Search

The scientific publication landscape is changing quickly, with an enormous increase in options and models. Articles can be published in a complex variety of journals that differ in their presentation format (online-only or in-print), editorial organizations that maintain them (commercial and/or society-based), editorial handling (academic or professional editors), editorial board composition (academic or professional), payment options to cover editorial costs (open access or pay-to-read), indexation, visibility, branding, and other aspects. Additionally, online submissions of non-revised versions of manuscripts prior to seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal (a practice known as pre-printing) are a growing trend in biological sciences. In this changing landscape, researchers in biochemistry and molecular biology must re-think their priorities in terms of scientific output dissemination. The evaluation processes and institutional funding for scientific publications should also be revised accordingly. This article presents the results of discussions within the Department of Biochemistry, University of Sao Paulo, on this subject.

Highlights • Segmented peer review is a new process for multidisciplinary research submissions • It explicitly allocates segments of a manuscript to appropriate expert reviewers • Reviewers focus on segments of the manuscript within their specialty • Editors integrate segmented reviews for final decision (publish, revise, or reject) • Reduces barriers to publication inherent in multidisciplinary research, We propose a new process for peer review of multidisciplinary journal submissions called ‘segmented peer review’. The current translational research environment increasingly requires complex and multidisciplinary studies that span multiple distinct specialties within a single paper. Such papers present logistic and practical barriers to effective peer review. To address these barriers, papers undergoing segmented peer review require authors to explicitly i) identify each of the areas of expertise required to review the paper, ii) direct each reviewer to the relevant portions of the manuscript, and iii) suggest in-field reviewers. This segmentation of the paper is then followed by a ‘segmented peer review request’ tailored to the expertise of each potential reviewer, with a request to confine his / her review to those ‘in-scope’ aspects of the paper, while de-emphasizing any optional ‘out-of-scope’ comments. Each reviewer indicates the fitness for publication, or suitability for revision, of their particular segment of the manuscript. The segmented peer review process is completed when the editors integrate the segmented peer reviews. We propose segmented peer review as a fit-for-purpose process with tangible advantages for authors, reviewers, and journal editors. It should reduce the specific barriers to publication inherent in the evaluation of multidisciplinary research efforts., Graphical abstract Image, graphical abstract

Papers describing software are an important part of computational fields of scientific research. These “software papers” are unique in a number of ways, and they require special consideration to improve their impact on the scientific community and their efficacy at conveying important information. Here, we discuss 10 specific rules for writing software papers, covering some of the different scenarios and publication types that might be encountered, and important questions from which all computational researchers would benefit by asking along the way., Author summary Computational researchers have a responsibility to ensure that the software they write stands up to the same scientific scrutiny as traditional research studies. These 10 simple rules make doing so easier by enhancing usability, reproducibility, transparency, and other crucial characteristics that aren’t taught in most computer science or research methods curricula.

String of publications describes attempts — mostly unsuccessful — to use proposed CRISPR rival.

Journal publication of material presented at medical conferences is vital in propagating research to the global community. The peer review process provides a rigorous assessment and critique of scientific methodology and helps ensure research remains relevant. Therefore, journal publication rates of material presented at meetings is a significant marker of the research quality of the meetings and their participants (1). Impact factors (IF) of journals are determined by dividing the number of citations articles receive by the number of citable articles over a period of time and is considered a marker of the scientific quality of a journal (2). The IF of the journal in which an article is published is therefore a partial marker of the scientific quality of that study.

Background: Motor complications are a consequence of the chronic dopaminergic treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and include levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LIDs) and motor fluctuations (MF). Currently, evidence is on lacking whether patients with GBA-associated PD differ in their risk of developing motor complications compared to the general PD population. Objective: To evaluate the association of GBA carrier status with the development of LIDS and MFs from early PD. Methods: Motor complications were recorded prospectively in 884 patients with PD from four longitudinal cohorts using part IV of the UPDRS or MDS-UPDRS. Subjects were followed for up to 11 years and the associations of GBA mutations with the development of motor complications were assessed using parametric accelerated failure time models. Results: In 439 patients from Europe, GBA mutations were detected in 53 (12.1%) patients and a total of 168 cases of LIDs and 258 cases of MF were observed. GBA carrier status was not associated with the time to develop LIDs (HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.47 to 1.26, p = 0.30) or MF (HR 1.19, 95%CI 0.84 to 1.70, p = 0.33). In the American cohorts, GBA mutations were detected in 36 (8.1%) patients and GBA carrier status was also not associated with the progression to LIDs (HR 1.08, 95%CI 0.55 to 2.14, p = 0.82) or MF (HR 1.22, 95%CI 0.74 to 2.04, p = 0.43). Conclusion: This study does not provide evidence that GBA-carrier status is associated with a higher risk of developing motor complications. Publication of studies with null results is vital to develop an accurate summary of the clinical features that impact patients with GBA-associated PD. publishedVersion

To have a successful publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a collection of factors and items is needed. Some of them directly and the others indirectly have important roles in scholarly publication. However, a well-designed scientific investigation together with a powerful academic English language may guarantee the publication of a manuscript. In other words, a standard and professional methodology which is expressed by an influent academic English language constitutes the soul of the manuscript's body. Obviously, the accuracy and fluency of the English language of the manuscript is the author(s)' responsibility and neither the reviewers' nor the editor's and the journal's. As publication of a research paper is the complementary section of a scientific study, it is recognized as an academic criterion for academicians. Thus, this review focuses on the all of items which are necessary and vital for a successful scholarly publication.

According to several recent studies, an unexpectedly high number of landmark papers seem to be not reproducible by independent laboratories. Nontherapeutic antibodies used for research, diagnostic, food analytical, environmental, and other purposes play a significant role in this matter. Although some papers have been published offering suggestions to improve the situation, they do not seem to be comprehensive enough to cover the full complexity of this issue. In addition, no obvious improvements could be noticed in the field as yet. This article tries to consolidate the remarkable variety of conclusions and suggested activities into a more coherent conception. It is concluded that funding agencies and journal publishers need to take first and immediate measures to resolve these problems and lead the way to a more sustainable way of bioanalytical research, on which all can rely with confidence.

The paper analyzes various viewpoints on applicability of preprints used to exchange data on the following: how a non-peer-reviewed paper affects the way preprints are perceived in various sciences, how the academic community tackles the issue of evaluating preprints, how publishers treat preprints, how external factors affect the development of preprints, and who is responsible for the quality of preprints. The timeline has been identified for the development of preprints between 1940s and 2020. The development of preprints has been analyzed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data has been provided on current platforms and tools that can be used to work with preprints and to evaluate them.

