spb/wp30_uqo

1{2  "document_id": "lb_hotpotqa_a2bb6c8de2a57c51b35e9d5c005cf46e1c0457f4086ef77d",3  "family": "public_hotpotqa",4  "split": "test",5  "text": "Passage 1:\nPLOS ONE\nPLOS One (stylized PLOS ONE, and formerly PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access mega journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. The Public Library of Science began in 2000 with an online petition initiative by Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus, formerly director of the National Institutes of Health and at that time director of Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Patrick O. Brown, a biochemist at Stanford University; and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.\nSubmissions are subject to an article processing charge, and according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. In January 2010, the journal was included in the Journal Citation Reports and received its first impact factor of 4.411. According to Journal Citation Reports, PLOS ONE's 2022 impact factor is 3.7. PLOS One papers are published under Creative Commons licenses.\n\nHistory\nDevelopment\nThe Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $9 million grant in December 2002 and $1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals. Later, PLOS One was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLOS One. It launched with commenting and note-making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007. In September 2007, the ability to leave \"trackbacks\" on articles was added. In August 2008, the journal moved from a weekly to a daily publication schedule, publishing articles as soon as they became ready. PLOS One came out of \"beta\" in October 2008.\nIn September 2009, as part of its article-level metrics program, PLOS One made its full online usage data, including HTML page views and PDF or XML download statistics, publicly available for every published article. In mid-2012, as part of a rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS One.\n\nOutput and turnaround\nThe number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat.  By 2010, it was estimated   to have become the largest journal in the world, and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published by PLOS One. By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles. By November 2017, the journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS One in terms of output.At PLOS One, the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125 days over the first ten years of operation, according to Himmelstein's analysis, done for Nature. The median between acceptance and posting a paper on the site has decreased from 35 to 15 days over the same period. Both numbers for 2016 roughly correspond to the industry-wide averages for biology-related journals. The average acceptance rates for submission across 2020 and 2021 range from 47.9 to 49.9%.[1]\n\nManagement\nThe founding managing editor was Chris Surridge. He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012. Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015. Joerg Heber was as editor-in-chief from November 2016 before Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021.\n\nPublication concept\nPLOS One is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS One only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment.\nEach submission will be assessed by a member of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating.\nAccording to Nature, the journal's aim is to \"challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors\". Being an online-only publication allows PLOS One to publish more papers than a print journal. In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics outside, or between, traditional science categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area.Papers published in PLOS One can be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License. In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers. The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 50 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.9 experts. Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website.\n\nBusiness model\nAs with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open access to PLOS One is financed by an article processing charge, typically paid by the author's institution or by the author. This model allows PLOS journals to make all articles available to the public for free immediately upon publication.  As of April 2021, PLOS One charges a publication fee of $1,745 to publish an article. Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds.PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010, largely due to the growth of PLOS One.  The success of PLOS One has inspired a series of other open access journals, including some other mega journals having broad scope, low selectivity, and a pay-to-publish model using Creative Commons licenses.\n\nReception\nIn September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers. The award is given in recognition of a \"truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects\". In January 2010, it was announced that the journal would be included in the Journal Citation Reports, and the journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 3.7.\n\nAbstracting and indexing\nThe articles are indexed in:\n\nResponse to controversial publications\nAlleged sexism in one peer review instance\nOn April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for a journal they did not wish to name. The rejection letter concerned Ingleby and Head's paper about differences in PhD-to-postdoc transition between male and female scientists. The reviewer argued that the authors should \"find one or two male biologists to work with\" to ensure the manuscript doesn't drift into \"ideologically biased assumptions\", comments which the authors found to be \"unprofessional and inappropriate\" and veering into sexism. Shortly afterward, the journal was reported to be PLOS One. By May 1, PLOS had announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to step down. PLOS One also issued an apology statement following the incident.\n\nCreatorGate\nOn March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand due to outrage among the journal's readership over a reference to \"Creator\" inside the paper. The authors, who received grants from the Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying \"Creator\" is a poorly-translated idiom (造化(者), literally \"(that which) creates or transforms\") which means \"nature\" in the Chinese language. Despite the authors' protests, the article was retracted. \nA less sympathetic explanation for the use of \"Creator\" was suggested to The Chronicle of Higher Education by Chinese-language experts who noted that the academic editor listed on the paper, Renzhi Han, previously worked at the Chinese Evangelical Church in Iowa City.Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post presented a detailed analysis of the problem, which she named #CreatorGate, and concluded that the journal's hasty retraction may have been an even bigger offense than the publication of the paper in the first place. To contrast PLOS One's handling of the problem, she used a 12-year history of retraction of the fraudulent paper on vaccine and autism by The Lancet and the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on \"arsenic life\" by Science. Others added the history of the article in Nature on \"water memory\" that was not retracted either.Jonathan Eisen, chair of the advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biology and an advocate for open-access, commended PLOS One for their prompt response on social media, which in his words \"most journals pretend doesn't even exist\". David Knutson issued a statement about the paper processing at PLOS One, which praised the importance of post-publication peer review and described their intention to offer open signed reviews in order to ensure accountability of the process. From March 2 to 9, the research article received a total of 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS One site. Signe Dean of SBS put #CreatorGate in perspective: it is not the most scandalous retraction in science, yet it shows how a social media outrage storm does expedite a retraction.\n\nRapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy\n\nOn August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article they published two weeks earlier submitted by Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman. The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or \"cluster outbreaks\" in gender dysphoria among young people, which Littman called \"rapid-onset gender dysphoria\". Data was obtained from a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking for responses from parents whose children had experienced \"sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21\". The study was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano and medical professionals like developmental and clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, as being politicized and having self-selected samples, as well as lacking clinical data or responses from the adolescents themselves.On March 19, 2019, PLOS One completed its review. PLOS One psychology academic editor Angelo Brandelli Costa acted as a reviwer criticizing the methods and conclusion of the study in a formal comment, saying, \"The level of evidence produced by the Dr. Littman's study cannot generate a new diagnostic criterion relative to the time of presentation of the demands of medical and social gender affirmation.\" In a separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the issues with the article, PLOS One Editor-in-chief Joerg Heber said, \"we have reached the conclusion that the study and resultant data reported in the article represent a valid contribution to the scientific literature. However, we have also determined that the study, including its goals, methodology, and conclusions, were not adequately framed in the published version, and that these needed to be corrected.\"The paper was republished with updated Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, but the Results section was mostly unchanged. In her correction, Littman emphasized that the article was \"a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses\", saying \"Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time. This report did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs) or clinicians and therefore does not validate the phenomenon. Additional research that includes AYAs, along with consensus among experts in the field, will be needed to determine if what is described here as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will become a formal diagnosis.\"\nPassage 2:\nBehavior Genetics (journal)\nBehavior Genetics is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published monthly by Springer Science+Business Media that is covering \"research in the inheritance of behavior\". It is the official journal of the Behavior Genetics Association. The journal was established in 1971 with Steven G. Vandenberg as its founding editor-in-chief. The abstracts of the annual meetings are printed in the journal. Each year, the editorial board chooses a particularly meritorious paper in the previous year's volume of the journal for the Fulker Award, acknowledged by \"$1000 and a good bottle of wine\" as well as a citation made in the journal. This award was created in the honor of David Fulker, a past president of the Behavior Genetics Association (1982) and former editor-in-chief of the journal.\n\nAbstracting and indexing\nThe journal is abstracted in Biological Abstracts/BIOSIS Previews, CAB Abstracts, Current Awareness in Biological Sciences, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences and Life Sciences, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, and The Zoological Record. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2020 impact factor of 2.805.\nPassage 3:\nBosque (journal)\nBosque is a scientific journal published by the Forestry Faculty of the Southern University of Chile. It publishes articles on a wide range of forestry-related topics, primarily on issues that are relevant to Chile, Latin America and the Southern Hemisphere. The published articles include peer-reviewed scientific research papers, items of current interest and opinion pieces. Bosque's first issue was published in 1975 and the journal was issued yearly until 1985. From 1985 to 2003 it was issued twice a year and from 2003 on three times a year. The topics covered in Bosque are management and production of forestry resources, wood science and technology, silviculture, forest ecology, natural resources conservation, and rural development associated with forest ecosystems. The journal publishes research articles, notes and opinions, both in Spanish and English. Bosque was included in the Science Citation Index Expanded in 2009. The journal is also indexed in The Zoological Record.\n\nSee also\nList of forestry journals\nPassage 4:\nGeophysical Journal International\nGeophysical Journal International is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Deutsche Geophysikalische Gesellschaft (German Geophysical Society). The journal publishes original research papers, research notes, letters, and book reviews. It was established in 1922. The editor-in-chief is Joerg Renner (Ruhr University Bochum). The journal covers research on all aspects of theoretical, computational, applied and observational geophysics.\n\nHistory\nThe journal was formerly entitled Geophysical Journal (Oxford) from January 1988 to June 1989. The Geophysical Journal was itself formed by the merger of three other publications: Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Journal of Geophysics, and Annales Geophysicae, Series B: Terrestrial and Planetary Physics.Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society was in existence from March 1958 to December 1987 and was preceded by Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Geophysical Supplement. The Journal of Geophysics was in existence from 1974 to 1987, and preceded by the German-language journal, Zeitschrift für Geophysik (1924–1973).Finally, Annales Geophysicae, Series B: Terrestrial and Planetary Physics was in existence from 1986 to 1987, and preceded by Annales Geophysicae (Gauthier-Villars) (1983–1985). Annales Geophysicae was formed by the merger of two other journals: Annales de Géophysique (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) (1942–1982), and Annali di Geofisica (1948–1982).\n\nAbstracting and indexing\nThe journal is abstracted and indexed in:\n\nAccording to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2021 impact factor of 3.352, ranking it 35th out of 100 journals in the category \"Geochemistry & Geophysics\".\nPassage 5:\nScientific journal\nIn academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by sharing findings from research with readers. They are normally specialized based on discipline, with authors picking which one they send their manuscripts to.