To appreciate what a huge difference there is between the author of a peer-reviewed journal article and just about any other kind of author we need only remind ourselves why universities have their "publish or perish" policy: aside from imparting existing knowledge to students through teaching, the work of a university scholar or scientist is devoted to creating new knowledge for other scholars and scientists to use, apply, and build upon, for the benefit of us all. Creating new knowledge is called "research", and its active use and application are called "research impact". Researchers are
Peer review is the evaluation method that has characterized the scientific growth of the last four centuries, the first four of what is called modern science, indeed. It is matter of scientific communication inside scientific community, a subject too poorly studied in comparison with its critical importance for a scientific study of science (science of science). Peer review has been used for scientific paper evaluation before publication (editorial peer review) and for research proposal evaluation before financial support (grants peer review). Both cases present similar pros and cons, so I
I still remember very clearly my first encounter with peer review: I was a Ph. D. student in physics and I had written my first paper, submitted it to a journal and - after what seemed to me a very long time - received a reply with the request for few changes and corrections I was supposed to include in my paper before it could be considered for publication. These very simple steps: the writing up of some original research results in a paper, its submission to a journal and the process of the work being read and judged by someone reputed to be an expert in the field is what we call peer review
Scholars and scientists do research to create new knowledge so that other scholars and scientists can use it to create still more new knowledge and to apply it to improving people's lives. They are paid to do research, but not to report their research: that they do for free, because it is not royalty-revenue from their research papers but their "research impact" that pays their salaries, funds their further research, earns them prestige and prizes, etc. "Research impact" means how much of a contribution your research makes to further research: do other researchers read, use, cite, and apply
This article describes a course on the representations of HIV/AIDS in the visual arts, concluding that discipline-based art education may be applied to medical humanities courses in a medical curriculum.
This award is for a Science and Technology Center devoted to the emerging area of nanobiotechnology that involves a close synthesis of nano-microfabrication and biological systems. The Nanobiotechnology Center (NBTC) features a highly interdisciplinary, close collaboration between life scientists, physical scientists, and engineers from Cornell University, Princeton University, Oregon Health Sciences University, and Wadsworth Center of the New York State Health Department. The integrating vision of the NBTC is that nanobiotechnology will be the genesis of new insights into the function of biological systems, and lead to the design of new classes of nano- and microfabricated devices and systems. Biological systems present a particular challenge in that the diversity of materials and chemical systems for biological applications far exceeds those for silicon-based technology in the integrated-circuit industry. New fabrication processes appropriate for biological materials will require a substantial expansion in knowledge about the interface between organic and inorganic systems. The ability to structure materials and pattern surface chemistry at small dimensions ranging from the molecular to cellular scale are the fundamental technologies on which the research of the NBTC is based. Nanofabrication can also be used to form new analytical probes for interrogating biological systems with unprecedented spatial resolution and sensitivity. Three unifying technology platforms that foster advances in materials, processes, and tools underlie and support the research programs of the NBTC: Molecules of nanobiotechnology; Novel methods of patterning surfaces for attachment of molecules and cells to substrates; and Sensors and devices for nanobiotechnology. Newly developed fabrication capabilities will also be available through the extensive resources of the Cornell Nanofabrication Facility, a site of the NSF National Nanofabrication Users Network. The NBTC will be an integrated part of the educational missions of the participating institutions. NBTC faculty will develop a new cornerstone graduate course in nanobiotechnology featuring nanofabrication with an emphasis on biological applications. Graduate students who enter the NBTC from a background in engineering or biology will cross-train in the other field by engaging in a significant level of complementary course work. Participation in the NBTC will prepare them with the disciplinary depth and cross-disciplinary understanding to become next generation leaders in this emerging field. An undergraduate research experience program with a strong mentoring structure will be established, with emphasis on recruiting women and underrepresented minorities into the program. Educational outreach activities are planned to stimulate the interest of students of all ages. One such activity partnered with the Science center in Ithaca is a traveling exhibition for museum showings on the subject of nano scale size. National and federal laboratories and industrial and other partners will participate in various aspects of the NBTC such as by hosting interns, attendance at symposia and scientist exchanges. Partnering with the industrial affiliates will be emphasized to enhance knowledge transfer and student and postdoctoral training. This specific STC award is managed by the Directorate for Engineering in coordination with the Directorates for Biological Sciences, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and Education and Human Resources.