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one’s DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data’s being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our “Your DNA, Your Say” study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one’s DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data’s being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our “Your DNA, Your Say” study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

Diabetes Mellitus is commonly known as diabetes. It is one of the most chronic diseases as the World Health Organization (WHO) report shows that the number of diabetes patients has risen from 108 million to 422 million in 2014. Early diagnosis of diabetes is important because it can cause different diseases that include kidney failure, stroke, blindness, heart attacks, and lower limb amputation. Different diabetes diagnosis models are found in literature, but there is still a need to perform a survey to analyze which model is best. This paper performs a literature review for diabetes diagnosis approaches using Artificial Intelligence (neural networks, machine learning, deep learning, hybrid methods, and/or stacked-integrated use of different machine learning algorithms). More than thirty-five papers have been shortlisted that focus on diabetes diagnosis approaches. Different datasets are available online for the diagnosis of diabetes. Pima Indian Diabetes Dataset (PIDD) is the most commonly used for diabetes prediction. In contrast with other datasets, it has key factors which play an important role in diabetes diagnosis. This survey also throws light on the weaknesses of the existing approaches that make them less appropriate for a diabetes diagnosis. In artificial intelligence techniques, deep learning is widespread and in medical research, heart rate is getting more attention. Deep learning combined with other algorithms can give better results in diabetes diagnosis and heart rate should be used for other cardiac disease diagnoses.

