MechScience: For mechanician & mechanical science

By George A. Hazelrigg, National Science Foundation

TWELVE STEPS TO A WINNING RESEARCH PROPOSAL

I have been an NSF program director for 18 years. During this time, I have personally administered the review of some 3,000 proposals and been involved in the review of perhaps another 10,000. Through this experience, I have come to see that often there are real differences between winning proposals and losing proposals. The differences are clear. Largely, they are not subjective differences or differences of quality; to a large extent, losing proposals are just plain missing elements that are found in winning proposals. Although I have known this for some time, a recent experience reinforced it.

I was having lunch with a young faculty person who had come to NSF to sit on her first proposal review panel. I asked her what she had learned from the process. She quickly rattled off six or eight lessons she could take home. And they were all good lessons. My response was, “Good, just learn from this experience and don’t make the mistakes that the losing proposals made.” You can do the same, and vastly improve your chance of success in proposal writing. Just follow these twelve simple steps.

1. Know yourself: Know your area of expertise, what are your strengths and what are your weaknesses. Play to your strengths, not to your weaknesses. Do not assume that, because you do not understand an area, no one understands it or that there has been no previous research conducted in the area. If you want to get into a new area of research, learn something about the area before you write a proposal. Research previous work. Be a scholar.
2. Know the program from which you seek support: You are responsible for finding the appropriate program for support of your research. Don’t leave this task up to someone else. If you are not absolutely certain which program is appropriate, call the program officer to find out. Never submit a proposal to a program if you are not certain that it is the correct program to support your area of research. Proposals submitted inappropriately to programs may be returned without review, transferred to other programs where they are likely to be declined, or simply trashed in the program to which you submit. In any case, you have wasted your time writing a proposal that has no chance of success from the get-go.
3. Read the program announcement: Programs and special activities have specific goals and specific requirements. If you don’t meet those goals and requirements, you have thrown out your chance of success. Read the announcement for what it says, not for what you want it to say. If your research does not fit easily within the scope of the topic areas outlined, your chance of success is nil.
4. Formulate an appropriate research objective: A research proposal is a proposal to conduct research, not to conduct development or design or some other activity. Research is a methodical process of building upon previous knowledge to derive or discover new knowledge, that is, something that isn’t known before the research is conducted. In formulating a research objective, be sure that it hasn’t been proven impossible (for example, “My research objective is to find a geometric construction to trisect an angle”), that it is doable within a reasonable budget and in a reasonable time, that you can do it, and that it is research, not development.
5. Develop a viable research plan: A viable research plan is a plan to accomplish your research objective that has a non-zero probability of success. The focus of the plan must be to accomplish the research objective. In some cases, it is appropriate to validate your results. In such cases, a valid validation plan should be part of your research plan. If there are potential difficulties lurking in your plan, do not hide from them, but make them clear and, if possible, suggest alternative approaches to achieving your objective. A good research plan lays out step-by-step the approach to accomplishment of the research objective. It does not gloss over difficult areas with statements like, “We will use computers to accomplish this solution.”
6. State your research objective clearly in your proposal: A good research proposal includes a clear statement of the research objective. Early in the proposal is better than later in the proposal. The first sentence of the proposal is a good place. A good first sentence might be, “The research objective of this proposal is...” Do not use the word “develop” in the statement of your research objective. It is, after all, supposed to be a research objective, not a development objective. Many proposals include no statement of the research objective whatsoever. The vast majority of these are not funded. Remember that a research proposal is not a research paper. Do not spend the first 10 pages building up suspense over what is the research objective.
