Dear AAPS members–
Like many of us in the United States, I am looking forward to a long holiday weekend. While that always includes scouring my cookbooks for innovative family picnic recipes, on the scientific front I usually bookmark a hefty pile of articles from our journals to either help me round out what I've learned from recently attended events (The National Biotechnology Conference filled my notebook with a lot of questions and ideas!) or to prepare me for upcoming ones.
Just a few weeks ago, the graduate student and daughter of a friend confessed with equal parts pride and exhaustion at the time of her first publication that she wondered if work on review articles was "really worth it" and if they were as appreciated as publications of original data. I told her that in my opinion review articles give back to both the authors and the readers.
The benefit to readers is particularly pronounced in the pharmaceutical sciences because of the ever-growing complexity of our work. Most pharmaceutical scientists spend a significant amount of their careers in one area or discipline, but as drug discovery and development evolve over time, the need for cross-functional understanding and dialog also expands. This is an area where the wide scientific umbrella of AAPS is so helpful, especially as seen through our journals. A great example that I am currently reading is Yang et al.'s discussion of the evolving druggability and developability space – it is part of my preparation reading for PharmSci 360 in October, where I plan to dive into sessions on new modalities, including the exciting field of PROTACs. It was deeply satisfying to see the authors confirm my own observation that in the postgenomic era, and with recent changes in the approach to drug discovery and development, the gains in both the small molecule and biologics fields are converging on a shared, accelerated, knowledge application path.
For authors of reviews, the benefit is that they have to wrap their head around a particular area of science in the most intense way possible – first scanning the landscape; then gathering and digesting the seminal literature; and finally distilling their understanding of this tome of knowledge into key points that both bring a new reader into the middle of the field, and give well-versed experts in the area a fresh perspective, spurring innovative thoughts.
My NBC notebook contains many questions about the future of gene therapy. (Sidenote: if you registered for the NBC, you can review the recordings from the meeting until the 20th – and pack your own notebook with questions!) With that in mind I was happy to find another excellent review in The AAPS Journal, this one part of the theme issue celebrating women in the pharmaceutical sciences, guest edited by @Marilyn Morriss, @Diane Burgess and @Meena Subramanyam. Hui Zu and Denchen Gao take a comprehensive look at non-viral vectors in gene therapy. This could not be more timely as our field has been emboldened by the success of the novel vaccine vehicles used in the COVID-19 response. This review showcases how the convergence of the chemical and biological development fields accelerates the development of life-saving medicines.
As I look at my calendar (and see deadlines for my own presentations looming!), I am looking forward to the July and August Land O'Lakes conferences. The patient-centric development theme of the August conference has so many interesting facets that I am sure the conversation will carry forward into PharmSci 360 in the fall. In connection with the development and manufacturing challenges that come with patient-centric and personalized medicine approaches, I am intrigued by a second article from the same theme issue of The AAPS Journal mentioned above: Ivone, Yang, and Shen review recent advances in 3D printing for parenteral applications. I had not appreciated the full potential of this technology application before reading this article!
All this wonderful reading fills me with great joy about the richness of innovation in our field, as well as pride in the quality of our journals at AAPS! I am happy to report that Clarivate shares my impression of our journal quality: I have just been informed that The AAPS Journal (4.009), AAPS PharmSciTech (3.246) and Pharmaceutical Research (4.200) again increased their impact factors this past year – thank you, @Ho-Leung Fung @Robert Williams, and @Tonglei Li for your passionate dedication to the quality of our journals and kudos to @Matt Baughman and @Catherine Abbott from the AAPS Publications team.
I hope that as you enjoy your summer and perhaps a few quiet hours in your yard or on the beach, you'll pick up one of our great publications to let our science inspire you to look up and ahead!
Tina
Share your thoughts with Tina via the AAPS Community!