Loos, Ruth J F/0000-0002-8532-5087; Huibregtse, Brooke M./0000-0003-0977-7249; Kandler, Christian/0000-0002-9175-235X; Hjelmborg, Jacob/0000-0001-9630-9149; mangino, massimo/0000-0002-2167-7470; Siribaddana, Sisira/0000-0001-5821-2557; Plomin, Robert/0000-0002-0756-3629; Latvala, Antti/0000-0001-5695-117X; Kaprio, Jaakko/0000-0002-3716-2455; Willemsen, Gonneke/0000-0003-3755-0236; Tan, Qihua/0000-0003-3194-0030; Pahlen, Shandell/0000-0003-0753-4155; Pedersen, Nancy/0000-0001-8057-3543; Haworth, Claire/0000-0002-8608-289X; Nistico, Lorenza/0000-0003-1805-6240; Skytthe, Axel/0000-0002-8629-4913; van Beijsterveldt, Toos/0000-0002-6617-4201; Rebato, Esther/0000-0003-1221-8501; Li, Lintao/0000-0002-0604-9660; Bartels, Meike/0000-0002-9667-7555; Silventoinen, Karri/0000-0003-1759-3079; Cunha Oliveira, Vinicius/0000-0002-8658-3774; Sund, Reijo/0000-0002-6268-8117; Sodemann, Morten/0000-0001-8992-2500; Rasmussen, Finn/0000-0001-7915-7809; Harden, Kathryn/0000-0002-1557-6737; Medda, Emanuela/0000-0003-4837-4549; Kyvik, Kirsten Ohm/0000-0003-2981-0245; Colodro Conde, Lucia/0000-0002-9004-364X WOS: 000517442200060 PubMed: 31364586 The COllaborative project of Development of Anthropometrical measures in Twins (CODATwins) project is a large international collaborative effort to analyze individual-level phenotype data from twins in multiple cohorts from different environments. The main objective is to study factors that modify genetic and environmental variation of height, body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) and size at birth, and additionally to address other research questions such as long-term consequences of birth size. The project started in 2013 and is open to all twin projects in the world having height and weight measures on twins with information on zygosity. Thus far, 54 twin projects from 24 countries have provided individual-level data. The CODATwins database includes 489,981 twin individuals (228,635 complete twin pairs). Since many twin cohorts have collected longitudinal data, there is a total of 1,049,785 height and weight observations. For many cohorts, we also have information on birth weight and length, own smoking behavior and own or parental education. We found that the heritability estimates of height and BMI systematically changed from infancy to old age. Remarkably, only minor differences in the heritability estimates were found across cultural-geographic regions, measurement time and birth cohort for height and BMI. In addition to genetic epidemiological studies, we looked at associations of height and BMI with education, birth weight and smoking status. Within-family analyses examined differences within same-sex and opposite-sex dizygotic twins in birth size and later development. The CODATwins project demonstrates the feasibility and value of international collaboration to address gene-by-exposure interactions that require large sample sizes and address the effects of different exposures across time, geographical regions and socioeconomic status. Academy of FinlandAcademy of Finland [266592, 100499, 205585, 118555, 141054, 265240, 263278, 264146]; Osaka University's International Joint Research Promotion Program; Centre of Research Excellence Grant from the National Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1079102]; National Institutes of HealthUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA [R01 HD068435, R01 MH062375, 1R01ESO15150-01, R21 AG039572]; National Medical Research Council Research Fellowship; California Tobacco-Related Disease Research ProgramUniversity of California System [7RT-0134H, 8RT-0107H, 6RT-0354H]; National Institute on AgingUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute on Aging (NIA) [1RO1-AG13662-01A2]; Swedish Research Council through the Swedish Initiative for Research on Microdata in the Social And Medical Sciences (SIMSAM) [340-2013-5867]; Swedish Heart-Lung FoundationSwedish Heart-Lung Foundation; Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association's Research Foundation; Special Fund for Health Scientific Research in the Public Welfare, China [201502006]; NIDAUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [DA011015, HD10333]; National Program for Research Infrastructure 2007 from the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation; Research Council for Health and Disease; Velux Foundation; US National Institute of HealthUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA [P01 AG08761]; Fund of Scientific Research, FlandersFWO; ENGAGE - European Network for Genetic and Genomic Epidemiology, FP7-HEALTH-F4-2007 [201413]; National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism (NIAAA) [AA-12502, AA-00145, AA-09203]; Academy of Finland Center of Excellence in Complex Disease GeneticsAcademy of Finland [213506, 129680]; Cancer Research UKCancer Research UK [C1418/A7974]; W T Grant Foundation; University of London Central Research fund; Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council UK (MRC) [G81/343, G120/635]; Economic and Social Research CouncilEconomic & Social Research Council (ESRC) [RES-000-22-2206]; Institute of Social Psychiatry [06/07-11]; Leverhulme Research FellowshipLeverhulme Trust [RF/2/RFG/2008/0145]; Goldsmiths, University of London; UK Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council UK (MRC) [MR/M021475/1, G0901245]; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London; NIHUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA [R01AG053217, RC2 HL103416]; National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China [81125007]; Global Research Network Program of the National Research Foundation [NRF 2011-220-E00006]; European Research Council (ERC)European Research Council (ERC) [240994]; Michigan State University; National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)United States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [R01-MH081813, R01-MH0820-54, R01-MH092377-02, R21-MH070542-01, R03-MH63851-01, 1R01-MH118848-01]; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [R01-HD066040]; MSU Foundation [11-SPG-2518]; Fundacion Seneca, Regional Agency for Science and Technology, Murcia, Spain [08633/PHCS/08, 15302/PHCS/10, 19479/PI/14]; Ministry of Science and Innovation, SpainSpanish Government [PSI2009-11560, PSI2014-56680-R]; MagW/ZonMW [904-61-090, 985-10-002, 912-10-020, 904-61-193, 480-04-004, 463-06-001, 451-04-034, 400-05-717, Addiction-31160008, Middelgroot-911-09-032, Spinozapremie 56-464-14192]; European Research CouncilEuropean Research Council (ERC) [ERC-230374]; JSPS KAKENHI JP [23593419, 24792601, 26671010, 24590695, 26293128, 16K15385, 16K15978, 16K15989, 16H03261]; Australian National Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [437015, 607358]; Bonnie Babes Foundation [BBF20704]; Financial Markets Foundation for Children [032-2007]; Victorian Government; Portuguese agency for research (The Foundation for Science and Technology [FCT]) [POCI/DES/56834/2004]; Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust; Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council UK (MRC); European UnionEuropean Union (EU); National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)National Institute for Health Research (NIHR); King's College London; Fonds Quebecois de la Recherche sur la Societe et la CultureFQRNT; Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du QuebecFonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec; Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada; National Health Research Development Program; Canadian Institutes for Health ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); Sainte-Justine Hospital's Research Center; Canada Research Chair ProgramCanada Research Chairs; National Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-371-2011-1 B00047]; Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council [2017-00641]; UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [31/D19086]; MRCMedical Research Council UK (MRC) [MR/M021475/1]; Krkkale University [2009/43]; TUBITAKTurkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu (TUBITAK) [114C117]; National Institute of Mental HealthUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [R01 MH58354]; National Institute of HealthUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA [NIA R01 AG018384, R01 AG018386, R01 AG022381, R01 AG022982]; VA San Diego Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health; Cooperative Studies Program of the Office of Research & Development of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (MEXT)Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [15H05105]; Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust; Stockholm County Council (ALF-projects)Stockholm County Council; Twins, a nonprofit Association for Scientific Research in Multiple Births (Belgium); [5T32DA017637]; [5T32AG052371] This study was conducted within the CODATwins project (Academy of Finland #266592). K Silventoinen is supported by Osaka University's International Joint Research Promotion Program. This research was facilitated through access to Twins Research Australia, a national resource supported by a Centre of Research Excellence Grant (ID: 1079102), from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Boston University Twin Project is funded by grants (#R01 HD068435 #R01 MH062375) from the National Institutes of Health to K. Saudino. Paulo Ferreira is funded by a National Medical Research Council Research Fellowship. California Twin Program was supported by The California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (7RT-0134H, 8RT-0107H, 6RT-0354H) and the National Institutes of Health (1R01ESO15150-01).; The Carolina African American Twin Study of Aging (CAATSA) was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (grant 1RO1-AG13662-01A2) to K. E. Whitfield. The CATSS-Study is supported by the Swedish Research Council through the Swedish Initiative for Research on Microdata in the Social And Medical Sciences (SIMSAM) framework grant no 340-2013-5867, grants provided by the Stockholm County Council (ALF-projects), the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association's Research Foundation.; Chinese National Twin Registry is funded by Special Fund for Health Scientific Research in the Public Welfare (Project No: 201502006), China. Colorado Twin Registry is funded by NIDA-funded center grant DA011015, & Longitudinal Twin Study HD10333; Author Huibregtse is supported by 5T32DA017637 and 5T32AG052371. Danish Twin Registry is supported by the National Program for Research Infrastructure 2007 from the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, The Research Council for Health and Disease, the Velux Foundation and the US National Institute of Health (P01 AG08761). Since its origin, the East Flanders Prospective Survey has been partly supported by grants from the Fund of Scientific Research, Flanders and Twins, a nonprofit Association for Scientific Research in Multiple Births (Belgium). Data collection and analyses in Finnish twin cohorts have been supported by ENGAGE - European Network for Genetic and Genomic Epidemiology, FP7-HEALTH-F4-2007, grant agreement number 201413, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grants AA-12502, AA-00145 and AA-09203 to R J Rose, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence in Complex Disease Genetics (grant numbers: 213506, 129680), and the Academy of Finland (grants 100499, 205585, 118555, 141054, 265240, 263278 and 264146 to J Kaprio). Gemini was supported by a grant from Cancer Research UK (C1418/A7974). Waves 1-3 of Genesis 12-19 were funded by the W T Grant Foundation, the University of London Central Research fund and a Medical Research Council Training Fellowship (G81/343) and Career Development Award (G120/635) to Thalia C. Eley. Wave 4 was supported by grants from the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-22-2206) and the Institute of Social Psychiatry (06/07-11) to Alice M. Gregory, who was also supported at that time by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship (RF/2/RFG/2008/0145). Wave 5 was supported by funding to Alice M. Gregory from Goldsmiths, University of London. T. C. Eley is partly funded by a program grant from the UK Medical Research Council (MR/M021475/1).; This study presents independent research [partly] funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The Minnesota Twin Registry (MTR) acknowledges support from NIH grant R01AG053217. Guangzhou Twin Eye Study is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant #81125007). Anthropometric measurements of the Hungarian twins were supported by Medexpert Ltd., Budapest, Hungary. Korean Twin-Family Register was supported by the Global Research Network Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF 2011-220-E00006). Longitudinal Israeli Study of Twins was funded by the Starting Grant no. 240994 from the European Research Council (ERC) to Ariel Knafo. The Michigan State University Twin Registry has been supported by Michigan State University, as well as grants R01-MH081813, R01-MH0820-54, R01-MH092377-02, R21-MH070542-01, R03-MH63851-01 and 1R01-MH118848-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), R01-HD066040 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 11-SPG-2518 from the MSU Foundation. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIMH, the NICHD or the National Institutes of Health. The Murcia Twin Registry is supported by Fundacion Seneca, Regional Agency for Science and Technology, Murcia, Spain (08633/PHCS/08, 15302/PHCS/10 & 19479/PI/14) and Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain (PSI2009-11560 & PSI2014-56680-R). The NAS-NRC Twin Registry acknowledges financial support from the National Institutes of Health grant number R21 AG039572. Netherlands Twin Register acknowledges the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and MagW/ZonMW grants 904-61-090, 985-10-002, 912-10-020, 904-61-193,480-04-004, 463-06-001, 451-04-034, 400-05-717, Addiction-31160008, Middelgroot-911-09-032, Spinozapremie 56-464-14192; VU University's Institute for Health and Care Research (EMGO+); the European Research Council (ERC-230374), the Avera Institute, Sioux Falls, South Dakota (USA). Osaka University Aged Twin Registry is supported by grants from JSPS KAKENHI JP (23593419, 24792601, 26671010, 24590695, 26293128, 16K15385, 16K15978, 16K15989, 16H03261). PETS was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (grant numbers 437015 and 607358 to JC, and RS), the Bonnie Babes Foundation (grant number BBF20704 to JMC), the Financial Markets Foundation for Children (grant no. 032-2007 to JMC), and by the Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program.; Madeira data comes from the following project: Genetic and environmental influences on physical activity, fitness and health: the Madeira family study Project reference: POCI/DES/56834/2004 Founded by the Portuguese agency for research (The Foundation for Science and Technology [FCT]). TwinsUK receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council and European Union.; TwinsUK and M. Mangino are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded BioResource, Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The Quebec Newborn Twin Study acknowledges financial support from the Fonds Quebecois de la Recherche sur la Societe et la Culture, the Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the National Health Research Development Program, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Sainte-Justine Hospital's Research Center, and the Canada Research Chair Program (Michel Boivin). South Korea Twin Registry is supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-371-2011-1 B00047). We acknowledge The Swedish Twin Registry for access to data. The Swedish Twin Registry is managed by Karolinska Institutet and receives funding through the Swedish Research Council under the grant no. 2017-00641.; The Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) is supported by a program grant (G0901245) from the UK Medical Research Council and the work on obesity in TEDS is supported in part by a grant from the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (31/D19086). Currently TEDS is supported by MRC grant 'MR/M021475/1'. The Texas Twin Project is currently funded by grant R01HD083613 from the National Institutes of Health. S. Y. oncel and F. Aliev are supported by Krkkale University Research Grant: KKU, 2009/43 and TUBITAK grant 114C117. The University of Southern California Twin Study is funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH58354). Washington State Twin Registry (formerly the University of Washington Twin Registry) was supported in part by grant NIH RC2 HL103416 (D. Buchwald, PI). Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging was supported by National Institute of Health grants NIA R01 AG018384, R01 AG018386, R01 AG022381 and R01 AG022982, and, in part, with resources of the VA San Diego Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health. The Cooperative Studies Program of the Office of Research & Development of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs has provided financial support for the development and maintenance of the Vietnam Era Twin (VET) Registry. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIA/NIH, or the VA. The West Japan Twins and Higher Order Multiple Births Registry was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (grant number 15H05105) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