7. Frame your project around the work of others: Remember that research builds on the extant knowledge base, that is, upon the work of others. Be sure to frame your project appropriately, acknowledging the current limits of knowledge and making clear your contribution to the extension of these limits. Be sure that you include references to the extant work of others. Proposals that include references only to the work of the principle investigator stand a negligible probability of success. Also frame your project in terms of its broader impact to the field and to society. Describe the benefit to society if your project is successful. A good statement is, “If successful, the benefits of this research will be...”
8. Grammar and spelling count: Proposals are not graded on grammar. But if the grammar is not perfect, the result is ambiguities left to the reviewer to resolve. Ambiguities make the proposal difficult to read and often impossible to understand, and often result in low ratings. Be sure your grammar is perfect. Also be sure every word is correctly spelled. If the word you want to use is not in the spell checker, consider carefully its use. Not in the spell checker usually means that most people won’t understand it. With only very special exceptions, it is not advisable to use words that are not in the spell checker. Reviewers used to say, “He’s just an engineer. Don’t mind the fact that he can’t spell.” Now they say, “He’s proposing to do complex computer modeling, but he doesn’t know how to use the spell checker...”
9. Format and brevity are important: Do not feel that your proposal is rated based on its weight. Do not do your best to be as verbose as possible, to cover every conceivable detail, to use the smallest permissible fonts, and to get the absolute most out of each sheet of paper. Reviewers hate being challenged to read densely prepared text or to read obtusely prepared matter. Use 12-point fonts, use easily legible fonts, and use generous margins. Take pity on the reviewers. Make your proposal a pleasant reading experience that puts important concepts up front and makes them clear. Use figures appropriately to make and clarify points, but not as filler. Remember, you are writing this proposal to the reviewers, not to yourself. Remember that exceeding page limits or other format criteria, even marginally, can disqualify your proposal from consideration.
10. Know the review process: Know how your proposal will be reviewed before you write it. Proposals that are reviewed by panels must be written to a broader audience than proposals that will be reviewed by mail. Mail review can seek out reviewers with very specific expertise in very narrow disciplines. This is not possible in panels. Know approximately how many proposals will be reviewed with yours and plan not to overburden the reviewers with minutia. Keep in mind that, the more proposals a panel considers, the more difficult it will be for panelists to remember specific details of your proposal. Remember, the main objective here is to write your proposal to get it through the review process successfully. It is not the objective of your proposal to brag about yourself or your research, nor is it the objective to seek to publish your proposal. Again, your proposal is a proposal; it is not a research paper.
11. Proof read your proposal before it is sent: Many proposals are sent out with idiotic mistakes, omissions, and errors of all sorts. NSF program managers have seen proposals come in with research schedules pasted in from other proposals unchanged, with dates referring to the stone age and irrelevant research tasks. Proposals have been submitted with the list of references omitted and with the references not referred to. Proposals have been submitted to the wrong program. Proposals have been submitted with misspellings in the title. These proposals were not successful. Stupid things like this kill a proposal. It is easy to catch them with a simple, but careful, proof reading. Don’t spend six or eight weeks writing a proposal just to kill it with stupid mistakes that are easily prevented.
12. Submit your proposal on time: Duh? Why work for two months on a proposal just to have it disqualified for being late? Remember, fairness dictates that proposal submission rules must apply to everyone. It is not up to the discretion of the program officer to grant you dispensation on deadlines. That would be unfair to everyone else, and it could invalidate the entire competition. Equipment failures, power outages, hurricanes and tornadoes, and even internal problems at your institution are not valid excuses. As adults, you are responsible for getting your proposal in on time. If misfortune befalls you, it’s tough luck. Don’t take chances. Get your proposal in two or three days before the deadline.

These twelve steps are nothing more than common sense. They are so obvious that they hardly bear mention. What is more, they are all necessary conditions. If you fail on any one of these steps, you will reduce your chance of success to practically nothing. Think about it. If you were a reviewer, would you recommend for funding a proposal that doesn’t meet these criteria? So why then do fully half the proposals submitted flagrantly omit them? It’s a fact. Most proposals do not follow these simple steps for success. Therein lies your opportunity. If you take the time to follow these steps, your proposal will be that much better by comparison, and you will vastly increase your chance of success.