\n\nContent\nScientific journals\nThere are thousands of scientific journals in publication, with one estimate from 2012 indicating that there were 28,100 that were active, and many more have been published at various points in the past (see list of scientific journals). Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Science and Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality and scientific validity.Although scientific journals are superficially similar to professional magazines (or trade journals), they are actually quite different.  Among others, scientific journals' papers' authors are experts who must cite everything (and have a bibliography).  They also deal with research, and are peer reviewed.  Meanwhile, trade journals are aimed at people in different fields, they focus on how people in them can do their jobs better, they cover information related to work, and they include tips and advice for improving performance.  Also, they are not scholarly.\n\nArticles in scientific journals\nArticles in scientific journals are mostly written by active scientists such as students, researchers, and professors instead of professional journalists.  Their intended audience is others in the field (such as students and experts), plus their content is more advanced and sophisticated than what is found regular publications. They have different purposes, depending on the type.  Ones with original research are meant to share it with others in the field, review articles give summaries of research that has already been done, and perspective articles give researchers' views on research that their peers performed.Each article has several different sections, including the following:\nThe title;\nInformation about the author(s);\nThe abstract, which is a one-paragraph summary of the article;\nThe introduction, including a background, why the research was done, research on this topic that has been done before, and (possibly) a hypothesis;\nThe methodology or method, which includes the way the research was done, details concerning the study's sample, measures for assessment, and the procedure;\nFindings or results, which summarize what the study found;\nConclusion, comments, or discussion, which both explain how the results answered the questions that were posed, as well as areas that could be researched in the future; and\nA list of works that the article's author cited.Scientific journal articles are not read casually like a person would read a magazine.  For, whereas magazine articles can be read in a more casual manner, reading one in a scientific periodical would require a lot more concentration.  More to the point, reading an article in a scientific journal would entail first reading the title, to see if it was related to the desired topic.  If it was, the next step would be to read the abstract (or summary or conclusion, if it is missing the abstract), to see if it seems worth reading.  And, if it seemed like reading it would be worthwhile, the reader would then read the whole article.Publishing research results is an essential part of helping science to advance. If scientists are describing experiments or calculations, they should explain how they did them so that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results, or so that they could evaluate whatever the research article's findings were. Each such journal article also becomes part of the permanent scientific record.\n\nScope\nArticles in scientific journals can be used in research and higher education. Scientific articles allow researchers to keep up to date with the developments of their field and direct their own research. An essential part of a scientific article is citation of earlier work. The impact of articles and journals is often assessed by counting citations (citation impact). Some classes are partially devoted to the explication of classic articles, and seminar classes can consist of the presentation by each student of a classic or current paper. Schoolbooks and textbooks have been written usually only on established topics, while the latest research and more obscure topics are only accessible through scientific articles. In a scientific research group or academic department it is usual for the content of current scientific journals to be discussed in journal clubs. Public funding bodies often require the results to be published in scientific journals. Academic credentials for promotion into academic ranks are established in large part by the number and impact of scientific articles published. Many doctoral programs allow for thesis by publication, where the candidate is required to publish a certain number of scientific articles.\n\nWording\nArticles tend to be highly technical, representing the latest theoretical research and experimental results in the field of science covered by the journal. They are often incomprehensible to anyone except for researchers in the field and advanced students. In some subjects this is inevitable given the nature of the content. Usually, rigorous rules of scientific writing are enforced by the editors; however, these rules may vary from journal to journal, especially between journals from different publishers. Articles are usually either original articles reporting completely new results or reviews of current literature. There are also scientific publications that bridge the gap between articles and books by publishing thematic volumes of chapters from different authors. Many journals have a regional focus, specializing in publishing papers from a particular geographic region, like African Invertebrates.\n\nHistory\nIn the 17th century, scientists wrote letters to each other, and included scientific ideas with them.  Then, in the mid-17th century, scientists began to hold meetings and share their scientific ideas.  Eventually, they led to starting organizations, such as the Royal Society (1660) and the French Academy of Sciences (1666). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society began systematically publishing research results. Over a thousand, mostly ephemeral, were founded in the 18th century, and the number has increased rapidly since then.Peer review did not begin until the 1970s, and was seen as a way of enabling researchers who were not as well-known to have their papers published in journals that were more prestigious.  Though it was originally done by mailing copies of papers to reviewers, it is now done online.\n\nPublishing process\nThe authors of scientific articles are active researchers instead of journalists; typically, a graduate student or a researcher writes a paper with a professor. As such, the authors are unpaid and receive no compensation from the journal. However, their funding bodies may require them to publish in scientific journals. The paper is submitted to the journal office, where the editor considers the paper for appropriateness, potential scientific impact and novelty. If the journal's editor considers the paper appropriate, the paper is submitted to scholarly peer review. Depending on the field, journal and paper, the paper is sent to 1–3 reviewers for evaluation before they can be granted permission to publish. Reviewers are expected to check the paper for soundness of its scientific argument, including whether the author(s) are sufficiently acquainted with recent relevant research that bears on their study, whether the data was collected or considered appropriately and reproducibly, and whether the data discussed supports the conclusion offered and the implications suggested. Novelty is also key: existing work must be appropriately considered and referenced, and new results improving on the state of the art presented. Reviewers are usually unpaid and not a part of the journal staff—instead, they should be \"peers\", i.e. researchers in the same field as the paper in question.