0 Flares 0 Flares ×

We are back after a longer while than we expected. As with redox processes themselves, this delay was caused by good and bad things. The bad ones were a recurrent problem with our server, which caused our Newsletter to repeatedly get out of access. Hopefully it will be stable from now on, just as we hope to happen with redox homeostasis. The good things were recurrent bouts of very very hard work for our Editor, as well as for our colleagues, as chairs and organizers of international meetings, editors, authors of original as well as review articles, assistants for our research agencies , etc in addition of course to the usual duties at our universities. Similar to redox processes, we hope that this stress can translate itself into a protective hormetic response that will keep us healthier and healthier. Indeed, this reflects the high speed at which our Redoxoma group keeps working and growing at all levels. And our enthusiasm, I believe. This is seen throughout this issue in the works that have appeared in press and are commented here, either a nice interview or as brief notes. And there are other works waiting to be discussed here, plus other ones in the pipeline. This number also brings some comments about good science practices – the importance of keeping a good lab notebook. And some critical discussion about impact factors which we borrowed (with kind permission) from Gregory Petsko and will hopefully ignite some controversy… Just as with redox processes, opposing pro and anti-forces determine the dynamic equilibrium and we hope that this discussion will motivate some colleagues to contribute with future notes to our newletter. Welcome!

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 0 Email -- 0 Flares ×
Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *