Age estimations process is not standardized worldwide. However, there is a wide agreement about the most suitable methods currently available. Up until now, the procedure of creating expert reports and to implement quality assurance in age estimation are variable.
Aim: The aim of this paper was to examine expert age estimation reports from around the world and identify the similarities and shortcomings present, which will help in providing recommendations to improve the reporting to reach standardization in expert age estimation reports.
Methods and Material: A questionnaire was developed to explore whether there is a universal consensus in writing age estimation reports. Countries participated in the survey were: Afghanistan, Australia, France, Indonesia, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Areas investigated by the survey included: Information about the individual in question and the entity requesting the assessment, if age interval is given along with if statistics were described in the report, if population reference data are used and reported and finally if the format of the report is standardized within each country.
Results: The results of this survey suggest that there is a high degree of individual variation in age estimation reports, sometimes even within the same country. While the majority of participants report the main findings, some important information is still missing. The statistical information remains extremely varied.
Conclusion: Although a resolution is not obvious, it is hoped that this study will promote further research and discussion on reporting age estimation. International guidelines on quality assurance in age estimation reports are urgently needed. Information to be reported should be specified on an international level and the exact report format to be used could be left to the national societies.
The paper presents and develops the issue of Cumulative Effect Assessment (CEA) in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening procedure established by the State and Regional regulations In Italy. In the period 2001-15 in the territory of the Venice province (north east Italy, Veneto region) n. 328 projects (and the related environmental preliminary/definitive studies) were applied to competent Authorities (6% to the State, 39% to the Region and 55% to the Province). All the Environmental Impact Studies (EISs) and Environmental Preliminary Studies (EPSs) referring to the this territory officially applied to competent Authorities in the period 2001-2010, have been analysed with focus on the identification and assessment of cumulative effects (CEs); the projects considered and analysed for this purpose comprise a total of n. 181 EIA screening and ordinary procedures; the remaining 147 projects in the period 2011-15 (for a total of 328) are here considered only for statistical reason to an update assessment of project typologies in the same territory.
The methodology applied for the analysis of the sample of environmental studies in the period 2001-10 refers to that presented by Cooper and Sheate (2002) with modifications. The investigation has been developed looking for the way in which the topic is performed by practitioners in the environmental studies as from qualitative as well as quantitative point of view. Specific attention has been paid to waste management plants which are always subject to EIA screening procedure since 2008 according to Directive 97/11/EEC and in case to the whole EIA procedure. The approach proposed by Lombardia Region (North Italy; 2010) for EIA screening procedure of waste management plants has been applied to identify CEs and modified according to the characteristics of the considered territory; it allows the performance of the project-based approach and must be completed with a regional-based approach (Dubè, 2003). The proposed approach can be useful in case of waste management and IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Directive 96/61/EEC, amended with Directives 2008/1/EC and 2010/75/EU) plants to define the financial warranties required for the authorization of operative activity of the plants to cover potential environmental damages produced in cases of accidents and other conditions as required in Europe (art. 14 Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability).
Several project categories were chosen and their EISs analysed as an exemplificative case according to the potential generation of cumulative impacts and the characteristics of the territory. With reference to the completed procedures where the competent Authority presented a final judgement, it has been observed that the CEA has been seldom developed due to not compulsory legal requirements as already observed by Burris and Canter (1997). Moreover, when it is considered, the methodology is limited and not systemized. Indices of impact have been identified according to emission for the main environmental components focussed with the analysis of the pressure factors of the plants. The study points out the need to analyse and evaluate the cumulative effects (CEs) at a strategic level (within the Strategic Environmental Assessment-SEA- procedure) with a view to preparing the study for EIA/EPS framework procedure for the projects derived from the corresponding plan/program. A sound knowledge of the considered territory and in particular of its pressure sources is of main importance for CEA assessment and impacts’ prevention. Geographic Information Sytesm (GIS) application is strongly needed for pressure sources’ census and control data storing
To the editorial team at HSPI and the Journal of Clinical Nephrology:
Thank you so much for your hard work and collaboration in bringing our article to life. Your staff was responsive, flexible, and communicative and made the process smooth and easy. Thank you!
Alejandro Munoz
Thank you very much for accepting our manuscript in your journal “International Journal of Clinical Virology”. We are very thankful to the esteemed team for timely response and quick review process. The editorial team of International Journal of Clinical Virology is too cooperative and well-mannered during the publication process. We are hopeful to publish many quality papers in your journal and I suggest the International Journal of Clinical Virology to all of my colleagues, researchers and friends to publish their research here.
Abdul Baset
We appreciate your approach to scholars and will encourage you to collaborate with your organization, which includes interesting and different medical journals.
With the best wishes of success, creativity and joy in life, prosperity in the medical field.
Ivano- Frankivsk National Medical University, Ukraine
Nataliya Kitsera
The service from the journal staff has been excellent.
Andy Smith
Submission of paper was smooth, the review process was fast. I had excellent communication and on time response from the editor.
Ayokunle Dada
I would like to thank JPRA for taking this decision. I understand the effort it represents for you. I'm truly happy to have the paper published in JPRA. And I'll certainly consider JPRA for my next publications as I was satisfied of the service provided, the efficiency and promptness of the interactions we had.
Emmanuel BUSATO
Submission of paper was smooth, the review process was fast. I had excellent communication and on time response from the editor.
Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria
Ayokunle Dada
"This is my first time publishing with the journal/publisher. I am impressed at the promptness of the publishing staff and the professionalism displayed. Thank you for encouraging young researchers like me!"
Ajite Kayode
Once I submitted the manuscript, the response time of the reviewers was very fast. The fine-tuning of the galley proof was likewise prompt. I believe the journal provide a valuable outlet to disseminate physical rehabilitation scientific knowledge to the clinical community.
Respectfully.
Dr. Alon
Alon
Journal of Pulmonary and Respiratory Research is good journal for respiratory research purposes. It takes 2-3 weeks maximum for review of the manuscript to get published and any corrections to be made in the manuscript. It needs good articles and studies to get publish in the respiratory medicine. I am really glad that this journal editors helped me to get my case report published.
If you are already a member of our network and need to keep track of any developments regarding a question you have already submitted, click "take me to my Query."