\n\nStandards and impact\nThe standards that a journal uses to determine publication can vary widely. Some journals, such as Nature, Science, PNAS, and Physical Review Letters, have a reputation of publishing articles that mark a fundamental breakthrough in their respective fields. In many fields, a formal or informal hierarchy of scientific journals exists; the most prestigious journal in a field tends to be the most selective in terms of the articles it will select for publication, and usually will also have the highest impact factor. In some countries, journal rankings can be utilized for funding decisions and even evaluation of individual researchers, although they are poorly suited for that purpose.\n\nReproducibility and replicability\nFor scientific journals, reproducibility and replicability of the scientific results are core concepts that allow other scientists to check and reproduce the results under the same conditions described in the paper or at least similar conditions and produce similar results with similar measurements of the same measurand or carried out under changed conditions of measurement. While the ability to reproduce the results based only on details included in the article is expected, verification of reproducibility by a third party is not generally required for publication. The reproducibility of results presented in an article is therefore judged implicitly by the quality of the procedures reported and agreement with the data provided. However, some journals in the field of chemistry such as Inorganic Syntheses and Organic Syntheses require independent reproduction of the results presented as part of the review process. The inability for independent researches to reproduce published results is widespread, with 70% of researchers reporting failure to reproduce another scientist's results, including more than half who report failing to reproduce their own experiments. Sources of reproducibility vary, including publication of falsified or misrepresented data and poor detailing of procedures.\n\nTypes of articles\nThere are several types of journal article; the exact terminology and definitions vary by field and specific journal, but often include:\n\nLetters (also called communications, and not to be confused with letters to the editor) are short descriptions of important current research findings that are usually fast-tracked for immediate publication because they are considered urgent.\nResearch notes are short descriptions of current research findings that are considered less urgent or important than Letters.\nArticles are usually between five and twenty pages and are complete descriptions of current original research findings, but there are considerable variations between scientific fields and journals—80-page articles are not rare in mathematics or theoretical computer science.\nSupplemental articles contain a large volume of tabular data that is the result of current research and may be dozens or hundreds of pages with mostly numerical data. Some journals now only publish this data electronically on the Internet. Supplemental information also contains other voluminous material not appropriate for the main body of the article, like descriptions of routine procedures, derivations of equations, source code, non-essential data, spectra or other such miscellaneous information.\nReview articles do not cover original research but rather accumulate the results of many different articles on a particular topic into a coherent narrative about the state of the art in that field. Review articles provide information about the topic and also provide journal references to the original research. Reviews may be entirely narrative, or may provide quantitative summary estimates resulting from the application of meta-analytical methods.\nData papers are articles dedicated to describe datasets. This type of article is becoming popular and journals exclusively dedicated to them have been established, e.g. Scientific Data and Earth System Science Data.\nVideo papers are a recent addition to practice of scientific publications. They most often combine an online video demonstration of a new technique or protocol combined with a rigorous textual description.The formats of journal articles vary, but many follow the general IMRAD scheme recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Such articles begin with an abstract, which is a one-to-four-paragraph summary of the paper. The introduction describes the background for the research including a discussion of similar research. The materials and methods or experimental section provides specific details of how the research was conducted. The results and discussion section describes the outcome and implications of the research, and the conclusion section places the research in context and describes avenues for further exploration.\nIn addition to the above, some scientific journals such as Science will include a news section where scientific developments (often involving political issues) are described. These articles are often written by science journalists and not by scientists. In addition, some journals will include an editorial section and a section for letters to the editor. While these are articles published within a journal, in general they are not regarded as scientific journal articles because they have not been peer-reviewed.\n\nElectronic publishing\nElectronic publishing is a new area of information dissemination. One definition of electronic publishing is in the context of the scientific journal. It is the presentation of scholarly scientific results in only an electronic (non-paper) form. This is from its first write-up, or creation, to its publication or dissemination. The electronic scientific journal is specifically designed to be presented on the internet. It is defined as not being previously printed material adapted, or retooled, and then delivered electronically.Electronic publishing will likely continue to exist alongside paper publishing for the foreseeable future, since whilst output to a screen is important for browsing and searching, it is not well suited for extensive reading. Formats suitable both for reading on paper, and for manipulation by the reader's computer will need to be integrated. Many journals are electronically available in formats readable on screen via web browsers, as well as in portable document format PDF, suitable for printing and storing on a local desktop or laptop computer. New tools such as JATS and Utopia Documents provide a 'bridge' to the 'web-versions' in that they connect the content in PDF versions directly to the World Wide Web via hyperlinks that are created 'on-the-fly'. The PDF version of an article is usually seen as the version of record, but the matter is subject to some debate.Electronic counterparts of established print journals already promote and deliver rapid dissemination of peer-reviewed and edited, \"published\" articles. Other journals, whether spin-offs of established print journals, or created as electronic only, have come into existence promoting the rapid dissemination capability, and availability, on the Internet. In tandem with this is the speeding up of peer review, copyediting, page makeup, and other steps in the process to support rapid dissemination.Other improvements, benefits and unique values of electronically publishing the scientific journal are easy availability of supplementary materials (data, graphics and video), lower cost, and availability to more people, especially scientists from non-developed countries. Hence, research results from more developed nations are becoming more accessible to scientists from non-developed countries.Moreover, electronic publishing of scientific journals has been accomplished without compromising the standards of the refereed, peer review process.One form is the online equivalent of the conventional paper journal. By 2006, almost all scientific journals have, while retaining their peer-review process, established electronic versions; a number have moved entirely to electronic publication. In a similar manner, most academic libraries buy the electronic version and purchase a paper copy only for the most important or most-used titles.