Search

Objectives: The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section., Study Design and Setting: An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn., Results: Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order., Conclusion: Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports., Competing Interests: The authors declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Shiely et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we surveyed the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors had roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction was 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibited a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers were similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agreed with their predicted acceptance probabilities (93% agreement), but there was a notable 7% responses where authors predicted a worse outcome for their better paper. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate—about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we surveyed the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors had roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction was 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibited a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers were similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agreed with their predicted acceptance probabilities (93% agreement), but there was a notable 7% responses where authors predicted a worse outcome for their better paper. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate-about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.

Paper mulberry pollen, declared a pest in several countries including Pakistan, can trigger severe allergies and cause asthma attacks. We aimed to develop an algorithm that could accurately predict high pollen days to underpin an alert system that would allow patients to take timely precautionary measures. We developed and validated two prediction models that take historical pollen and weather data as their input to predict the start date and peak date of the pollen season in Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan. The first model is based on linear regression and the second one is based on phenological modelling. We tested our models on an original and comprehensive dataset from Islamabad. The mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the start day are 2.3 and 3.7 days for the linear and phenological models, respectively, while for the peak day, the MAEs are 3.3 and 4.0 days, respectively. These encouraging results could be used in a website or app to notify patients and healthcare providers to start preparing for the paper mulberry pollen season. Timely action could reduce the burden of symptoms, mitigate the risk of acute attacks and potentially prevent deaths due to acute pollen-induced allergy.

Threatened shark species are caught in large numbers by artisanal and commercial fisheries and traded globally. Monitoring both which shark species are caught and sold in fisheries, and the export of CITES-restricted products, are essential in reducing illegal fishing. Current methods for species identification rely on visual examination by experts or DNA barcoding techniques requiring specialist laboratory facilities and trained personnel. The need for specialist equipment and/or input from experts means many markets are currently not monitored. We have developed a paper-based Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC) to facilitate identification of three threatened and CITES-listed sharks, bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus), pelagic thresher (A. pelagicus) and shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) at market source. DNA was successfully extracted from shark meat and fin samples and combined with DNA amplification and visualisation using Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) on the LOC. This resulted in the successful identification of the target species of sharks in under an hour, with a working positive and negative control. The LOC provided a simple "yes" or "no" result via a colour change from pink to yellow when one of the target species was present. The LOC serves as proof-of-concept (PoC) for field-based species identification as it does not require specialist facilities. It can be used by non-scientifically trained personnel, especially in areas where there are suspected high frequencies of mislabelling or for the identification of dried shark fins in seizures.

Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis (AAV) is a chronic, relapsing-remitting condition associated with increased morbidity. Previous research has shown patients with AAV report high levels of fatigue, pain, depression and anxiety. Over recent years successful work has been carried out to improve clinical outcomes, resulting in reduced mortality and end stage kidney disease (ESKD). Despite this, little work has been done to better understand the role of the patient within this condition. The prevalence of AAV is increasing and to date, there is a shortage of specific tools that assess and measure key features relating to patient reported outcomes (PROs). This protocol details how we can better understand the lived experiences of those with AAV through the development of a disease specific, patient reported outcome measure (PROM), to be used in clinic practice. This will allow us to recognise and validate PROs and the impact the disease and its treatment has on patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, we aim to identify potential differences in PRO's between demographics, organ involvement and treatment subgroups in AAV as well as outcomes relating to the patient experience. Patients from a single centre in the UK will be recruited to take part in the exploratory qualitative study which will include focus groups and semi-structured interviews. The inclusion criteria comprise anyone with a diagnosis of AAV and willing to participate, including those who have active or relapsing disease, those are economically active, unemployed, retired and patients receiving renal replacement therapy. The aim of the project is to identify key issues patients experience in relation to their disease and its management and how these can be better assessed in a new PROM developed for use in the clinic setting. This will enable better delivery of individualised care and inform shared decision making, while also serving as a platform for future research looking at PROs in other glomerulonephritides.

Threatened shark species are caught in large numbers by artisanal and commercial fisheries and traded globally. Monitoring both which shark species are caught and sold in fisheries, and the export of CITES-restricted products, are essential in reducing illegal fishing. Current methods for species identification rely on visual examination by experts or DNA barcoding techniques requiring specialist laboratory facilities and trained personnel. The need for specialist equipment and/or input from experts means many markets are currently not monitored. We have developed a paper-based Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC) to facilitate identification of three threatened and CITES-listed sharks, bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus), pelagic thresher (A. pelagicus) and shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) at market source. DNA was successfully extracted from shark meat and fin samples and combined with DNA amplification and visualisation using Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) on the LOC. This resulted in the successful identification of the target species of sharks in under an hour, with a working positive and negative control. The LOC provided a simple "yes" or "no" result via a colour change from pink to yellow when one of the target species was present. The LOC serves as proof-of-concept (PoC) for field-based species identification as it does not require specialist facilities. It can be used by non-scientifically trained personnel, especially in areas where there are suspected high frequencies of mislabelling or for the identification of dried shark fins in seizures., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Tiktak et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis (AAV) is a chronic, relapsing-remitting condition associated with increased morbidity. Previous research has shown patients with AAV report high levels of fatigue, pain, depression and anxiety. Over recent years successful work has been carried out to improve clinical outcomes, resulting in reduced mortality and end stage kidney disease (ESKD). Despite this, little work has been done to better understand the role of the patient within this condition. The prevalence of AAV is increasing and to date, there is a shortage of specific tools that assess and measure key features relating to patient reported outcomes (PROs). This protocol details how we can better understand the lived experiences of those with AAV through the development of a disease specific, patient reported outcome measure (PROM), to be used in clinic practice. This will allow us to recognise and validate PROs and the impact the disease and its treatment has on patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, we aim to identify potential differences in PRO's between demographics, organ involvement and treatment subgroups in AAV as well as outcomes relating to the patient experience. Patients from a single centre in the UK will be recruited to take part in the exploratory qualitative study which will include focus groups and semi-structured interviews. The inclusion criteria comprise anyone with a diagnosis of AAV and willing to participate, including those who have active or relapsing disease, those are economically active, unemployed, retired and patients receiving renal replacement therapy. The aim of the project is to identify key issues patients experience in relation to their disease and its management and how these can be better assessed in a new PROM developed for use in the clinic setting. This will enable better delivery of individualised care and inform shared decision making, while also serving as a platform for future research looking at PROs in other glomerulonephritides., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Floyd et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Paper mulberry pollen, declared a pest in several countries including Pakistan, can trigger severe allergies and cause asthma attacks. We aimed to develop an algorithm that could accurately predict high pollen days to underpin an alert system that would allow patients to take timely precautionary measures. We developed and validated two prediction models that take historical pollen and weather data as their input to predict the start date and peak date of the pollen season in Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan. The first model is based on linear regression and the second one is based on phenological modelling. We tested our models on an original and comprehensive dataset from Islamabad. The mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the start day are 2.3 and 3.7 days for the linear and phenological models, respectively, while for the peak day, the MAEs are 3.3 and 4.0 days, respectively. These encouraging results could be used in a website or app to notify patients and healthcare providers to start preparing for the paper mulberry pollen season. Timely action could reduce the burden of symptoms, mitigate the risk of acute attacks and potentially prevent deaths due to acute pollen-induced allergy., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Kakakhail et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)