This historical analysis indicates that it is highly unlikely that the Nobel Prize winning research of Hermann J. Muller was peer-reviewed. The published paper of Muller lacked a research methods section, cited no references, and failed to acknowledge and discuss the work of Gager and Blakeslee (PNAS 13:75-79, 1927) that claimed to have induced gene mutation via ionizing radiation six months prior to Muller’s non-data Science paper (Muller, Science 66(1699):84-87, 1927a). Despite being well acclimated into the scientific world of peer-review, Muller choose to avoid the peer-review process on his most significant publication. It appears that Muller’s actions were strongly influenced by his desire to claim primacy for the discovery of gene mutation. The actions of Muller have important ethical lessons and implications today, when self-interest trumps one’s obligations to society and the scientific culture that supports the quest for new knowledge and discovery.

Significance Scientific peer review has been a cornerstone of the scientific method since the 1600s. Debate continues regarding the merits of single-blind review, in which anonymous reviewers know the authors of a paper and their affiliations, compared with double-blind review, in which this information is hidden. We present an experimental study of this question. In computer science, research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals. Our study considers full-length submissions to the highly selective 2017 Web Search and Data Mining conference (15.6% acceptance rate). Each submission is simultaneously scored by two single-blind and two double-blind reviewers. Our analysis shows that single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions., Peer review may be “single-blind,” in which reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of paper authors, or “double-blind,” in which this information is hidden. Noting that computer science research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals, we study these two reviewing models in the context of the 10th Association for Computing Machinery International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, a highly selective venue (15.6% acceptance rate) in which expert committee members review full-length submissions for acceptance. We present a controlled experiment in which four committee members review each paper. Two of these four reviewers are drawn from a pool of committee members with access to author information; the other two are drawn from a disjoint pool without such access. This information asymmetry persists through the process of bidding for papers, reviewing papers, and entering scores. Reviewers in the single-blind condition typically bid for 22% fewer papers and preferentially bid for papers from top universities and companies. Once papers are allocated to reviewers, single-blind reviewers are significantly more likely than their double-blind counterparts to recommend for acceptance papers from famous authors, top universities, and top companies. The estimated odds multipliers are tangible, at 1.63, 1.58, and 2.10, respectively.

Preprints are manuscripts posted on a public server that do not yet have formal certification of peer review from a scholarly journal. The increasingly prominent online repositories for these preprints provide a means of rapidly making scientific results accessible to all with an Internet connection. We here describe the catalysis and subsequent development of a successful new process to solicit preprints for consideration for publication inProceedings B.We present preliminary comparisons between the focal topics and geographic origin of submitting authors of papers submitted in the traditional (non-solicited) route versus solicited preprints. This analysis suggests that the solicitation process seems to be achieving one of the primary goals of the preprint solicitation endeavour: broadening the scope of the papers featured inProceedings B. We also use an informal survey of the early-career scientists that are or have been involved with the Preprint Editorial Team to find that these scientists view their participation positively with respect to career development and knowledge in their field. The inclusion of early-career researchers from across the world in the preprint solicitation process could also translate into social justice benefits by providing a career-building opportunity and a window into the publishing process for young scientists.

Academic publishing has always been open to innovations of various kinds. Publications in prestigious academic journals have a significant impact on the institutional rankings and funding. Most recently, the question "where" to publish became more important than "what" to publish. However, the existing system is often abused by many academics. Czech Republic is one of the countries that seem to be particularly obsessed with the issue of "predatory" journals, which led to numerous accusations and even paid mass media involvement. Yet, everyone in the Czech Republic (including the top officials of the country’s leading universities as well as the Czech Academy of Sciences) has been or is publishing papers in the journals that were once considered “predatory” according to “Beall’s List” (for example journals published by MDPI or Hindawi). A plethora of Czech academic got their promotions based on publishing their monographs in obscure Czech publishing houses located in apartment blocks and listing non-existing people on their scientific boards, or publishing their numerous papers in the journals are editors of without any peer review (a famous “Stöckelová controversy”). Between 2009 and 2013, Czech universities made approximately $2 million on payments from government funding as rewards for papers and monographs published in "predatory" publishing outlets. Yet, the case of "predatory" journals has been used by some mediocre Czech (social) scientists to question the system of world's established academic metrics represented by Scopus and Web of Science. However, the creation of local publication standards would enable small groups of academics to control job promotions within the research instructions and universities and influence the division of state funding envisaged for supporting research and innovations. International academic databases, such as Scopus and Web of Science, ensure the transparency and objectivity and thence represent the best way of measuring the scientific output and productivity. здійснюють значний вплив на інституційні рейтинги та допомагають дослідникам отримати грантове фінансування. Але питання про те, «де» публікуватися, стало важливіше за питання про те, «що» публікувати. Чеська Республіка – одна з країн, які, схоже, особливо одержимі проблемою «хижих» журналів, які породили бурю в склянці води. Усі в Чеській Республіці (включаючи вище керівництво провідних університетів країни і Академії наук) видавалися і продовжують видаватися в журналах, які колись вважалися «хижацькими» відповідно до списку, складеного Джеффрі Біллом (наприклад журнали видавництв MDPI або Hindawi). Багато чеських вчені отримують підвищення на основі публікації своїх монографій в маловідомих видавництвах, розташованих в багатоквартирних будинках, або публікацій статей в журналах, які вони редагують, в обхід рецензії та експертної оцінки (знаменитий «суперечка Терези Штоккеловой»). За деякими оцінками, у період між 2009 і 2013 роками чеські університети заробили близько 2 мільйонів доларів завдяки публікації статей і монографій в «хижацьких» видавництвах. Існування «хижацьких» журналів дозволило менш продуктивним чеським вченим (як правило, у галузі суспільних наук) поставити під сумнів систему загальносвітових академічних показників світу, таких, як Scopus і Web of Science. Однак відхід від всесвітньо відомих баз даних і створення національних стандартів публікацій, безсумнівно, дозволять невеликим групам місцевих вчених контролювати систему академічних рейтингів та наукової продуктивності. Тільки такі наукові бази даних, як Scopus і Web of Science, пропонують об'єктивну та неупереджену систему оцінки на основі міжнародних критеріїв і дозволяють об'єктивно оцінювати академічну продуктивність. Академическая публикационная активность всегда была открыта различным инновациям. Публикации в престижных академических журналах оказывают значительное влияние на институциональные рейтинги и помогают исследователям получить грантовое финансирование. Тем не менее вопрос о том, «где» публиковаться, стал важнее вопроса о том, «что» публиковать. Чешская Республика – одна из стран, которые, похоже, особенно одержимы проблемой «хищных» журналов, породивших бурю в стакане воды. Все в Чешской Республике (включая высшее руководство ведущих университетов страны и Академии наук) издавались и продолжают издаваться в журналах, которые когда-то считались «хищническими» в соответствии со списком, составленным Джеффри Биллом (например журналы издательств MDPI или Hindawi). Многие чешские ученые получают повышение на основе публикации своих монографий в малоизвестных издательствах, расположенных в многоквартирных домах, или публикаций статей в журналах, которые они редактируют, в обход рецензии и экспертной оценки (знаменитый «спор Терезы Штоккеловой»). По некоторым оценкам, в период между 2009 и 2013 годами чешские университеты заработали около 2 миллионов долларов благодаря публикации статей и монографий в «хищнических» издательствах. Существование «хищнических» журналов позволило менее продуктивным чешским ученым (как правило в области общественных наук) подвергнуть сомнению систему общемировых академических показателей мира, таких как Scopus и Web of Science. Однако отход от всемирно известных баз данных и создание национальных стандартов публикаций, несомненно, позволят небольшим группам местных ученых контролировать систему академических рейтингов и научной продуктивности. Только такие научные базы данных как Scopus и Web of Science предлагают объективную и беспристрастную систему оценки на основе международных критериев и позволяют объективно оценивать академическую производительность.