\nThere is usually a delay of several months after an article is written before it is published in a journal, making paper journals not an ideal format for announcing the latest research. Many journals now publish the final papers in their electronic version as soon as they are ready, without waiting for the assembly of a complete issue, as is necessary with paper. In many fields in which even greater speed is wanted, such as physics, the role of the journal at disseminating the latest research has largely been replaced by preprint databases such as arXiv.org. Almost all such articles are eventually published in traditional journals, which still provide an important role in quality control, archiving papers, and establishing scientific credit.\n\nCost\nMany scientists and librarians have long protested the cost of journals, especially as they see these payments going to large for-profit publishing houses. To allow their researchers online access to journals, many universities purchase site licenses, permitting access from anywhere in the university, and, with appropriate authorization, by university-affiliated users at home or elsewhere. These may be quite expensive, sometimes much more than the cost for a print subscription, although this may reflect the number of people who will be using the license—while a print subscription is the cost for one person to receive the journal; a site-license can allow thousands of people to gain access.Publications by scholarly societies, also known as not-for-profit-publishers, usually cost less than commercial publishers, but the prices of their scientific journals are still usually several thousand dollars a year. In general, this money is used to fund the activities of the scientific societies that run such journals, or is invested in providing further scholarly resources for scientists; thus, the money remains in and benefits the scientific sphere.\nDespite the transition to electronic publishing, the serials crisis persists.Concerns about cost and open access have led to the creation of free-access journals such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS) family and partly open or reduced-cost journals such as the Journal of High Energy Physics. However, professional editors still have to be paid, and PLoS still relies heavily on donations from foundations to cover the majority of its operating costs; smaller journals do not often have access to such resources.\nBased on statistical arguments, it has been shown that electronic publishing online, and to some extent open access, both provide wider dissemination and increase the average number of citations an article receives.\n\nCopyright\nTraditionally, the author of an article was required to transfer the copyright to the journal publisher. Publishers claimed this was necessary in order to protect authors' rights, and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use. However, many authors, especially those active in the open access movement, found this unsatisfactory, and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards a license to publish instead. Under such a system, the publisher has permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the authors retain the other rights themselves.\nEven if they retain the copyright to an article, most journals allow certain rights to their authors. These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the author's future work, and allow the author to distribute a limited number of copies. In the print format, such copies are called reprints; in the electronic format, they are called postprints. Some publishers, for example the American Physical Society, also grant the author the right to post and update the article on the author's or employer's website and on free e-print servers, to grant permission to others to use or reuse figures, and even to reprint the article as long as no fee is charged. The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns.\n\nSee also\nPassage 6:\nMycologia\nMycologia is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes papers on all aspects of the fungi, including lichens. It first appeared as a bimonthly journal in January 1909, published by the New York Botanical Garden under the editorship of William Murrill. It became the official journal of the Mycological Society of America, which still publishes it today. It was formed as a merger of the Journal of Mycology (14 volumes; 1885–1908) and the Mycological Bulletin (7 volumes; 1903–1908). The Mycological Bulletin was known as the Ohio Mycological Bulletin in its first volume.\n\nEditors\nThe following persons have been editor-in-chief of the journal:\n\nThe following persons have been managing editor of the journal:\n\nAbstracting and indexing\nMycologia is abstracted and indexing in the following databases:\nPassage 7:\nThe Raffles Bulletin of Zoology\nThe Raffles Bulletin of Zoology is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal published by the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum at the National University of Singapore.\n\nOverview\nIt covers the taxonomy, ecology, and conservation of Southeast Asian fauna. Supplements are published as and when funding permits and may cover topics that extend beyond the normal scope of the journal depending on the targets of the funding agency. It was established as the Bulletin of the Raffles Museum in 1928 and renamed Bulletin of the National Museum of Singapore in 1961, before obtaining its current title in 1971.\n\nSee also\nList of zoology journals\nPassage 8:\nNew York Botanical Garden\nThe New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) is a botanical garden at Bronx Park in the Bronx, New York City. Established in 1891, it is located on a 250-acre (100 ha) site that contains a landscape with over one million living plants; the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory, a greenhouse containing several habitats; and the LuEsther T. Mertz Library, which contains one of the world's largest collections of botany-related texts. As of 2016, over a million people visit the New York Botanical Garden annually.\nNYBG is also a major educational institution, teaching visitors about plant science, ecology, and healthful eating through NYBG's interactive programming. Nearly 90,000 of the annual visitors are children from underserved neighboring communities. An additional 3,000 are teachers from New York City's public school system participating in professional development programs that train them to teach science courses at all grade levels. NYBG operates one of the world's largest plant research and conservation programs.