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.)

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical that is widely used in various industrial applications. It has concerns in its use as a color developer in thermal paper receipts since it is identified as an endocrine disruptor and causes hormonal disturbances. In this study, thirty thermal paper receipt samples were randomly collected from various locations in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates and analyzed using high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Sixty percent (60%) of receipt samples showed BPA levels above the acceptable limit (200 ng/mg) set by the European Union (EU) for thermal papers. On the other hand, 40% of the samples reported very low BPA levels (< 0.02 ng/mg). However, estimated weight adjusted daily intakes (EDI) ranged between 8.22 ×10-11 and 0.000812 μg/kg bw/day for the general population, and between 7.89×10-9 and 0.0681 μg/kg bw/day for the occupationally exposed cashiers. Thus, all calculated EDIs were below the European Food Safety Authority Tolerable Daily Intake (4 μg/kg·bw/day) and the provisional Health Canada Tolerable Daily Intake (25 ug/kg bw/day) under varying paper-to-skin transfer coefficients and absorption fractions. Nevertheless, due to its health effects and recent legal restrictions by EU, the occurrence of co-exposure to dietary and non-dietary sources should be considered in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A, mainly for people with frequent occupational exposure to thermal paper, and especially with the increased use of sanitizers. The current study is a first within the UAE context in relation to BPA in thermal paper receipts, thus its significance especially with the recent EU enforcement of BPA limits in paper receipts. The study highlights that proper policies as well as education and awareness may assist in limiting transdermal BPA exposure for the general and occupationally exposed populations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Semerjian 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.

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.