowledge. There is evidence that primary school teachers have difficulties introducing inquiry-based activities in their classrooms. Hence, adequate teacher instruction in inquiry methodology is important to apply inquiry-based activities in school science lessons. This work aims to analyse if pre-service teachers succeeded in developing scientific knowledge and scientific skills through the application of an inquiry laboratory activity.

This article is presented as a case study developed in a group of 82 pre-service teachers. This research methodology involved qualitative and quantitative data.

The results demonstrate that pre-service teachers could improve their scientific skills and knowledge through inquiry-based laboratory activity.

The present study assesses not only the scientific knowledge but also if students can acquire scientific skills by doing the inquiry laboratory activity and if these skills are related to low-order cognitive skills or high-order cognitive skills.

Accounting’s definition of accountability should include attributes of socioenvironmental degradation manufactured by unsustainable technologies. Beck argues that emergent accounts should reflect the following primary characteristics of technological degradation: complexity, uncertainty, and diffused responsibility. Financial stewardship accounts and probabilistic assessments of risk, which are traditionally employed to allay the public’s fear of uncontrollable technological hazards, cannot reflect these characteristics because they are constructed to perpetuate the status quo by fabricating certainty and security. The process through which safety thresholds are constructed and contested represents the ultimate form of socialized accountability because these thresholds shape how much risk people consent to be exposed to. Beck’s socialized total accountability is suggested as a way forward: It has two dimensions, extended spatiotemporal responsibility and the psychology of decision-making. These dimensions are teased out from the following constructs of Beck’s Risk Society thesis: manufactured risks and hazards, organized irresponsibility, politics of risk, radical individualization and social learning. These dimensions are then used to critically evaluate the capacity of full cost accounting (FCA), and two emergent socialized risk accounts, to integrate the multiple attributes of sustainability. This critique should inform the journey of constructing more representative accounts of technological degradation.

This paper focuses on the differences in domain intellectual structure discovery between author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA) and author co-citation analysis (ACA) considering all authors. The purpose of this study is to examine whether and in what ways these two all-author network approaches yield different results.

The sample was collected from the database of Web of Science, including all articles published in Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics from 2011 to 2020. First, 100 representative authors were selected from each set, and ABCA matrices and ACA matrices were constructed. Second, factor analysis was carried out on the matrices, to detect the intellectual structure of scientometrics and informetrics.

The intellectual structures identified by ABCA and ACA are similar overall, but the results differ somewhat when it comes to specific structures. The ABCA is more sensitive to some highly collaborative research teams and presents a clearer picture of current intellectual structures and trends while ACA seems to have some advantages in representing the more traditional and proven research topics in the field. The combined use of ABCA and ACA allows for a more comprehensive and specific intellectual structure of research fields.

This paper compares the performance of ABCA and ACA detecting the intellectual structure of the domain from the perspective of all authors, revealing the intellectual structure of scientometrics and informetrics comprehensively.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-12-2020-0540.