\nNYBG was established in 1891 and the first structures on the grounds opened at the end of that decade. Since 1967, the garden has been listed as a National Historic Landmark, and several buildings have been designated as official New York City landmarks.\n\nMission statement\nThe New York Botanical Garden is an advocate for the plant world. The Garden pursues its mission through its role as a museum of living plant collections arranged in gardens and landscapes across its National Historic Landmark site; through its comprehensive education programs in horticulture and plant science; and through the wide-ranging research programs of the International Plant Science Center.\n\nHistory\nContext\nAs early as 1877, ideas had been circulating in New York City to create a botanical garden; funding could not be obtained at the time, although the efforts led to parkland being set aside for future use. By 1888, the Torrey Botanical Society was promoting the construction of a large botanical garden in New York City. The Garden's creation followed a fund-raising campaign led by the Torrey Botanical Society and Columbia University botanist Nathaniel Lord Britton and his wife Elizabeth Gertrude Britton, who were inspired to emulate the Royal Botanic Gardens in London.: 2 In 1889, the Torrey Botanical Society's members decided to build the botanical garden at Bronx Park in the center of the Bronx, New York City's northernmost borough.: 2  The Lorillard family owned most of the land at that location.: 147  The city had already been given authorization to acquire the land as part of the 1884 New Parks Act, which was intended to preserve lands that would soon become part of New York City.: 166  Some 640 acres (2.6 km2) of land surrounding the Lorillard estate was acquired by the City of New York as part of Bronx Park in 1888–1889.: 147\n\nEstablishment\nBy act of the New York State Legislature, the New York Botanical Garden was established on April 28, 1891. The garden occupied part of the grounds of the Lorillard estate and a parcel that was formerly the easternmost portion of the campus of St. John's College (now Fordham University);: 147  the latter included three graves of the Fordham University Cemetery, which were then relocated. The stated purpose of the act was:\n\n... for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a botanical garden and museum and arboretum therein, for the collection of and culture of plants, flowers, shrubs and trees, the advancement of botanical science and knowledge, and the prosecution of original researches therein and in kindred subjects, for affording instruction in the same, for the prosecution and exhibition of ornamental and decorative horticulture and gardening, and for the entertainment, recreation and instruction of the people.: 2 \nAs per the acts of incorporation, a board of directors would manage the NYBG. The board of directors included Columbia College's president and professors of biology, chemistry, and geology; the presidents of the Torrey Society, New York City Board of Education, and the Department of Public Parks' board of commissioners; the Mayor of New York City; and nine other members elected to the board.: 2  The legislation would provide 250 acres (100 ha) within Bronx Park to the NYBG, and enable the board of directors to construct a library and conservatory, if at least $250,000 was raised within five years. If this condition were reached, the city would then issue $0.5 million in bonds.: 2  The principal officers of the new corporation set up for the garden were Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan, with Nathaniel Lord Britton as the new secretary.Prominent civic leaders and financiers, including Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Morgan, agreed to match the City's commitment to finance the buildings and improvements.: 2  By May 1895, the $250,000 in bonds had been raised but the plans had not been fully confirmed. The Board of Directors then asked landscape architect Calvert Vaux and his partner, Parks Superintendent Samuel Parsons Jr., to consult on site selection. The north end of Bronx Park was decided as the best location for the NYBG. By August 1895, the architects had started a survey on the site. Because the Bronx River and various small tributaries ran through the park, drainage was a major consideration. Though Vaux's preliminary layout was approved in October 1895, he died the following month.: 3  The topographical survey was completed in March 1896. The master plan was created by a team that included Britton & Parsons, as well as landscape engineer John R. Brinley, landscape gardener Samuel Henshaw, botanist Lucien Marcus Underwood, and architects Robert W. Gibson and Lincoln Pierson (the latter from the firm Lord & Burnham).: 3 The LuEsther T. Mertz Library and Enid A. Haupt Conservatory were among the first structures at the NYBG to open. The Library was built between 1897 and 1900,: 4  and the Conservatory was built around the same time, being completed in 1902.\n\nLater operations\nFor over a century after its opening, the NYBG refused to charge admission. Because of this, as well as insufficient government and private funding, its budget deficit started to increase in the 1950s. After the city cut the NYBG's budget in 1970, the garden was forced to remain closed for 3 to 4 days a week, and officials worried that this could eventually lead to permanent closure. In 1974, for the first time in the botanical garden's history, officials had to annually petition New York State Legislature for funds. That year, the NYBG announced a major renovation to the conservatory and the addition of a building dedicated to displaying plants in different habitats. The next year, budget cuts related to the 1975 New York City fiscal crisis resulted in the NYBG being closed on weekdays for the first time in its history.In 1988, the NYBG announced a renovation of its museum building, including the addition of a new annex, which was supposed to open in 1991. By the early 1990s, the NYBG facilities were neglected. The garden did not have enough space in its parking lots to accommodate all its visitors, turning away potential guests. Many areas were neglected, except for the 40 acres (16 ha) surrounding the conservatory, and a wetland had even been created unintentionally due to a broken sewer. A controversy arose in 1994 when the adjacent Fordham University proposed building a 480-foot-tall (150 m) radio tower for its radio station WFUV directly across from the Haupt Conservatory. The dispute continued until 2002, after several years of failed resolutions, when Montefiore Medical Center offered to move WFUV's antenna to its own facilities.By the mid-1990s, additions to the NYBG were being undertaken to reverse years of neglect. In 1994 the formerly free garden started charging an admission fee to fund these improvements as well as the continued maintenance of existing facilities. The Everett Children's Garden opened in mid-1998. By 2000, the NYBG had requested $300 million for renovations, including a new gift shop and renovation of the greenhouses and roads. A new visitor center and gift shop were announced the following year, which would replace temporary facilities built in 1990. The new main entrance, with a gift shop, bookstore, plaza, restrooms, cafe, and information kiosks, was completed in 