Background This paper assesses possible reasons why Hermann J. Muller avoided peer-review of data that became the basis of his Nobel Prize award for producing gene mutations in male Drosophila by X-rays. Methods Extensive correspondence between Muller and close associates and other materials were obtained from preserved papers to compliment extensive publications by and about Muller in the open literature. These were evaluated for potential historical insights that clarify why he avoided peer-review of his Nobel Prize findings. Results This paper clarifies the basis of Muller’s (Muller HJ, Sci 66 84-87, 1927c) belief that he produced X-ray induced “gene” mutations in Drosophila. It then shows his belief was contemporaneously challenged by his longtime friend/confidant and Drosophila geneticist, Edgar Altenburg. Altenburg insisted that Muller may have simply poked large holes in chromosomes with massive doses of X-rays, and needed to provide proof of gene “point” mutations. Given the daunting and uncertain task to experimentally address this criticism, especially within the context of trying to become first to produce gene mutations, it is proposed that Muller purposely avoided peer-review while rushing to publish his paper in Science to claim discovery primacy without showing any data. The present paper also explores ethical issues surrounding these actions, including those of the editor of Science, James McKeen Catell and Altenburg, and their subsequent impact on the scientific and regulatory communities. Conclusion This historical analysis suggests that Muller deliberately avoided peer-review on his most significant findings because he was extremely troubled by the insightful and serious criticism of Altenburg, which suggested he had not produced gene mutations as he claimed. Nonetheless, Muller manipulated this situation (i.e., publishing a discussion within Science with no data, publishing a poorly written non-peer reviewed conference proceedings with no methods and materials, and no references) due to both the widespread euphoria over his claim of gene mutation and confidence that Altenburg would not publically challenge him. This situation permitted Muller to achieve his goal to be the first to produce gene mutations while buying him time to later try to experimentally address Altenburg’s criticisms, and a possible way to avoid discovery of his questionable actions.

The nature of scientific research in mathematical and computational biology allows editors and reviewers to evaluate the findings of a scientific paper. Replication of a research study should be the minimum standard for judging its scientific claims and considering it for publication. This requires changes in the current peer review practice, and a strict adoption of a replication policy similar to those adopted in experimental fields such as organic synthesis. In the future, the culture of replication can be easily adopted by publishing papers through dynamic computational notebooks combining formatted text, equations, computer algebra and computer code.

Women comprise a minority of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) workforce. Quantifying the gender gap may identify fields that will not reach parity without intervention, reveal underappreciated biases, and inform benchmarks for gender balance among conference speakers, editors, and hiring committees. Using the PubMed and arXiv databases, we estimated the gender of 36 million authors from >100 countries publishing in >6000 journals, covering most STEMM disciplines over the last 15 years, and made a web app allowing easy access to the data (https://lukeholman.github.io/genderGap/). Despite recent progress, the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths. The gap is especially large in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals have fewer women authors. Additionally, we estimate that men are invited by journals to submit papers at approximately double the rate of women. Wealthy countries, notably Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, had fewer women authors than poorer ones. We conclude that the STEMM gender gap will not close without further reforms in education, mentoring, and academic publishing., Author summary In most fields of science, medicine, and technology research, men comprise more than half of the workforce, particularly at senior levels. Most previous work has concluded that the gender gap is smaller today than it was in the past, giving the impression that there will soon be equal numbers of men and women researchers and that current initiatives to recruit and retain more women are working adequately. Here, we used computational methods to determine the numbers of men and women authors listed on >10 million academic papers published since 2002, allowing us to precisely estimate the gender gap among researchers, as well as its rate of change, for most disciplines of science and medicine. We conclude that many research specialties (e.g., surgery, computer science, physics, and maths) will not reach gender parity this century, given present-day rates of increase in the number of women authors. Additionally, the gender gap varies greatly across countries, with Japan, Germany, and Switzerland having strikingly few women authors. Women were less often commissioned to write ‘invited’ papers, consistent with gender bias by journal editors, and were less often found in authorship positions usually associated with seniority (i.e., the last-listed or sole author). Our results support a need for further reforms to close the gender gap.

Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers' checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.

Advocates of homeopathy say that the rat study is evidence of the practice’s efficacy, but some scientists have cast doubt on the paper. Advocates of homeopathy say that the rat study is evidence of the practice’s efficacy, but some scientists have cast doubt on the paper.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. AMEE MedEdPublish was launched two years ago as a new outlet for scholarship in medical education (Hays, 2016). The on-line journal format broke new ground in a context where the proportion of papers submitted to medical education journals achieving publication was falling sharply. All academic journals face challenges obtaining sufficient reviews to make sound judgements about the quality of the scholarship. Indeed, a substantial proportion of submitted papers are now rejected prior to reviews being invited. Further, while review processes are becoming increasingly open, concerns remain about the potential for various forms of bias in reviews (Smith, 2006). Authors may be confused with editorial decisions to reject manuscripts, despite positive peer reviews. These potential helpful trails of original submission, reviews, feedback, discussion and revision are generally hidden from the readership.MedEdPublish has taken the approach of conducting initial, 'light touch' reviewing by editors, rapid on-line publication and facilitating open, 'live' discussion between reviewers, authors and the general readership on the strengths and weaknesses of each paper. Two years after implementation, it is timely to review the initial phase, explain the revised editorial management process and provide information about the software that is being introduced with this issue.