There is a dark side and a bright side to this. On the dark side, it is not easy to write a good proposal. It takes time and effort to assure that all the above steps are met. Indeed, it can take several months to prepare a good proposal. But, on the bright side, if you do take the time to write good proposals, you will have a much higher success rate, and overall you will spend a much smaller fraction of your life writing proposals. Taking the time to do it right really pays off.
There are two more things that you can do to vastly improve your prospects for success as an academic researcher. First, you have to know yourself as well as you can. Who are you ? Where are you going ? Where do you want to go ? I strongly urge people, especially young faculty just starting their careers, to write a strategic plan for their life. Where are you today? Where do you want to be in five years, ten years, and twenty years? Then create a roadmap of how to get from where you are to where you want to be in the future. The focus of this roadmap should be the things over which you have control, and it should acknowledge the things over which you have no control. If you can’t write such a plan, then your goals for the future are not realistic. You can revise the plan as often as you wish. But the fact that the plan exists will influence your proposal in a very positive way, as it will place the research project you propose into the broad context of your life plan.

Finally, no matter how much sense the above steps seem to make, everyone retains a bit of skepticism. “Hey, if this guy really knew what he was talking about, wouldn’t he be doing it rather than teaching it?” There is nothing quite like being on the other side of the fence to change your opinion of the process. Volunteer to be a reviewer yourself. It’s easy. Just volunteer. Then you will see how you judge proposals. You will see that your opinions are pretty much identical to the other reviewers, and that you rate proposals pretty much the same as everyone else. Then you will see for yourself that these twelve steps provide nothing more or less than what you would be looking for in someone else’s proposal that you are reviewing.

ICIG 2009 – the 5th International Conference on Image and Graphics will be held in Sep. 21-24, 2009, in Xi'an . Sponsored by the China Society of Image & Graphics, ICIG is the most comprehensive biennial conference focused on the various aspects of advances in Image and Graphics. The goal of this conference is to bring together the researchers from academia and industry as well as practitioners to share ideas, problems and solutions relating to the multifaceted aspects of image and graphics. This conference will feature world-class plenary speakers, exhibits, and a large number of oral and poster presentations.

第五届国际图象图形学术会议(ICIG’2009)将由中国图象图形学学会主办，西北工业大学承办，于2009年9月21日至24日在中国陕西省西安市召开，大会每两年举办一次，着重关注图象图形领域的各方面的进展。本次大会的目的是将集合学术界和工业界的研究员以及工作者来分享关于图形图像各方面的思想、问题以及解决方案。这个会议的特点是国际级的演讲者、展示作品，以及大量的口头和书面报告。

The conference seeks new and original contributions on any aspect of image and graphics including following topics:

• Image processing (Capture, Coding, Transmission, Storage, Enhancement, Restoration, Reconstruction, etc.)
• Image analysis (Segmentation, Representation, Description, Measurement, Texture, Motion, etc.)
• Image understanding (Matching, Fusion, Scene interpretation, 3-D modeling, etc.)
• Pattern recognition applications (Character, Speech, Image, Video, etc.)
• Computer vision (3-D, Active, Real-time, Stereo, Machine Learning, etc.)
• Computer Graphics (Models and generation, etc.)
• Visualization (algorithm, system, application)
• Virtual reality (Models, Augmented reality, Mixed Reality, Media immersion, etc.)
• Applications of Image and Graphics (Telecommunication, Bio-medical, Document, Remote sensing, Industrial, etc.)
• Data fusion (Character, Image, Video, target tracking based on image or video or speech, etc.)
• Game and Animation (Story-telling, game engine, 3D game, mobile game, animation, virtual human)
• Other related technology of image and graphic Papers in the main technical program must describe original research.

All the papers selected for the conference will be published in ICIG 2009 Proceedings which will be published by the IEEE Computer Society Press(USA).

会议内容包括：
（1）图象处理（采集、 储存、 编码、 传输、增强、恢复、重建等）
（2）图象分析（分割、 特征提取 、测量、表达、纹理 、运动等）
（3）图象理解（ 匹配、场景解释、 3-D 模型等）
（4）模式识别应用（ 文档、 语言、图象、视频等）
（5）计算机视觉（主动、实时、立体等）
（6）图形（模型和生成、 动画和可视化等）
（7）多媒体信息融合和处理 (数字视频、视觉信息发布等 )
（8）虚拟现实，增强现实和媒体沉浸
（9）多媒体数据库（管理、查询模型、索引、检索、挖掘等）
（10）网上图象图形技术应用
（11）游戏和动画（游戏引擎，3D游戏，移动游戏，动画，虚拟人）
（12）图象图形其它相关技术等。

