BioMed Central Blog
The two flagship biology journals of BioMed Central, BMC Biology and Journal of Biology, are combined today to become a single title with all the best features of both. The combined journal will be called BMC Biology, reflecting the strong relationship with the subject-specific BMC-series journals, but will include high-profile commissioned content that to date has appeared only in Journal of Biology.
The new BMC Biology will publish research and methodology articles of special importance and broad interest across all areas of biology and biomedical sciences, importing from Journal of Biology the re-review opt-out experiment introduced last year to answer the widespread frustration of researchers with current peer review procedures.
The fused journal will be edited by Miranda Robertson, who explains in an inaugural editorial how the journal will reflect and build on the strengths of both parent publications.
BMC Biology is already listed in Web of Science, tracked by ISI and ranked within the top 2% of all journals listed in Scopus (212 of 17,124). The journal has close to 50,000 registrants and research published in the journal regularly features in the scientific and mainstream press. Highly-cited articles often received upwards of 50 citations and highly-accessed articles receive over 15,000 unique downloads from the journal website.
The journal fusion is marked by a special collection of articles, which introduces a new feature - Video Q&A articles with prominent scientists that provide a platform for leading researchers to express a personal perspective on a variety of scientific topics. The first Video Q&A features Martin Raff from University College London, who explains, as a grandfather and a neuroscientist, his interest in what goes wrong in autism, and how he thinks genomic and stem cell technology may lead to answers.
Also published today are the first of a series of ‘Hope of progress’ articles on biology relevant to clinical problems, including reviews on biology-based cancer therapy and on vaccine adjuvants.
Stay up-to-date with new content from BMC Biology, update your RSS feed and sign up for articles alerts.
Posted by Charlotte Webber at 13:13 Comments (0)
Clinical challenges of iPS stem cells should be met
Hailed as Breakthrough of the Year by Science back in 2008, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) have recently come under fire from some experts who question whether they are ever going to be suitable for transplanting to patients to treat disease. iPS cells, created using cell reprogramming techniques, are a source of stem cells without the need to destroy embryos. Thomas Okarma for example, in a recent article in The Times, recognises their usefulness as a research tool but remains sceptical about their clinical application.
So should we be abandoning research efforts into their potential uses in cell therapy? Douglas Sipp, from the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, doesn't think so. In a commentary published in the latest issue of Stem Cell Research & Therapy, Sipp argues that although there are certainly challenges to be faced in developing these clinical applications, there are ways these can be tackled to facilitate "revolutionary" advances in cell therapy, and sustained effort into this area of research remains imperative.
Posted by Frances Mulvany at 12:20 Comments (0)
Lessons learned from failed Alzheimer's trials
The amyloid hypothesis has led to a greater understanding of Alzheimer's disease and has provided a foundation for the development of drugs to tackle the disease. Two large clinical trials investigating the clinical effects of two such novel compounds, bapineuzimab and tarenflurbil, on Alzheimer's disease, have been recently published. Both drugs were designed to modulate the pathophysiology of the disease by interfering with the beta-amyloid metabolism, albeit through different modes of action, but both trials have disappointingly yielded negative findings, leading to questions being asked of the respective study designs and dosing regimes.
In a commentary published recently in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, Prins et al. discuss the lessons that can be learnt from these studies. They suggest that the failure of these trials can be attributed not just to problems in study design, but also our incomplete understanding of the mechanisms involved. These trial results may help shape our understanding of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease and in particular, the amyloid beta mechanism, vital in the search for novel therapeutics for this disease.
Alex Kroll - Senior Assistant Editor
Posted by Frances Mulvany at 09:35 Comments (0)