Difference between revisions of "Main Page/Featured article of the week/2019"
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Added last week's article of the week) |
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Added last week's article of the week) |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<!-- Below this line begin pasting previous news --> | <!-- Below this line begin pasting previous news --> | ||
<h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: May 06–12:</h2> | <h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: July 08–14:</h2> | ||
'''"[[Journal:Smart information systems in cybersecurity: An ethical analysis|Smart information systems in cybersecurity: An ethical analysis]]"''' | |||
This report provides an overview of the current implementation of smart information systems (SIS) in the field of [[cybersecurity]]. It also identifies the positive and negative aspects of using SIS in cybersecurity, including ethical issues which could arise while using SIS in this area. One company working in the industry of telecommunications (Company A) is analysed in this report. Further specific ethical issues that arise when using SIS technologies in Company A are critically evaluated. Finally, conclusions are drawn on the case study, and areas for improvement are suggested. Increasing numbers of items are becoming connected to the internet. Cisco—a global leader in information technology, networking, and [[cybersecurity]]—estimates that more than 8.7 billion devices were connected to the internet by the end of 2012, a number that will likely rise to over 40 billion in 2020. ('''[[Journal:Smart information systems in cybersecurity: An ethical analysis|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: July 01–07:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig3 Mudge ScientificReports2018 8.png|240px]]</div> | |||
'''"[[Journal:Chemometric analysis of cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and domestication syndrome|Chemometric analysis of cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and domestication syndrome]]"''' | |||
''[[wikipedia:Cannabis|Cannabis]]'' is an interesting domesticated crop with a long history of cultivation and use. [[wikipedia:Cannabis strains|Strains]] have been selected through informal breeding programs with undisclosed parentage and criteria. The term “strain” refers to minor morphological differences and grower branding rather than distinct cultivated varieties. We hypothesized that strains sold by different licensed producers are chemotaxonomically indistinguishable and that the commercial practice of identifying strains by the ratio of total Δ9-[[wikipedia:Tetrahydrocannabinol|tetrahydrocannabinol]] (THC) and [[wikipedia:Cannabidiol|cannabidiol]] (CBD) is insufficient to account for the reported human health outcomes. We used targeted [[wikipedia:Metabolomics|metabolomics]] to analyze 11 known [[wikipedia:Cannabinoid|cannabinoid]]s and an untargeted metabolomics approach to identify 21 unknown cannabinoids. Five clusters of chemotaxonomically indistinguishable strains were identified from the 33 commercial products. Only three of the clusters produce cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) in significant quantities, while the other two clusters redirect metabolic resources toward the [[wikipedia:Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid|tetrahydrocannabinolic acid]] (THCA) production pathways. ('''[[Journal:Chemometric analysis of cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and domestication syndrome|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: June 24–30:</h2> | |||
'''"[[Journal:National and transnational security implications of asymmetric access to and use of biological data|National and transnational security implications of asymmetric access to and use of biological data]]"''' | |||
Biology and [[biotechnology]] have changed dramatically during the past 20 years, in part because of increases in computational capabilities and use of engineering principles to study biology. The advances in supercomputing, data storage capacity, and [[Cloud computing|cloud platforms]] enable scientists throughout the world to generate, analyze, share, and store vast amounts of data, some of which are biological and much of which may be used to understand the human condition, agricultural systems, evolution, and environmental ecosystems. These advances and applications have enabled: (1) the emergence of data science, which involves the development of new algorithms to analyze and [[Data visualization|visualize data]]; and (2) the use of engineering approaches to manipulate or create new biological organisms that have specific functions, such as production of industrial chemical precursors and development of environmental bio-based sensors. Several biological sciences fields harness the capabilities of computer, data, and engineering sciences, including synthetic biology, precision medicine, precision agriculture, and systems biology. These advances and applications are not limited to one country. This capability has economic and physical consequences but is vulnerable to unauthorized intervention. ('''[[Journal:National and transnational security implications of asymmetric access to and use of biological data|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: June 17–23:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Tab4 Wholey FrontPubHealth2019 6.jpg|240px]]</div> | |||