The "publish or perish" incentive drives many researchers to increase the quantity of their papers at the cost of quality. Lowering quality increases the number of false positive errors which is a key cause of the reproducibility crisis. We adapted a previously published simulation of the research world where labs that produce many papers are more likely to have "child" labs that inherit their characteristics. This selection creates a competitive spiral that favours quantity over quality. To try to halt the competitive spiral we added random audits that could detect and remove labs with a high proportion of false positives, and also improved the behaviour of "child" and "parent" labs who increased their effort and so lowered their probability of making a false positive error. Without auditing, only 0.2% of simulations did not experience the competitive spiral, defined by a convergence to the highest possible false positive probability. Auditing 1.35% of papers avoided the competitive spiral in 71% of simulations, and auditing 1.94% of papers in 95% of simulations. Audits worked best when they were only applied to established labs with 50 or more papers compared with labs with 25 or more papers. Adding a ±20% random error to the number of false positives to simulate peer reviewer error did not reduce the audits' efficacy. The main benefit of the audits was via the increase in effort in "child" and "parent" labs. Audits improved the literature by reducing the number of false positives from 30.2 per 100 papers to 12.3 per 100 papers. Auditing 1.94% of papers would cost an estimated $15.9 million per year if applied to papers produced by National Institutes of Health funding. Our simulation greatly simplifies the research world and there are many unanswered questions about if and how audits would work that can only be addressed by a trial of an audit.

Background: Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members. Conclusions: We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection.

The exposure to Non-Ionizing-Electromagnetic Fields (NI-EMFs) is often indicated as a cofactor responsible for the fertility reduction, which has been described in recent years. Despite the great interest in this topic and the research effort in exploring it, to date, there are no reliable data. Therefore, we carried out a scientometric analysis of the scientific literature published in peer reviewed Journals concerning this topic to better understand the reasons of this partial failure. To this aim, we identified and analysed 104 papers, published in last 26 years in peer-reviewed Journals, present in ISI Web of Knowledge Core Collection. Then, we analysed the impact of the Journals in which the papers were published as well as that of the single papers, the paper citation dynamics, the keywords citation busts, the geographical localization of citations and the co-authorship dynamics of the Authors. As a result, we found that different animal models (rodent, rabbit, guinea pig, and swine) and different experimental approaches (epidemiological vs. experimental studies) have the same impact, highlighting the lack of universally adopted standard in research activity. The analysis of the temporal trend in keywords and the high differences in citations between the different countries (also in those belonging to the same geographical and socio-economical area) pointed out the difficulties in approaching this branch of study. Lastly, it was evident that the Authors did not behave as a connected community, but as unconnected clusters of very small size. In conclusion, based on the results of our analysis, we think that important efforts must be undertaken to adopt more standardized models and to improve the research quality and the information exchange within the scientific community, with the aim of improving the reliability and usefulness of the results of research regarding the effect of NI-EMFs on fertility.

Objective Although the representation of women in science has improved, women remain underrepresented in scientific publications. This study compares women and men in scholarly dissemination through the AMIA Annual Symposium. Materials and Methods Through a retrospective observational study, we analyzed 2017–2020 AMIA submissions for differences in panels, papers, podium abstracts, posters, workshops, and awards for men compared with women. We assigned a label of woman or man to authors and reviewers using Genderize.io, and then compared submission and acceptance rates, performed regression analyses to evaluate the impact of the assumed gender, and performed sentiment analysis of reviewer comments. Results Of the 4687 submissions for which Genderize.io could predict man or woman based on first name, 40% were led by women and 60% were led by men. The acceptance rate was smilar. Although submission and acceptance rates for women increased over the 4 years, women-led podium abstracts, panels, and workshops were underrepresented. Men reviewers increased the odds of rejection. Men provided longer reviews and lower reviewer scores, but women provided reviews that had more positive words. Discussion Overall, our findings reflect significant gains for women in the 4 years of conference data analyzed. However, there remain opportunities to improve representation of women in workshop submissions, panel and podium abstract speakers, and balanced peer reviews. Future analyses could be strengthened by collecting gender directly from authors, including diverse genders such as non-binary. Conclusion We found little evidence of major bias against women in submission, acceptance, and awards associated with the AMIA Annual Symposium from 2017 to 2020. Our study is unique because of the analysis of both authors and reviewers. The encouraging findings raise awareness of progress and remaining opportunities in biomedical informatics scientific dissemination.

BackgroundRecent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process.Methods and FindingsBased on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals’ websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors’ ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal’s impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 indexfrom Google Scholar.ConclusionsThe tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals.

Initially, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was considered as a pneumonia virus; however, a series of peer reviewed medical papers published in the last eight months suggest that this virus attacks the brain, heart, intestine, nervous and vascular systems, as well the blood stream. Although many facts remain unknown, an objective appraisal of the current scientific literature addressing the latest progress on COVID-19 is required. The aim of the present study was to conduct a critical review of the literature, focusing on the current molecular structure of SARS-CoV-2 and prospective treatment modalities of COVID-19. The main objectives were to collect, scrutinize and objectively evaluate the current scientific evidence-based information, as well to provide an updated overview of the topic that is ongoing. The authors underlined potential prospective therapies, including vaccine and phototherapy, as a monotherapy or combined with current treatment modalities. The authors concluded that this review has produced high quality evidence, which can be utilized by the clinical scientific community for future reference, as the knowledge and understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are evolving, in terms of its epidemiological, pathogenicity, and clinical manifestations, which ultimately map the strategic path, towards an effective and safe treatment and production of a reliable and potent vaccine., Video abstract Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use: https://youtu.be/G1KmFyvO3XU

A systematic and reproducible “workflow”—the process that moves a scientific investigation from raw data to coherent research question to insightful contribution—should be a fundamental part of academic data-intensive research practice. In this paper, we elaborate basic principles of a reproducible data analysis workflow by defining 3 phases: the Explore, Refine, and Produce Phases. Each phase is roughly centered around the audience to whom research decisions, methodologies, and results are being immediately communicated. Importantly, each phase can also give rise to a number of research products beyond traditional academic publications. Where relevant, we draw analogies between design principles and established practice in software development. The guidance provided here is not intended to be a strict rulebook; rather, the suggestions for practices and tools to advance reproducible, sound data-intensive analysis may furnish support for both students new to research and current researchers who are new to data-intensive work.

Peer review, the system by which manuscripts submitted for publication are evaluated by experts (peers) in a field, is the cornerstone of high-quality scholarly publishing. By commenting on the originality, significance and completeness of submitted manuscripts, peer reviewers improve the standard of published work and play a key part in preventing flawed research from being widely distributed. This Words of Advice article highlights the importance of developing the skill of reviewing papers from early on in a scientific career and provides tips on navigating all stages of the process, as well as flagging some common mistakes.

Engagement with scientific manuscripts is frequently facilitated by Twitter and other social media platforms. As such, the demographics of a paper's social media audience provide a wealth of information about how scholarly research is transmitted, consumed, and interpreted by online communities. By paying attention to public perceptions of their publications, scientists can learn whether their research is stimulating positive scholarly and public thought. They can also become aware of potentially negative patterns of interest from groups that misinterpret their work in harmful ways, either willfully or unintentionally, and devise strategies for altering their messaging to mitigate these impacts. In this study, we collected 331,696 Twitter posts referencing 1,800 highly tweeted bioRxiv preprints and leveraged topic modeling to infer the characteristics of various communities engaging with each preprint on Twitter. We agnostically learned the characteristics of these audience sectors from keywords each user’s followers provide in their Twitter biographies. We estimate that 96% of the preprints analyzed are dominated by academic audiences on Twitter, suggesting that social media attention does not always correspond to greater public exposure. We further demonstrate how our audience segmentation method can quantify the level of interest from nonspecialist audience sectors such as mental health advocates, dog lovers, video game developers, vegans, bitcoin investors, conspiracy theorists, journalists, religious groups, and political constituencies. Surprisingly, we also found that 10% of the preprints analyzed have sizable (>5%) audience sectors that are associated with right-wing white nationalist communities. Although none of these preprints appear to intentionally espouse any right-wing extremist messages, cases exist in which extremist appropriation comprises more than 50% of the tweets referencing a given preprint. These results present unique opportunities for improving and contextualizing the public discourse surrounding scientific research., Analysis of Twitter data for 1,800 bioRxiv preprints to classify the online communities engaging with biological research enables the tracing of each preprint's exposure to various academic disciplines and non-specialist audiences, potentially indicating downstream scientific and societal impacts, and revealing that some preprints receive extraordinarily high engagement from white nationalist communities.

