Extending Standards for Genomics and Metagenomics Data: A Research Coordination Network for the Genomic Standards Consortium (RCN4GSC)

Through a newly established Research Coordination Network for the Genomic Standards Consortium (RCN4GSC), the GSC will continue its leadership in establishing and integrating genomic standards through community-based efforts. These efforts, undertaken in the context of genomic and metagenomic research aim to ensure the electronic capture of all genomic data and to facilitate the achievement of a community consensus around collecting and managing relevant contextual information connected to the sequence data. The GSC operates as an open, inclusive organization, welcoming inspired biologists with a commitment to community service. Within the collaborative framework of the ongoing, international activities of the GSC, the RCN will expand the range of research domains engaged in these standardization efforts and sustain scientific networking to encourage active participation by the broader community. The RCN4GSC, funded for five years by the US National Science Foundation, will primarily support outcome-focused working meetings and the exchange of early-career scientists between GSC research groups in order to advance key standards contributions such as GCDML. Focusing on the timely delivery of the extant GSC core projects, the RCN will also extend the pioneering efforts of the GSC to engage researchers active in developing ecological, environmental and biodiversity data standards. As the initial goals of the GSC are increasingly achieved, promoting the comprehensive use of effective standards will be essential to ensure the effective use of sequence and associated data, to provide access for all biologists to all of the information, and to create interdisciplinary opportunities for discovery. The RCN will facilitate these implementation activities through participation in major scientific conferences and presentations on scientific advances enabled by community usage of genomic standards.     

Meeting Report from the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) Workshop 8

This report summarizes the proceedings of the 8th meeting of the Genomic Standards Consortium held at the Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, CA, USA on September 9-11, 2009. This three-day workshop marked the maturing of Genomic Standards Consortium from an informal gathering of researchers interested in developing standards in the field of genomic and metagenomics to an established community with a defined governance mechanism, its own open access journal, and a family of established standards for describing genomes, metagenomes and marker studies (i.e. ribosomal RNA gene surveys). There will be increased efforts within the GSC to reach out to the wider scientific community via a range of new projects. Further information about the GSC and its activities can be found at http://gensc.org/.     

Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals

ABSTRACT: Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users -- people and machines -- of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research.     

中国生态学期刊现状分析

通过对我国12种主要生态学期刊的出版指标、引用指标和网络传播能力的现状分析,得出《生态学报》、《应用生态学报》、《植物生态学报》和《生态学杂志》已经成为我国生态学期刊的第一方阵,出版能力和引用表现都要优于其他期刊,但是期刊特色不明显。生态学期刊已经不能满足生态学快速发展的需要,应该有新的期刊来承载新生分支学科的内容,同时生态学期刊需要进一步加强网络传播能力的建设。最重要的是生态学期刊应该从散落在其他学科的状态中聚集起来形成生态学期刊集群。     

CDinFusion--submission-ready, on-line integration of sequence and contextual data

State of the art (DNA) sequencing methods applied in "Omics" studies grant insight into the 'blueprints' of organisms from all domains of life. Sequencing is carried out around the globe and the data is submitted to the public repositories of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration. However, the context in which these studies are conducted often gets lost, because experimental data, as well as information about the environment are rarely submitted along with the sequence data. If these contextual or metadata are missing, key opportunities of comparison and analysis across studies and habitats are hampered or even impossible. To address this problem, the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) promotes checklists and standards to better describe our sequence data collection and to promote the capturing, exchange and integration of sequence data with contextual data. In a recent community effort the GSC has developed a series of recommendations for contextual data that should be submitted along with sequence data. To support the scientific community to significantly enhance the quality and quantity of contextual data in the public sequence data repositories, specialized software tools are needed. In this work we present CDinFusion, a web-based tool to integrate contextual and sequence data in (Multi)FASTA format prior to submission. The tool is open source and available under the Lesser GNU Public License 3. A public installation is hosted and maintained at the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology at http://www.megx.net/cdinfusion. The tool may also be installed locally using the open source code available at http://code.google.com/p/cdinfusion.     

Meeting Report from the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) Workshops 6 and 7

This report summarizes the proceedings of the 6th and 7th workshops of the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC), held back-to-back in 2008. GSC 6 focused on furthering the activities of GSC working groups, GSC 7 focused on outreach to the wider community. GSC 6 was held October 10-14, 2008 at the European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom and included a two-day workshop focused on the refinement of the Genomic Contextual Data Markup Language (GCDML). GSC 7 was held as the opening day of the International Congress on Metagenomics 2008 in San Diego California. Major achievements of these combined meetings included an agreement from the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Consortium (INSDC) to create a "MIGS" keyword for capturing "Minimum Information about a Genome Sequence" compliant information within INSDC (DDBJ/EMBL /Genbank) records, launch of GCDML 1.0, MIGS compliance of the first set of "Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea" project genomes, approval of a proposal to extend MIGS to 16S rRNA sequences within a "Minimum Information about an Environmental Sequence", finalization of plans for the GSC eJournal, "Standards in Genomic Sciences" (SIGS), and the formation of a GSC Board. Subsequently, the GSC has been awarded a Research Co-ordination Network (RCN4GSC) grant from the National Science Foundation, held the first SIGS workshop and launched the journal. The GSC will also be hosting outreach workshops at both ISMB 2009 and PSB 2010 focused on "Metagenomics, Metadata and MetaAnalysis" (M(3)). Further information about the GSC and its range of activities can be found at http://gensc.org, including videos of all the presentations at GSC 7.     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

Meeting Report from the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) Workshop 9

This report summarizes the proceedings of the 9th workshop of the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC), held at the J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. It was the first GSC workshop to have open registration and attracted over 90 participants. This workshop featured sessions that provided overviews of the full range of ongoing GSC projects. It included sessions on Standards in Genomic Sciences, the open access journal of the GSC, building standards for genome annotation, the M5 platform for next-generation collaborative computational infrastructures, building ties with the biodiversity research community and two discussion panels with government and industry participants. Progress was made on all fronts, and major outcomes included the completion of the MIENS specification for publication and the formation of the Biodiversity working group.     

Future Prospects: Scientific Quality Relies on the Critical Reviews from Our Peers

From Executive Editor to Editor-in-Chief is a big jump for me, and means many more responsibilities.I could feel the pressure on my shoulders;from the hopes of my predecessors,my colleagues, and the board members. As a journal with a 57-year history,JIPB has built its credit over the years,publishing many original works in both Chinese and English.However,in the international scientific community,JIPB is still a minor player, especially under the current not-so-healthy impact factor-driven publishing environment.     

The changing world of modern cell biology

Change is always ambiguous. There is the enticing prospect of novelty and better times ahead, but at the same time the concern of losing the good of the past. It is with these sentiments that I take over as the Editor-in-Chief from Ira Mellman who for a decade has cleverly and effectively lead the JCB. During this time he directed and oversaw an extensive modernization of the journal and guided it through dramatic changes in the publishing world. Ira lead the journal with unyielding dedication and enthusiasm and we in the cell biology community must thank him profoundly for his service. It is his work, together with the invaluable contribution of the best editorial board and the most dedicated professional editorial staff in the scientific publishing business, that allows me to now take over the stewardship of the JCB with a tremendous sense of excitement and determination to continue and expand the JCB's role as the leading journal in the cell biology community and as a trendsetter in the rapidly changing world of modern cell biology.     

Minimum information about a marker gene sequence (MIMARKS) and minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS) specifications

Here we present a standard developed by the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) for reporting marker gene sequences--the minimum information about a marker gene sequence (MIMARKS). We also introduce a system for describing the environment from which a biological sample originates. The 'environmental packages' apply to any genome sequence of known origin and can be used in combination with MIMARKS and other GSC checklists. Finally, to establish a unified standard for describing sequence data and to provide a single point of entry for the scientific community to access and learn about GSC checklists, we present the minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS). Adoption of MIxS will enhance our ability to analyze natural genetic diversity documented by massive DNA sequencing efforts from myriad ecosystems in our ever-changing biosphere.     

It Is Time to Re‐Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research

Problems in peer review, the backbone of maintaining high standards in scientific publishing, have led to wide spread discontent within the scientific community. Training in the peer review process and a simpler format to assist in decision making are possible courses to improve and expedite the process of peer review and scientific publishing.     

Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by Journals

Journal policy on research data and code availability is an important part of the ongoing shift toward publishing reproducible computational science. This article extends the literature by studying journal data sharing policies by year (for both 2011 and 2012) for a referent set of 170 journals. We make a further contribution by evaluating code sharing policies, supplemental materials policies, and open access status for these 170 journals for each of 2011 and 2012. We build a predictive model of open data and code policy adoption as a function of impact factor and publisher and find higher impact journals more likely to have open data and code policies and scientific societies more likely to have open data and code policies than commercial publishers. We also find open data policies tend to lead open code policies, and we find no relationship between open data and code policies and either supplemental material policies or open access journal status. Of the journals in this study, 38% had a data policy, 22% had a code policy, and 66% had a supplemental materials policy as of June 2012. This reflects a striking one year increase of 16% in the number of data policies, a 30% increase in code policies, and a 7% increase in the number of supplemental materials policies. We introduce a new dataset to the community that categorizes data and code sharing, supplemental materials, and open access policies in 2011 and 2012 for these 170 journals.     

The Dawn of Open Access to Phylogenetic Data

The scientific enterprise depends critically on the preservation of and open access to published data. This basic tenet applies acutely to phylogenies (estimates of evolutionary relationships among species). Increasingly, phylogenies are estimated from increasingly large, genome-scale datasets using increasingly complex statistical methods that require increasing levels of expertise and computational investment. Moreover, the resulting phylogenetic data provide an explicit historical perspective that critically informs research in a vast and growing number of scientific disciplines. One such use is the study of changes in rates of lineage diversification (speciation – extinction) through time. As part of a meta-analysis in this area, we sought to collect phylogenetic data (comprising nucleotide sequence alignment and tree files) from 217 studies published in 46 journals over a 13-year period. We document our attempts to procure those data (from online archives and by direct request to corresponding authors), and report results of analyses (using Bayesian logistic regression) to assess the impact of various factors on the success of our efforts. Overall, complete phylogenetic data for of these studies are effectively lost to science. Our study indicates that phylogenetic data are more likely to be deposited in online archives and/or shared upon request when: (1) the publishing journal has a strong data-sharing policy; (2) the publishing journal has a higher impact factor, and; (3) the data are requested from faculty rather than students. Importantly, our survey spans recent policy initiatives and infrastructural changes; our analyses indicate that the positive impact of these community initiatives has been both dramatic and immediate. Although the results of our study indicate that the situation is dire, our findings also reveal tremendous recent progress in the sharing and preservation of phylogenetic data.     

The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival

Background

Taxonomy or biological systematics is the basic scientific discipline of biology, postulating hypotheses of identity and relationships, on which all other natural sciences dealing with organisms relies. However, the scientific contributions of taxonomists have been largely neglected when using species names in scientific publications by not citing the authority on which they are based.

Discussion

Consequences of this neglect is reduced recognition of the importance of taxonomy, which in turn results in diminished funding, lower interest from journals in publishing taxonomic research, and a reduced number of young scientists entering the field. This has lead to the so-called taxonomic impediment at a time when biodiversity studies are of critical importance. Here we emphasize a practical and obvious solution to this dilemma. We propose that whenever a species name is used, the author(s) of the species hypothesis be included and the original literature source cited, including taxonomic revisions and identification literature - nothing more than what is done for every other hypothesis or assumption included in a scientific publication. In addition, we postulate that journals primarily publishing taxonomic studies should be indexed in ISI^SM.

Summary

The proposal outlined above would make visible the true contribution of taxonomists within the scientific community, and would provide a more accurate assessment for funding agencies impact and importance of taxonomy, and help in the recruitment of young scientists into the field, thus helping to alleviate the taxonomic impediment. In addition, it would also make much of the biological literature more robust by reducing or alleviating taxonomic uncertainty.     

Proposed Standards for Variable Harmonization Documentation and Referencing: A Case Study Using QuickCharmStats 1.1

Comparative statistical analyses often require data harmonization, yet the social sciences do not have clear operationalization frameworks that guide and homogenize variable coding decisions across disciplines. When faced with a need to harmonize variables researchers often look for guidance from various international studies that employ output harmonization, such as the Comparative Survey of Election Studies, which offer recoding structures for the same variable (e.g. marital status). More problematically there are no agreed documentation standards or journal requirements for reporting variable harmonization to facilitate a transparent replication process. We propose a conceptual and data-driven digital solution that creates harmonization documentation standards for publication and scholarly citation: QuickCharmStats 1.1. It is free and open-source software that allows for the organizing, documenting and publishing of data harmonization projects. QuickCharmStats starts at the conceptual level and its workflow ends with a variable recording syntax. It is therefore flexible enough to reflect a variety of theoretical justifications for variable harmonization. Using the socio-demographic variable ‘marital status’, we demonstrate how the CharmStats workflow collates metadata while being guided by the scientific standards of transparency and replication. It encourages researchers to publish their harmonization work by providing researchers who complete the peer review process a permanent identifier. Those who contribute original data harmonization work to their discipline can now be credited through citations. Finally, we propose peer-review standards for harmonization documentation, describe a route to online publishing, and provide a referencing format to cite harmonization projects. Although CharmStats products are designed for social scientists our adherence to the scientific method ensures our products can be used by researchers across the sciences.     

CytoJournal joins 'open access' philosophy

Welcome to CytoJournal! We would like to introduce you to your journal, one that is run by and for the scientific cytopathology community with incontestable benefits of Open Access, and support from Cytopathology Fondation, Inc http://www.cytopathology-foundation.org/index.html. CytoJournal is a peer-reviewed, PubMed indexed, online journal, publishing research in the field of cytopathology and related areas, with world wide free access. Authors submitting to CutoJournal retain the copyright to their hard earned work.