scholarly journals EVALUATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME PORTFOLIO OF THE AUSTRIAN SCIENCE FUND (FWF)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Degelsegger ◽  
Isabella Wagner ◽  
John Rigby ◽  
Deborah Cox
Keyword(s):  
International Programme ◽  
Austrian Science Fund

scholarly journals THE REVIEWING PROCESS FOR ISPRS EVENTS

2018 ◽  
Vol IV-5 ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
C. Mallet ◽  
I. Dowman ◽  
G. Vosselman ◽  
U. Stilla ◽  
L. Halounova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Future Event ◽  
Committee Chair ◽  
Programme Committee ◽  
International Programme ◽  
Science Advisory ◽  
Science Advisory Committee

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Following the first initiatives taken by the International Programme Committee of the XXIII<sup>rd</sup> ISPRS Congress in Prague (Czech Republic) in 2016, modifications of the reviewing process of ISPRS events were further considered during the years 2017 and 2018. This evolution first targets to better fit such a process to the currents requirements and expectations of the ISPRS community. Secondly, it aims to provide unified guidelines for the different steps of the process. Under the aegis of the 2020 Congress Director and ISAC (International Science Advisory Committee) chair, several discussions were held in-between September 2017 and June 2018 with ISAC members, Technical Commission Presidents (TCP), council members, 2016 and 2020 Congress Programme Chairs. This document serves as a unique transparent basis that applies for all kinds of ISPRS events (from Congress and Geospatial Week to smaller workshops), and all categories of people that are bound to be involved in the evaluation process of scientific contributions (authors, reviewers, TCPs, &amp;hellip; ). It also specifies the evaluation criteria for the works submitted to ISPRS events, both for full papers and abstracts. Subsequently, it helps authors to improve the content and shape of their contributions. Eventually, this paper is targeted to help new chairs to smoothly prepare their future event. The following guidelines were first adopted for the 2018 Technical Commission Symposia.</p>

Antidotes — inappropriate timely availability

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 485-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
M A Higgins ◽  
R Evans
Keyword(s):  
Heavy Metal ◽  
Chelating Agent ◽  
The South ◽  
Chemical Safety ◽  
Metal Chelating ◽  
South West ◽  
Accident And Emergency ◽  
Cyanide Antidote ◽  
International Programme ◽  
Timely Fashion

The aim of this study was to determine the availability of antidotes to poisons in Wales and the South West of England. A stocklist of antidotes that are available to accident and emergency departments was requested and was compared with recommendations from the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). Chief pharmacists were invited to complete a short questionnaire regarding knowledge of existing guidelines. Thirty-four of 43 centres replied (response rate 77%). No department held all 36 antidotes (mean 13, range 7-33). All departments held antidotes that were frequently used. Ninety-one percent of departments held one cyanide antidote. Eighty-eight percent held one heavy metal chelating agent. The remaining antidotes were variably stocked. New agents such as 4-methylpyrazole, hydroxocobalamin and the heavy metal chelating agents DMSA and DMPS were infrequently held. Twenty of 34 chief pharmacists were unfamiliar with existing UK guidelines. A trend exists whereby larger departments stocked more antidotes. Some antidotes to poisons are not available in a timely fashion in Wales and the South West of England. There is a lack of awareness of existing guidelines. New recommendations relevant to clinical need and local practice should ideally be developed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document