Open Access (OA) describes the free, unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, a new wave of interest, debate, and practice surrounding OA publishing has emerged. In this paper, we provide a simple overview of the trends in OA practice in the broad field of geochemistry. Characteristics of the approach such as whether or not an article processing charge (APC) exists, what embargo periods or restrictions on self-archiving’ policies are in place, and whether or not the sharing of preprints is permitted are described. The majority of journals have self-archiving policies that allow authors to share their peer reviewed work via green OA without charge. There is no clear relationship between journal impact and APC. The journals with the highest APC are typically those of the major commercial publishers, rather than the geochemistry community themselves. The rise in OA publishing has potential impacts on the profiles of researchers and tends to devolve costs from organizations to individuals. Until the geochemistry community makes the decision to move away from journal-based evaluation criteria, it is likely that such high costs will continue to impose financial inequities upon research community. However, geochemists could more widely choose legal self-archiving as an equitable and sustainable way to disseminate their research., Open access, Article processing charge, Green route, Repository; Environmental geochemistry; Earth sciences; Geochemistry; Fossil geochemistry; Biogeochemistry; Catchment geochemistry; Isotope geochemistry; Petroleum geochemistry; Trace element geochemistry; Hydrochemistry, Information science, Biogeoscience.

Background The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants. Methods This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application. Results The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application. Conclusions The Health Research Council’s experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.

Historically, academic promotions have been primarily based on scholarly productivity measured by the number and quality of peer-reviewed papers published in print journals and the number of peer-reviewed grants received. Other traditional academic activities such as teaching, book editing, mentoring, and involvement in national scientific organizations have also been considered. Although this evaluation approach continues to be effective for those who concentrate on basic science research, it has often fallen short for those whose scholarly interests are in biomedical education per se and/or in enhancing the practice of medicine at the translational and clinical end of the spectrum. Unlike other academic disciplines, medical schools either own, or are affiliated with, hospitals that provide clinical service to patients and train future healthcare providers. Therefore, many faculty members spend the majority of their time delivering care to patients rather than concentrating on their own basic, translational, or clinical research. In recognition of this conundrum, many medical schools have broadened their promotion criteria to recognize outstanding faculty members by devising rubrics that reward less traditional forms of scholarship as well as exceptional teaching. This has been reflected in many institutions by creating various promotion tracks with names such as “Clinician-Educator,” “Clinical Innovator,” “Educational Leader,” etc. The creation of these various tracks for promotion has not only enabled faculty members to excel and thrive in their particular areas of interest but also helped meet institutional (and societal) demands and provide a more equitable reward system. Although this progressive step met the desired needs when first created, there is a sense among many faculty now that promotion criteria must further evolve to reflect the changing academic environment (1–3). Recent advances in communication technology are changing the way scientific and medical information is disseminated. More and more scientists and physicians are receiving their …

Scientists are increasingly dissatisfied with funding systems that rely on peer assessment and, accordingly, have suggested several proposals for reform. One of these proposals is to distribute available funds equally among all qualified researchers, with no interference from peer review. Despite its numerous benefits, such egalitarian sharing faces the objection, among others, that it would lead to an unacceptable dilution of resources. The aim of the present paper is to assess this particular objection. We estimate (for the Netherlands, the U.S. and the U.K.) how much researchers would receive were they to get an equal share of the government budgets that are currently allocated through competitive peer assessment. For the Netherlands, we furthermore estimate what researchers would receive were we to differentiate between researchers working in low-cost, intermediate-cost and high-cost disciplines. Given these estimates, we then determine what researchers could afford in terms of PhD students, Postdocs, travel and equipment. According to our results, researchers could, on average, maintain current PhD student and Postdoc employment levels, and still have at their disposal a moderate (the U.K.) to considerable (the Netherlands, U.S.) budget for travel and equipment. This suggests that the worry that egalitarian sharing leads to unacceptable dilution of resources is unjustified. Indeed, our results strongly suggest that there is room for far more egalitarian distribution of funds than happens in the highly competitive funding schemes so prevalent today.

The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research. To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.

The progress of science is influenced substantially by social behaviour of and social interactions within the scientific community. Similar to innovations in primate groups, the social acceptance of an innovation depends not only upon the relevance of the innovation but also on the social dominance and connectedness of the innovator. There are a number of parallels between many well-known phenomena in behavioural evolution and various behavioural traits observed in the scientific community. It would be useful, therefore, to use principles of behavioural evolution as hypotheses to study the social behaviour of the scientific community. I argue in this paper that a systematic study of social behavioural epistemology is likely to boost the progress of science by addressing several prevalent biases and other problems in scientific communication and by facilitating appropriate acceptance/rejection of novel concepts.

In July 2018, JGP instituted a new policy requiring that every paper sent out for review would be seen by at least one female reviewer; I refer to that policy here as Reviewer Equity ([Gordon, 2018][1]). One year on, it is time to examine the effectiveness of Reviewer Equity and its consequences to

Intellectual property documents (patents and their published applications) are not only collections of legal exclusivity claims but also repositories of scientific and technical information, even though they are not peer reviewed. We have identified and analyzed international disclosures concerning drug repurposing for cancer that were published under the Patent Convention Treaty during the past five years, and show this burgeoning field from an angle that is not routinely captured in review papers of the field. We find that patenting activity for cancer-related new uses for known compounds has been quite constant recently and has targeted mainly small molecule active ingredients that are currently marketed as drugs. Universities contributed most applications, closely followed by corporations. The strong representation of non-academic research institutes from the public and private sector and foundations was surprising and indicates that drug repurposing for cancer has transcended the classical corporate-academia dichotomy. Many of the identified patent documents report findings that are not reflected in the peer review literature (e.g., sumatriptan for mycosis fungoides) or appear there only later (e.g., ibudilast for glioblastoma). Synergistic combinations of several repurposed compounds were also identified, as were two documents related to the repurposing of vaccines. Our findings underscore the necessity for drug repurposers as well as for oncologists to investigate patent documents in addition to the usual peer review literature search to obtain a comprehensive perspective of the state of the art.

Objective To conduct a time-cost analysis of formatting in scientific publishing. Design International, cross-sectional study (one-time survey). Setting Internet-based self-report survey, live between September 2018 and January 2019. Participants Anyone working in research, science, or academia and who submitted at least one peer-reviewed manuscript for consideration for publication in 2017. Completed surveys were available for 372 participants from 41 countries (60% of respondents were from Canada). Main outcome measure Time (hours) and cost (wage per hour x time) associated with formatting a research paper for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Results The median annual income category was US$61,000–80,999, and the median number of publications formatted per year was four. Manuscripts required a median of two attempts before they were accepted for publication. The median formatting time was 14 hours per manuscript, or 52 hours per person, per year. This resulted in a median calculated cost of US$477 per manuscript or US$1,908 per person, per year. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the cost of manuscript formatting in scientific publishing. Our results suggest that scientific formatting represents a loss of 52 hours, costing the equivalent of US$1,908 per researcher per year. These results identify the hidden and pernicious price associated with scientific publishing and provide evidence to advocate for the elimination of strict formatting guidelines, at least prior to acceptance.

Late-life depression is associated with reduced cognitive function beyond normal age-related cognitive deficits. As comorbid anxiety frequently occur in late-life depression, this study aimed to examine the association between anxiety symptoms and cognitive function among older inpatients treated for depression. We hypothesized that there would be an overall additive effect of comorbid anxiety symptoms on dysfunction across cognitive domains. The study included 142 patients treated for late-life depression in hospital, enrolled in the Prognosis of Depression in the Elderly study. Anxiety symptoms were measured at admission using the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Patients completed cognitive tasks at admission and discharge. Linear mixed and generalized linear mixed models were estimated to investigate the effect of anxiety, on continuous and categorical cognitive scores, respectively, while controlling for depression. Anxiety severity at admission was not associated with performance in any of the cognitive domains. Patients with more symptoms of anxiety at admission demonstrated a significant improvement in immediate recall during the hospital stay. Patients with a score above cutoff indicating clinically significant symptoms on the anxiety subscale performed better on general cognitive function, as measured by the Mini Mental Status Examination at admission, than those below cutoff for anxiety. In conclusion, comorbid anxiety symptoms had no additive effect on cognitive dysfunction in late-life depression in our sample of inpatients. The effect of anxiety on cognition in older adult inpatients with depression: results from a multicenter observational study The study reported in this article was supported by the Old Age Psychiatry Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Norway. The original study was supported by unrestricted grants from the South- Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (grant number: 2010088) and Innlandet Hospital Trust, Norway (grant number: 150201). These institutions had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

This research expands efforts to understand differences in NIH funding associated with the self-identified race and ethnicity of applicants. We collected data from 2,397 NIH Biographical Sketches submitted between FY 2003 and 2006 as part of new NIH R01 Type 1 applications to obtain detailed information on the applicants' training and scholarly activities, including publications. Using these data, we examined the association between an NIH R01 applicant's race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an R01 award. The applicant's publication history as reported in the NIH biographical sketch and the associated bibliometrics narrowed the black/white funding gap for new and experienced investigators in explanatory models. We found that black applicants reported fewer papers on their Biosketches, had fewer citations, and those that were reported appeared in journals with lower impact factors. Incorporating these measures in our models explained a substantial portion of the black/white funding gap. Although these predictors influence the funding gap, they do not fully address race/ethnicity differences in receiving a priority score.

The current, and welcome, focus on standardization of techniques and transparency of reporting in the biomedical, peer-reviewed literature is commendable. However, that focus has been intermittent as well as lacklustre and so failed to tackle the alarming lack of reliability and reproducibly of biomedical research. Authors have access to numerous recommendations, ranging from simple standards dealing with technical issues to those regulating clinical trials, suggesting that improved reporting guidelines are not the solution. The elemental solution is for editors to require meticulous implementation of their journals’ instructions for authors and reviewers and stipulate that no paper is published without a transparent, complete and accurate materials and methods section.

This paper is based on research commissioned by the Wellcome Trust in 2015 and catalogues current initiatives and trends in the systems and processes surrounding peer review. It considers issues such as open and interactive reviews, post-publication comments and ratings, and the platforms provided by both publishers and other organisations to support such activity; third-party peer review platforms; and measures from publishers and others to provide more recognition and rewards for peer reviewers. It also speculates on likely key trends in peer review for the future.

Background Knowledge of how to improve consumer satisfaction with the outcome of co-production in services with high levels of interaction is important for achieving and maintaining a competitive advantage in the service industry. Objectives The aim of this paper is to review and meta-analyse research on the relationship between aspects of feedback to customers in interaction-intense encounters and the customer's satisfaction with the outcome. Methods We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review and Interventions to do a review and meta-analysis of relevant empirical research. From January 2018 to July 2018, we systematically searched PsycINFO, Business Source Complete, Science Direct and Web of Science for relevant studies. Results A total of six articles – consisting of 22 RCTs – were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Results indicate that feedback valence, with an effect size of 0.61 (0.43, 0.78), and feedback style, with an effect size of 0.82 (0.08, 1.57), have an impact on customers’ satisfaction with the outcome of co-production. For feedback interventions, effect size -0.29 (-0.69, 0.11), and feedback medium, effect size 0.43 (-0.00, 0.86), the results are inconclusive. Conclusions The present study suggest that there is a significant relationship between satisfaction with the outcome of co-production and feedback style and valence. To satisfy customers, service providers should offer positive feedback. In order to extend our knowledge, more studies on the effect of different feedback styles on customers' satisfaction with the outcome of co-production are needed., Business; Meta-analysis; Feedback; Systematic review; Consumers’ satisfaction; Intervention; Experience-based services

The research for this article was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, grant AH/K001841, as part of the project ‘Publishing the Philosophical Transactions: The Economic, Social and Cultural History of a Learned Journal, 1665–2015’. See: https://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/philosophicaltransactions/. This paper extends the scholarship on gender and scientific authorship by exploring women’s involvement in editorial decision-making. Prior to 1945, women scientists could submit their work to the journals of the Royal Society, but they were excluded from all editorial and evaluation roles: such gate-keeping roles were reserved for Fellows of the Society. We draw upon the Society’s archive to examine the experiences of female authors, referees, and communicators in the period after women were admitted to the Fellowship. We investigate the involvement of women in both anonymous roles (e.g. as referees), and in publicly-visible positions of editorial responsibility (e.g. as communicators, and committee chairs). We reveal that women were better represented in both types of roles in the 1950s than in the 1970s and 1980s. These findings are pertinent to current debates about bias in the peer-review system, and the gendering of academic reward and recognition structures. Preprint Postprint Publisher PDF

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations – of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional – and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker’s fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

In this paper we investigate how data openness can be made possible in communal settings. We adopt a utility perspective that foregrounds the use value of data, conceptualizing them as “goods.” On the basis of this conceptualization we explore 2 key goods' attributes: subtractability and exclusion. Our theoretical basis is built upon concepts from the theory of the commons, power theorizing, and notions related to data and information. Empirically, we investigate openness in the genetics domain through a longitudinal study of the evolving communal infrastructure for data related to 2 genes influencing women's susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2). We follow the continuously shifting “topology” of the BRCA information infrastructure and trace the multiple repositories that are put in place and the different arrangements for data collection, curation/quality assurance, access, and control that are tried out. In our analysis, we illustrate the actors' strategies for curbing the subtractability and exclusion attributes of data. We then propose a theoretically informed and empirically grounded framework that can guide understanding and action taking to enable data openness.

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities.

Five years after eLife published its first papers, we reflect on our consultative approach to peer review, the challenges of reproducibility, and the need to reform how published research is assessed.