2004 at a cost of $21 million. Meanwhile, the addition of the library annex was delayed to 1994, then to 2000. Construction on the annex started in 1998 and it opened in 2002 as the International Plant Science Center.Through the next two decades, a number of projects were completed and programs were implemented. In 2004, the Leon Levy Visitor Center opened as the Botanical Garden's main entrance. It included the NYBG Shop and the Pine Tree Café. The following year, the Nolen Greenhouses for Living Collections opened with its publicly accessible Bourke-Sullivan Display House. Off-site, the institution opened The New York Botanical Garden Midtown Education Center in Manhattan in 2010. NYBG added a parking garage, the Peter J. Sharp Building, nearby in 2012, along with a Bedford Gate entrance to the Garden. NYBG restored its Lorillard Snuff Mill in 2010 and it was named the Lillian and Amy Goldman Stone Mill. NYBG's Humanities Research Institute, supported by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, was created in 2014 to stimulate public discourse about humankind's relationship with nature and the environment. NYBG opened an on-site restaurant, the Hudson Garden Grill, in 2015. It redesigned and reopened its East Gate entrance in 2017. The Edible Academy, an educational facility for teaching children, families, educators, and the general public about vegetable gardening, nutrition awareness, and environmental stewardship, opened in 2018. In February 2020, NYBG announced that it was partnering with Douglaston Development to create affordable apartments on the northwest edge of the garden.\n\nGrounds\nThe different spaces\nThe Garden contains 50 different gardens and plant collections. There is a serene cascade waterfall, as well as wetlands and a 50-acre (20 ha) tract of original, never-logged, old-growth New York forest.Garden highlights include the 1890s-vintage Haupt Conservatory, designed by Lord & Burnham; the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden, originally laid out by Beatrix Jones Farrand in 1916; an alpine rock garden, designed and installed by Thomas H. Everett in the 1930s; an Herb Garden, designed by Penelope Hobhouse; and a 37-acre (15 ha) conifer collection. The NYBG's extensive research facilities include a propagation center, 550,000-volume research library, and an herbarium of 7.2 to 7.8 million botanical specimens dating back more than three centuries, among the largest in the world.At the heart of the Garden is the Thain Family Forest, an old-growth forest. It is the largest existing remnant of the original forest which covered all of New York City before the arrival of European settlers in the 17th century. The forest, which was never logged, contains oaks, American beeches, cherry, birch, tulip and white ash trees, some more than two centuries old.The forest itself is split by the Bronx River, the only freshwater river in New York City, and this stretch of the river includes a riverine canyon and rapids. Along the shores sits the Stone Mill, previously known as the Lorillard Snuff Mill, built in 1840. Sculptor Charles Tefft created the Fountain of Life on the grounds in 1905.: 9 The Ladies' Border, originally commissioned by the Women's Auxiliary Committee in the 1920s, was designed by Ellen Shipman and installed between 1931 and 1933.  In 2000, designer Lynden B. Miller created a new plan for the Ladies' Border. The Jane Watson Irwin Perennial Garden was designed in the 1970s by Dan Kiley and redefined by Miller in the 1980s and again in 2003.In addition to restoring or redesigning existing gardens and collections, such as the Ladies' Border (2002), the Benenson Ornamental Conifers (2004), the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden (2007), the Thain Family Forest (2011), and the Marjorie G. Rosen Seasonal Walk by Piet Oudolf (2014), The New York Botanical Garden added new gardens and collections to its grounds: the Home Gardening Center (2005), the Maureen K. Chilton Azalea Garden (2011) by landscape architect Shavaun Towers of Towers|Golde LLC, and Native Plant Garden (2013), by landscape architect Sheila Brady of Oehme, van Sweden.\n\nResearch laboratories\nThe Pfizer Plant Research Laboratory, built with funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, New York State and New York City, and named for its largest private donor, is a major new research institution at the Garden that opened in 2006. The laboratory is a pure research institution, with projects more diverse than research in universities and pharmaceutical companies.\nThe laboratory's research emphasis is on plant genomics, the study of how genes function in plant development. One question scientists hope to answer is Darwin's \"abominable mystery\"; when, where, and why flowering plants emerged. The laboratory's research also furthers the discipline of molecular systematics, the study of DNA as evidence that can reveal the evolutionary history and relationships of plant species. Staff scientists also study plant use in immigrant communities in New York City and the genetic mechanisms by which neurotoxins are produced in some plants, work that may be related to nerve disease in humans.\nA staff of 200 trains 42 doctoral students at a time. Since the 1890s, scientists from the NYBG have mounted about 2,000 exploratory missions worldwide to collect plants in the wild.\nAt the Pfizer Plant Research Laboratory, genomic DNA from many different species of plants is extracted to create a library of the DNA of the world's plants. This collection is stored in a 768-square-foot (71.3 m2) DNA storage room with 20 freezers housing millions of specimens, including rare, endangered or extinct species. To protect the collection during winter power outages, there is a backup 300-kilowatt electric generator.\nThe Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has granted the NYBG $572,000 to begin a project called TreeBOL, the Tree Barcode of Life. By sampling the DNA from all 100,000 different species of trees from around the world, TreeBOL will document the diversity of plant life, and advance the process of plant DNA barcoding.\n\nLuEsther T. Mertz Library\nFounded in 1899 and named after supporter LuEsther Mertz, the LuEsther T. Mertz Library is located in the northern section of NYBG. A 2002 New York Times article mentioned that the library had 775,000 items and 6.5 million plant specimens in its collection. However, a book published in 2014 by the NYBG mentioned that the library had \"550,000 physical volumes and 1,800 journal titles\". As of 2016 the Mertz Library still contained one of the world's largest collections of botany-related texts. Stephen Sinon, who leads the NYBG's special collections, research and archives, called its collection \"the largest of its kind in the world under one roof\".The library is housed in what was formerly known as the NYBG's Museum Building or Administration Building. Construction started in 1897 and it was completed in 1900. The structure was designed by Robert W. Gibson in the Renaissance Revival style.: 1\n\nEnid A. Haupt Conservatory\nThe Enid A. Haupt Conservatory, named after Enid A. Haupt, is a greenhouse near the western end of the NYBG. The conservatory was designed by the major greenhouse company of the late 1890s, Lord and Burnham Co. The design was modeled after the Palm House at the Royal Botanic Garden and Joseph Paxton's Crystal Palace in Italian Renaissance style. Groundbreaking took place on January 3, 1899, and the conservatory was completed in 1902 at a cost of $177,000. The building was constructed by John R. Sheehan under contract for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Since the original construction, major renovations took place in 1935, 1950, 1978, and 1993.The conservatory houses numerous tropical plants and flowers, cacti and other desert plants, and rainforest vegetation. In summer months, the two pools adjacent to the conservatory display many varieties of lotuses and water lilies.