BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

David Jenkins

David Jenkins contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Digital Librariesphysics.acc-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Novel Materials and Concepts for Next-Generation High Power Target Applications

Novel beam-intercepting materials and targetry concepts are essential to improve the performance, reliability and operation lifetimes of next generation multi-megawatt (multi-MW) accelerator target facilities. The beam-intercepting materials and components must sustain an order-of-magnitude increase in particle beam intensities and are beyond the current state-of-the-art. With conventional materials already limiting the scope of experiments, it is crucial to investigate novel target materials, technologies and concepts that will satisfy the requirements and maximize the physics benefits of future energy and intensity frontier experiments. This paper provides an overview of the related targetry R&D required over the next 10 years to support and enable future high-power accelerator target facilities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Towards a Framework for the Design, Implementation and Reporting of Methodology Scoping Reviews

Background: In view of the growth of published papers, there is an increasing need for studies that summarise scientific research. An increasingly common review is a 'Methodology scoping review', which provides a summary of existing analytical methods, techniques and software, proposed or applied in research articles, which address an analytical problem or further an analytical approach. However, guidelines for their design, implementation and reporting are limited. Methods: Drawing on the experiences of the authors, which were consolidated through a series of face-to-face workshops, we summarise the challenges inherent in conducting a methodology scoping review and offer suggestions of best practice to promote future guideline development. Results: We identified three challenges of conducting a methodology scoping review. First, identification of search terms; one cannot usually define the search terms a priori and the language used for a particular method can vary across the literature. Second, the scope of the review requires careful consideration since new methodology is often not described (in full) within abstracts. Third, many new methods are motivated by a specific clinical question, where the methodology may only be documented in supplementary materials. We formulated several recommendations that build upon existing review guidelines. These recommendations ranged from an iterative approach to defining search terms through to screening and data extraction processes. Conclusion: Although methodology scoping reviews are an important aspect of research, there is currently a lack of guidelines to standardise their design, implementation and reporting. We recommend a wider discussion on this topic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access