• Submission of Papers : Jun.1, 2009
• Notification of Acceptance : Jul. 31, 2009
• Camera-Ready Copy : Aug. 20, 2009
• Author Registration : Aug.01, 2009
• Conference : Sep.21-Sep.24, 2009
  

重要日期：

• 投稿截至日期:Jun.01, 2009
• 稿件接受通知日期:Jul.31, 2009
• 正式稿件截至日期:Aug. 20, 2009

惠普与亚利桑那州立大学的软性显示器中心(Flexible Display Center，FDC) 日前宣布已开发出首款成本合理的软性电子显示产品原型。 软性显示器(flexible displays )为几乎完全以塑料为材料所制成的纸状计算机显示器。这项技术让显示器便得容易携带，同时相较今日的计算机显示器，也可消耗较低的电力。这项技术未来普遍的应用包括电子纸 ( electronic paper)和电子招牌 (signage)。 这项开发的成就代表了业界为高分辨率软性显示器创造大众市场的一个重要里程碑。除此之外，从环保的角度而言，这款显示器也跳脱了传统的显示器制程，节省了90%的材料使用量。 这类显示器的量产可以降低笔记型计算机、智能型手机和其它电子产品装置的生产成本，因为显示器一向是这类产品当中成本最为高昂的组件之一。 这款柔韧不易碎的显示器是由亚利桑那州立大学的软性显示器中心(FDC)和惠普使用由惠普实验室所研发的 self-aligned imprint lithography (SAIL) 技术开发完成的。SAIL之所以称为“自我校准”(self ali gned )，是因为其图型信息压印在基板上的方式能够不受处理引起(process-induced)的扭曲变形影响，而维持完美的校准。 SAIL 技术使得能够以低成本的卷对卷(roll-to-roll)制程，在软性塑料材料上制作薄膜晶体管数组。这么一来可以达成相较于片对片(sheet-to-sheet)的批量生产更符合成本效益的连续性生产。 “惠普与软性显示器中心(FDC)所开发的这款显示器证明了这项技术，并且展示了我们即将为不断快速成长中的显示器市场，所带来的卓越创新能力。”惠普实验室的Information Surfaces部门总监Carl Taussig表示，“除了提供较低成本的制程之外，SAIL技术也代表了一种更为永续、更为环保的电子显示器生产方式。”
软性显示器的生产
软性显示器的第一次实际演示是透过惠普和软性显示器中心(FDC)之间的协同合作所达成，同时也有赖其它软性显示器中心(FDC)合作伙伴，包括DuPont Teijin Films和E Ink公司的贡献。为了制造这款显示器，软性显示器中心(FDC)利用DuPont Teijin Films提供的软性Teonex®聚萘二甲酸乙二酯(Polyethylene Naphthalate ,PEN)基板， 在上面制造出半导体材料及金属堆栈。

之后惠普使用SAIL 流程压印基板，接着再整合E Ink的 Vizplex™ 影像薄膜，制造出主动式软性显示器。E Ink的 Vizplex双稳态电泳(bi-stable electrophoretic)影像薄膜能够在无需电压供应的情况下仍保留影像，进而大幅减少观看内容时的功率消耗。

“不使用光蚀刻技术的软性主动矩阵显示器充分展现了软性显示器中心 (FDC)世界级的开发与制造生产基础架构。”亚利桑那州立大学软性显示器中心工程部门总监Shawn O’Rourke表示，“其证明了多个工业合作伙伴可以如何在创新解决方案上面协同合作，包括利用卷对卷 (roll-to-roll)兼容技术以因应市场对软性电子产品快速成长的需求。” “软性电子显示器在全球高科技产业当中扮演着一个日益吃重的角色，对于推动包括电子阅读器(e-reader)与其它结合行动性与便利使用者接口的新一代可携式装置而言，是至关重要的一门科技。 ”