\n\nWilliam & Lynda Steere Herbarium\nThe William & Lynda Steere Herbarium, in the International Plant Science Center behind the library, is one of the largest herbaria in the world, with approximately 7.2 million to 7.8 million specimens. after the French National Museum of Natural History in Paris. Founded in 1891, the herbarium quickly became a repository for many important collections. In 1895 the garden incorporated the herbarium of Columbia College, an acquisition of approximately 600,000 specimens, including the private herbaria of John Torrey and C. F. Meisner. In 1945 the garden incorporated the herbaria of the Columbia College of Pharmacy and Princeton University.  The herbarium is named after William Steere (son of William C. Steere) and his wife Lynda, who endowed the herbarium in 2002.The Index Herbariorum code assigned to this botanic garden is NY and it is used when citing housed specimens.\n\nSchool of Professional Horticulture\nIn 1932, Thomas H. Everett expanded an existing training program into a robust curriculum for developing professional horticulturists.  Patterned after diploma programs at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, the School for Gardeners combined academic studies with hands-on practical experience in a two-year, full-time program. With the exception of a hiatus during and after the Second World War, the School has trained students since then. Now called the School of Professional Horticulture, this fully-accredited program continues to develop horticulturists of the highest caliber for positions in both public and private gardens. After successfully completing the program, students receive The New York Botanical Garden's Diploma in Horticulture.\n\nExhibitions\nThe New York Botanical Garden has mounted public exhibitions throughout its history. In 1992, NYBG began presenting what would eventually be called the Holiday Train Show, an annual exhibition of model trains running through a display of New York landmarks made of natural materials. In 2002, it introduced The Orchid Show, an annual exhibition of orchid displays and designed installations with changing themes. Beginning in 2007, the Garden added an annual fall exhibition of kiku, Japanese chrysanthemums trained to grow in modern and ancient forms.The New York Botanical Garden has also presented large-scale, stand-alone exhibitions, including: Sculpture from the Museum of Modern Art at The New York Botanical Garden (2002), Chihuly at The New York Botanical Garden (2006), Darwin's Garden: An Evolutionary Adventure (2008), Moore in America: Monumental Sculpture at The New York Botanical Garden (2008–2009), Emily Dickinson's Garden: The Poetry of Flowers (2010), Spanish Paradise: Gardens of the Alhambra (2011), Monet's Garden (2012), Manolo Valdés: Monumental Sculpture (2012), Frida Kahlo: Art, Garden, Life (2015), Impressionism: American Gardens on Canvas (2016), CHIHULY (2017), Georgia O'Keeffe: Visions of Hawai'i (2018), Brazilian Modern: The Living Art of Roberto Burle Marx (2019), and KUSAMA: Cosmic Nature (2021).\n\nExecutive leadership\nDr. Nathaniel Lord Britton (1891–1929)\nElmer D. Merrill (1930–1935)\nDr. Marshall A. Howe (1935–1936)\nDr. Henry A. Gleason (acting, 1937–1938)\nDr. William J. Robbins (1938–1958)\nDr. William C. Steere (1958–1972)\nDr. Howard S. Irwin (1973–1979)\nJames M. Hester (1980–1989)\nGregory Long (1989–2018)\nDr. Carrie Rebora Barratt (2018–2020)\nJennifer Bernstein (2021–Present)\n\nPublications\nThe NYBG published The Garden Journal (ISSN 0016-4585) from 1977 to 1990 and from 1931 has produced the scientific journal, Brittonia.\n\nLandmark status\nThe New York Botanical Garden was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1967. In addition, three structures are designated as individual New York City landmarks: the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory (designated in 1973),: 1  the LuEsther T. Mertz Library (2009),: 1  and the Lorillard Snuff Mill (1966, also separately on the National Register of Historic Places).\n\nSee also\nEducation in New York City\nList of herbaria in North America\nList of botanical gardens and arboretums in New York\nList of museums and cultural institutions in New York City\nList of National Historic Landmarks in New York City\nNational Register of Historic Places listings in Bronx County, New York\nOther botanical gardens in New York City\nBrooklyn Botanic Garden\nQueens Botanical Garden\nStaten Island Botanical Garden\nPassage 9:\nACS Macro Letters\nACS Macro Letters is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Chemical Society. As of 2017, ACS Macro Letters has the highest impact factor of any journal in the field of polymer science (6.131). With the launch of ACS Macro Letters, all Communications to the Editor that were formerly published in Macromolecules will be published as Letters in ACS Macro Letters. Researchers are advised turn to ACS Macro Letters for reports of early, urgent results in polymer science and to Macromolecules for more detailed discussions of comprehensive research findings.\n\nScope\nExamining both synthetic and naturally occurring polymers, ACS Macro Letters reports major advances in polymer synthesis, modification reactions, characteristics, theory, simulation, surface properties, and kinetics and mechanisms.  The journal reports on all areas of soft matter science where macromolecules play a key role, including nanotechnology, self-assembly, supramolecular chemistry, biomaterials, energy, and sustainable materials.\n\nReadership\nACS Macro Letters is intended for researchers in polymer science as well as materials science, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and energy.  The journal makes it possible for these researchers to stay abreast of the most urgent research results in polymer science and its related disciplines.\n\nTypes of Articles\nACS Macro Letters publishes peer-reviewed…\n\nLetters: Short reports of original research focused on an individual finding of great significance to the field of polymer science.\nViewpoints: In-depth examinations and perspective on topics of current interest to researchers in the field.\n\nEditor-in-Chief\nTimothy P. Lodge served as the Founding Editor-in-Chief of ACS Macro Letters (2011–2017). In 2018, Lodge was succeeded by Stuart J. Rowan, who was formerly the Deputy Editor.\n\nSubmissions\nACS Macro Letters enables researchers in the field to bring their important findings in polymer science and related disciplines to the attention of the global scientific community.  Manuscripts are typically published within four to six weeks of manuscript submission.  The journal encourages submissions and publishes Letters from around the world.\n\nSee also\nBiomacromolecules\nMacromolecules",6  "char_len": 62501,7  "document_hash": "c577f2c5666ec2ef0d2db6da50c21255e2e829082810105d675a63b24a820d19",8  "questions": [9    {10      "question_id": "q00",11      "qtype": "hotpotqa",12      "question": "What was the first year a scientific journal published by an organization located in the Bronx was published?"13    }14  ]15}