'''"[[Journal:Developing workforce capacity in public health informatics: Core competencies and curriculum design|Developing workforce capacity in public health informatics: Core competencies and curriculum design]]"''' | |||
We describe a master’s level [[public health informatics]] (PHI) curriculum to support workforce development. Public health decision-making requires intensive [[information management]] to organize responses to health threats and develop effective health education and promotion. PHI competencies prepare the public health workforce to design and implement these information systems. The objective for a master's and certificate in PHI is to prepare public health informaticians with the competencies to work collaboratively with colleagues in public health and other health professions to design and develop information systems that support population health improvement. The PHI competencies are drawn from computer, information, and organizational sciences. A curriculum is proposed to deliver the competencies, and the results of a pilot PHI program are presented. Since the public health workforce needs to use information technology effectively to improve population health, it is essential for public health academic institutions to develop and implement PHI workforce training programs. ('''[[Journal:Developing workforce capacity in public health informatics: Core competencies and curriculum design|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: June 10–16:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Schabacker FrontBioengBiotech2019 7.jpg|240px]]</div> | |||
'''"[[Journal:Assessing cyberbiosecurity vulnerabilities and infrastructure resilience|Assessing cyberbiosecurity vulnerabilities and infrastructure resilience]]"''' | |||
The convergence of advances in [[biotechnology]] with [[laboratory automation]], access to data, and computational biology has democratized biotechnology and accelerated the development of new therapeutics. However, increased access to biotechnology in the digital age has also introduced additional security concerns and ultimately spawned the new discipline of cyberbiosecurity, which encompasses [[cybersecurity]], cyber-physical security, and biosecurity considerations. With the emergence of this new discipline comes the need for a logical, repeatable, and shared approach for evaluating facility and system vulnerabilities to cyberbiosecurity threats. In this paper, we outline the foundation of an assessment framework for cyberbiosecurity, accounting for both security and resilience factors in the physical and cyber domains. This is a unique problem set, yet despite the complexity of the cyberbiosecurity field in terms of operations and governance, previous experience developing and implementing physical and cyber assessments applicable to a wide spectrum of critical infrastructure sectors provides a validated point of departure for a cyberbiosecurity assessment framework. ('''[[Journal:Assessing cyberbiosecurity vulnerabilities and infrastructure resilience|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: June 3–9:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Tab2 Haugsbakken NordicJOfSciTechStud2018 6-1.png|240px]]</div> | |||
'''"[[Journal:What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?|What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?]]"''' | |||
In recent years, several Norwegian public organizations have introduced enterprise social media platforms (ESMPs). The rationale for their implementation pertains to a goal of improving internal communications and work processes in organizational life. Such objectives can be attained on the condition that employees adopt the platform and embrace the practice of sharing. Although sharing work on ESMPs can bring benefits, making sense of the practice of sharing constitutes a challenge. In this regard, the paper performs an analysis on a case whereby an ESMP was introduced in a Norwegian public organization. The analytical focus is on the challenges and experiences of making sense of the practice of sharing. The research results show that users faced challenges in making sense of sharing. ('''[[Journal:What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: May 27–June 2:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Murch FrontBioengBiotech2019 6.jpg|240px]]</div> | |||
'''"[[Journal:Cyberbiosecurity: An emerging new discipline to help safeguard the bioeconomy|Cyberbiosecurity: An emerging new discipline to help safeguard the bioeconomy]]"''' | |||
Cyberbiosecurity is being proposed as a formal new enterprise which encompasses cybersecurity, cyber-physical security, and biosecurity as applied to biological and biomedical-based systems. In recent years, an array of important meetings and public discussions, commentaries, and publications have occurred that highlight numerous vulnerabilities. While necessary first steps, they do not provide a systematized structure for effectively promoting communication, education and training, elucidation, and prioritization for analysis, research, development, testing and evaluation, and implementation of scientific and technological standards of practice, policy, or regulatory or legal considerations for protecting the bioeconomy. Further, experts in biosecurity and cybersecurity are generally not aware of each other's domains, expertise, perspectives, priorities, or where mutually supported opportunities exist for which positive outcomes could result. ('''[[Journal:Cyberbiosecurity: An emerging new discipline to help safeguard the bioeconomy|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: May 20–26:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Duncan FrontBioengBiotech2019 7.jpg|240px]]</div> | |||
'''"[[Journal:Cyberbiosecurity: A new perspective on protecting U.S. food and agricultural system|Cyberbiosecurity: A new perspective on protecting U.S. food and agricultural system]]"''' | |||
Our national data and infrastructure security issues affecting the “bioeconomy” are evolving rapidly. Simultaneously, the conversation about cybersecurity of the U.S. [[Agriculture industry|food and agricultural system]] (cyber biosecurity) is incomplete and disjointed. The food and agricultural production sectors influence over 20% of the nation's economy ($6.7T) and 15% of U.S. employment (43.3M jobs). The food and agricultural sectors are immensely diverse, and they require advanced technologies and efficiencies that rely on computer technologies, big data, [[Cloud computing|cloud-based]] data storage, and internet accessibility. There is a critical need to safeguard the cyber biosecurity of our bioeconomy, but currently protections are minimal and do not broadly exist across the food and agricultural system. Using the food safety management Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system concept as an introductory point of reference, we identify important features in broad food and agricultural production and food systems: dairy, food animals, row crops, fruits and vegetables, and environmental resources (water). ('''[[Journal:Cyberbiosecurity: A new perspective on protecting U.S. food and agricultural system|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: May 13–19:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Perez-Castillo Sensors2018 18-9.png|240px]]</div> | |||
'''"[[Journal:DAQUA-MASS: An ISO 8000-61-based data quality management methodology for sensor data|DAQUA-MASS: An ISO 8000-61-based data quality management methodology for sensor data]]"''' | |||
The [[internet of things]] (IoT) introduces several technical and managerial challenges when it comes to the use of data generated and exchanged by and between various smart, connected products (SCPs) that are part of an IoT system (i.e., physical, intelligent devices with sensors and actuators). Added to the volume and the heterogeneous exchange and consumption of data, it is paramount to [[Quality assurance|assure]] that data quality levels are maintained in every step of the data chain/lifecycle. Otherwise, the system may fail to meet its expected function. While data quality (DQ) is a mature field, existing solutions are highly heterogeneous. Therefore, we propose that companies, developers, and vendors should align their data quality management mechanisms and artifacts with well-known best practices and [[Specification (technical standard)|standards]], as for example, those provided by ISO 8000-61. This standard enables a process-approach to data quality management, overcoming the difficulties of isolated data quality activities. This paper introduces DAQUA-MASS, a methodology based on ISO 8000-61 for data quality management in sensor networks. ('''[[Journal:DAQUA-MASS: An ISO 8000-61-based data quality management methodology for sensor data|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
|- | |||
|<br /><h2 style="font-size:105%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; width:50%;">Featured article of the week: May 06–12:</h2> | |||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig17 Pinheiro Sensors2018 18-3.png|240px]]</div> | <div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig17 Pinheiro Sensors2018 18-3.png|240px]]</div> | ||
'''"[[Journal:Security architecture and protocol for trust verifications regarding the integrity of files stored in cloud services|Security architecture and protocol for trust verifications regarding the integrity of files stored in cloud services]]"''' | '''"[[Journal:Security architecture and protocol for trust verifications regarding the integrity of files stored in cloud services|Security architecture and protocol for trust verifications regarding the integrity of files stored in cloud services]]"''' |
Revision as of 16:00, 15 July 2019
If you're looking for other "Article of the Week" archives: 2014 - 2015 - 2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 |
Featured article of the week archive - 2019
Welcome to the LIMSwiki 2019 archive for the Featured Article of the Week.
Featured article of the week: July 08–14:"Smart information systems in cybersecurity: An ethical analysis" This report provides an overview of the current implementation of smart information systems (SIS) in the field of cybersecurity. It also identifies the positive and negative aspects of using SIS in cybersecurity, including ethical issues which could arise while using SIS in this area. One company working in the industry of telecommunications (Company A) is analysed in this report. Further specific ethical issues that arise when using SIS technologies in Company A are critically evaluated. Finally, conclusions are drawn on the case study, and areas for improvement are suggested. Increasing numbers of items are becoming connected to the internet. Cisco—a global leader in information technology, networking, and cybersecurity—estimates that more than 8.7 billion devices were connected to the internet by the end of 2012, a number that will likely rise to over 40 billion in 2020. (Full article...)
|