iSuppli的中小型显示器总分析师Vinita Jakhanwal表示，“我们预计软性显示器市场的规模将会从2007年的8000万美元，成长到2013年的28亿美元。亚利桑纳州立大学的软性显示器中心在此当中扮演重要的角色，协助开发相关科技与制造体系以支持本市场。” FDC是一个政府-大学-学术界的合作关系中心，其任务是推动发展全彩色软性电子显示技术并使之商业化。经由美国陆军和美国亚利桑那州立大学10年合作协议成立，而且FDC也与世界许多领先的显示技术、材料和工艺设备供货商有着密切的伙伴关系。

http://article.sichinamag.com/2008-12/20081211060331.htm

12月9日，中国科学技术信息研究所在北京公布了“2007年度中国科技论文统计结果”。2007年，SCI共收录中国科技论文94800篇，比2006年增长33.5%，排美国和英国之后居世界第三位；EI收录中国论文78200篇，比2006年增长20.3%，第一次超过美国，居世界第一位；ISTP收录中国论文45331篇，占世界总数的10.1%，排在世界第二位。
该统计结果显示，中国作者发表在国际主要科技期刊和重要会议上的论文共20.8万篇，比2006年增加3.6万篇，占世界比例的9.8%，比上一年增长了1.4%。按照国际论文数量排序，中国居世界第二位，与2006年相同。论文总数排在世界前5位的国家分别是美国、中国、日本、英国和德国。在2007年度的科技论文与引文统计工作中，国际论文数据主要取自3种在国际上颇具影响的检索工具：《科学引文索引》（SCI）、《工程索引》（EI）和《科学技术会议录索引》（ISTP）。
2007年，主要反映基础研究状况的SCI所收录的中国科技论文数达到94800万篇，占世界的7.5%，排在全球第三位，处于美国和英国之后。中国科技人员作为第一作者于2002年至2006年发表的SCI论文，在2007年被引用论文数量由64186篇增加到78852篇；被引用次数由171198次增加到216057次，增长率分别为22.4%和26.2%。
在反映工程科学研究情况的EI收录期刊论文中，2007年共收录中国论文78200篇，占世界论文总数的19.6%，第一次超过美国，排在世界第一位。
会议论文是除期刊以外，科研成果产出的一个重要补充。ISTP汇集了全世界每年出版的自然科学、医学、农学科学和工程技术领域90%的会议文献。2007年，ISTP共收录中国科技工作者在主要国际会议上发表的论文45331篇，占世界总数的10.1%，排在世界第二。中国的国际会议论文增长量大于世界平均水平。中国科技人员共参加了在73个国家（地区）召开的2416个国际会议。
2007年，SCI收录的中国内地论文中，国际合作产生的论文为20828篇。其中，中国学者为第一作者的国际合著论文11355篇，合作伙伴涉及90个国家（地区）；其他国家作者为第一作者、中国作者参与工作的国际合著论文为9473篇，合作伙伴涉及77个国家（地区）。
中国科技论文与引文数据库（CSTPCD）在2007年共收录1765种中国科技核心期刊。中国科技人员作为第一作者发表论文463122篇，与2006年相比增加了58264篇，增长了14.4%。海外科技人员作为第一作者发表论文3182篇，比2006年增加了232篇。
专利授权可以从另一个方面反映基础研究和应用的创新成果，12月9日公布的专利统计数据显示，2007年中国在美国专利商标局、日本专利局和欧洲专利局申请注册的专利共5714件，三方专利数为525件。

中国科学院仍是主力军
在公布的“2007年度中国科技论文统计结果”中，作为科研国家队的中国科学院在多项统计排名中继续位居前列。
2007年被SCI收录论文数最多的20个研究机构全部为中国科学院下属研究院所，共被收录论文6402篇。其中，中科院化学所位列第一，为650篇；中科院长春应用化学所为541篇，名列第二；中科院物理所、中科院上海生命科学院、中科院大连化物所和中科院金属所分列三至六位。中国科学技术大学在中国被SCI收录论文数最多的20所高校中，以1509篇名列第五。前4所高等学校分别是浙江大学、清华大学、上海交通大学和北京大学。
在2007年度中国被EI收录论文数最多的20个研究机构中，除排名第九的中国工程物理研究院外，其余均为中国科学院下属研究院所，共被收录论文4763篇。中科院化学所名列第一，被收录论文437篇；中科院金属所为414篇，名列第二；中科院长春应用化学所、中科院上海硅酸盐所、中科院物理所、中科院上海光学精密机械所分列三至六位。中国科学技术大学在中国被EI收录论文数最多的20所高校中以1101篇位列第十四。
在2007年度ISTP收录论文的排序中，前10位均为中国科学院下属研究院所，共被收录论文1201篇，中科院自动化所位列第一，为235篇。
值得一提的是，2007年度国际论文被引用篇数排名前20的研究机构全部为中科院所属研究院所，论文共计被引用12095篇，被引用次数达39645次。中国科学技术大学在2007年度国际论文被引用篇数排名前20所高校中位列第四，论文共计被引用2729篇，被引用次数8182次。

高校成果亦丰
2007年SCI收录论文数最多的前20所中国高等学校分别是浙江大学、清华大学、上海交通大学、北京大学、中国科技大学、复旦大学、南京大学、四川大学、哈尔滨工业大学、山东大学、华中科技大学、吉林大学、中山大学、大连理工大学、武汉大学、南开大学、中南大学、天津大学、西安交通大学和兰州大学。SCI共收录这20所高校论文28264篇。
清华大学、浙江大学和哈尔滨工业大学分列EI收录论文数最多的20所中国高等学校前3名，其中清华大学被EI收录论文3393篇。
在有关高等学校2007年国际科技会议论文数的统计分析中，清华大学、哈尔滨工业大学和浙江大学分列ISTP收录论文数最多的20所中国高等学校前3名，其中清华大学被ISTP收录论文1752篇。
在有关国内论文数的统计中，上海交通大学、华中科技大学和中南大学列国内论文数最多的前20所高校的前3名，上海交通大学等国内论文数最多的前20所高校2007年共发表论文86118篇。浙江大学、清华大学和北京大学成为2007年国际论文被引用数最多的前20所高校的前3名。浙江大学、北京大学和上海交通大学等20所高等院校成为2007年国内论文被引用次数最多的高校，其论文共被引用267603次。

Abstract：Many natural fruits and vegetables adopt an approximately spheroidal shape and are characterized by their distinct undulating topologies. We demonstrate that various global pattern features can be reproduced by anisotropic stress-driven buckles on spheroidal core/shell systems, which implies that the relevant mechanical forces might provide a template underpinning the topological conformation in some fruits and plants. Three dimensionless parameters, the ratio of effective size/thickness, the ratio of equatorial/polar radii, and the ratio of core/shell moduli, primarily govern the initiation and formation of the patterns. A distinct morphological feature occurs only when these parameters fall within certain ranges: In a prolate spheroid, reticular buckles take over longitudinal ridged patterns when one or more parameters become large. Our results demonstrate that some universal features of fruit/vegetable patterns (e.g., those observed in Korean melons, silk gourds, ribbed pumpkins, striped cavern tomatoes, and cantaloupes, etc.) may be related to the spontaneous buckling from mechanical perspectives, although the more complex biological or biochemical processes are involved at deep levels.

应力是影响有机与无机世界里各种生长过程的重要因素，因此是生长与形态研究所必须考虑的关键因素。近年来，国际上关于应力驱动结构失稳在薄膜上引起的各种花样的研究取得了许多重要的进展。这些研究对于理解各种花样包括皱纹、材料断裂、薄膜表面形貌提供了深入的认识。但是，在这些工作了所涉及的都是有开放边界的曲面或平面，它们在拓扑学上都是亏格数为1的表面。对于亏格数为0的闭合曲面上的应力屈曲形态及其在理解自然方面的意义则鲜有涉及。

该系列的最新研究工作以“Stress-driven buckling patterns in spheroidal core/shell structures”为题发表在美国《国家科学院院刊》 （PNAS 105，1932，2008）上 。

• Professor Jerrold E. Marsden

Carl F Braun Professor of Engineering and Control & Dynamical Systems, California Institute of Technology

Expertise

Mechanics, dynamics and control systems. Mechanical systems with symmetry analyzed using geometric, analytical, and computational techniques as well as dynamical systems, control theory, and bifurcation theory. Applications are made to a variety of engineering and spacecraft systems.

Research Areas

Jerrold Marsden is a professor of Control and Dynamical Systems at Caltech. He has done extensive research in the area of geometric mechanics, with applications to rigid body systems, fluid mechanics, elasticity theory, plasma physics, as well as to general field theory. His work in dynamical systems and control theory emphasizes how it relates to mechanical systems and systems with symmetry. He is one of the original founders in the early 1970's of reduction theory for mechanical systems with symmetry, which remains an active and much studied area of research today.

Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control(INTERNET SUPPLEMENT)

• Professor Joris Vankerschaver

I am a postdoc with Jerrold Marsden at CDS in Caltech. I'm a Fulbright fellow as well as a research assistant from the Research Foundation -- Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen). Before that I completed my Ph.D. thesis at Ghent University (Belgium) at the Department of Mathematical Physics and Astronomy.
My current research interests include the following (in order of definiteness):
Geometric reduction for solid bodies in vortical flow;
Variational principles in field theory and Dirac structures;
Space/time adapating discretizations of field theories;
Everything else :-)
I am currently in the process of migrating to a new website. In the meantime, you can consult my old webpage for my publications and information about classes I teach and upcoming conferences.

Editorial: Announcement of new topical section—Organic Electronics and Photonics

Nghi Q. Lam, Editor

Applied Physics Letters Editorial Office, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439-4843, USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The beginning of a New Year is now upon us. It brings with it new challenges and unlimited opportunities. We would like to take this occasion to wish our readers, authors, and reviewers peace, happiness, and success throughout 2008 and bright hopes for the future.

The enriching contributions of our authors from some 85 countries and the professional, dedicated participation of our many colleagues in the peer-review process over the years are the real source of strength and success of Applied Physics Letters. We would like to express our deepest gratitude for their enthusiasm, help, and constant support.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Starting with the first issue of 2008, Applied Physics Letters (APL) will carry a new Section Heading in its Table of Contents:

33—Organic Electronics and Photonics

to provide a common field for manuscripts in this subject category. APL has published many high-quality papers on organic light-emitting devices, thin-film transistors, memories, capacitors, photodiodes, and photovoltaic cells, etc., in the past, more and more in recent years; however, they appeared in various sections of the Journal's Table of Contents. By creating a new section for this particular category, we hope to bring these papers into focus and give them better visibility.

Grouped in this new section will be original, theoretical, and experimental research articles on the physics and engineering of new materials and device concepts for organic electronics and photonics. This subset of papers will eventually become the contents of a new APL-branded, online-only product, APL: Organic Electronics and Photonics (APL: OEP), starting in the early Summer of 2008. Subscribers to APL will automatically have access to this new product. It is hoped that APL: OEP, which will be organized into monthly issues and be complete with navigational and searching tools, will help to bring this subset of applied-physics articles to an even broader audience.

Submissions should be sent to the parent journal, APL, as usual. When APL: OEP has made its debut, new articles in this Journal will be published simultaneously with their appearance in the online version of APL. Citations to articles appearing in APL: OEP should be the standard citation in APL; this is the citation as it appears in the Table of Contents and the full text article.

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/APPLAB-ft/vol_92/iss_1/010401_1.html

中国力学学会学术大会2009首页：
http://www.cstam.org.cn/cstam2009/index.asp

分会场申请进展，比较集中某一子领域的讨论：
http://www.cstam.org.cn/cstam2009/detail.asp?classid=2&id=92

专题研讨会申请进展，即目前拥有的专题内容：
http://www.cstam.org.cn/cstam2009/detail.asp?classid=2&id=88

大会组委会：http://www.cstam.org.cn/cstam2009/about.asp?classid=3&id=10

主办单位：中国力学学会

承办单位：郑州大学

历届大会

• 中国力学学会学术大会’2007
• 中国力学学会学术大会’2005