Search

In our planned study, we shall empirically study the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether citation decisions are (mainly) driven by the quality of cited references. The design of our study is oriented towards the study by Teplitskiy, Duede [10]. We shall undertake a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors are asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors will be assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor), or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group will not receive any further numerical information. In the statistical analyses, we estimate how (strongly) the quality assessments of the cited papers are adjusted by the respondents to the anchor value (citation, journal, or access code). Thus, we are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation or journal), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. The results of the study may have important implications for quality assessments of papers by researchers and the role of numbers, citations, and journal metrics in assessment processes.

Stress-activated p38 kinases control a plethora of functions and their dysregulation has been linked to development of steatosis, obesity, immune disorders and cancer. Therefore, they have been identified as potential targets for novel therapeutic strategies. There are four p38 family members (p38α, p38β, p38γ, and p38δ) that are activated by MKK3 and MKK6. Here we demonstrate that lack of MKK6 reduces the life span in mice. Longitudinal study of cardiac function in Mkk6-/- mice showed that young mice have cardiac hypertrophy which progresses to cardiac dilatation and fibrosis with age. Mechanistically, lack of MKK6 blunts p38α activation while causing MKK3-p38γ/δ hyperphosphorylation and increased mTOR signaling, resulting in cardiac hypertrophy. Cardiac hypertrophy in Mkk6-/- mice is reverted by knocking out either p38γ or p38δ, or by inhibiting mTOR pathway with rapamycin. In conclusion, we have identified a key role for the MKK3/6-p38γ/δ pathway in the development of cardiac hypertrophy, which has important implications for the clinical use of p38α inhibitors in the long-term treatment since they might result in cardiotoxicity.eLife’s Review ProcesseLife works to improve the process of peer review so that it more effectively conveys the assessment of expert reviewers to authors, readers and other interested parties. In the future we envision a system in which research is first published as a preprint and the outputs of peer review are the primary way research is assessed, rather than journal title.Our editorial process produces two outputs: i) an assessment by peers designed to be posted alongside a preprint for the benefit of the readers; ii) detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement.Therefore we want to change how we construct and write peer reviews to make them useful to both authors and readers in a way that better reflects the work you put into reading and thinking about a paper.eLife reviews now have three parts: An evaluation summary (in two or three sentences) that captures the major conclusions of the review in a concise manner, accessible to a wide audience.A public review that details the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript before you, and discusses whether the authors’ claims and conclusions are justified by their data.A set of private recommendations for the authors that outline how you think the science and its presentation could be strengthened.All three sections will be used as the basis for an eLife publishing decision, which will, as always, be made after a consultation among the reviewers and editor. Each of the public reviews will be published (anonymously) alongside the preprint, together with a response from the authors if they choose. In the case of papers we reject after review, the authors can choose to delay posting until their paper has been published elsewhere.If this is your first time going through this new process, we ask that you take some time to read our Reviewer Guide, which discusses how we see each section will be used, what it should contain, and what we hope it accomplishes. And we remind you that, with the shift of reviews from private correspondence to public discourse, it is more important than ever that reviews are written in a clear and constructive manner appropriate for a public audience and mindful of the impact language choices might have on the authors.

Selecting a target journal is a universal decision faced by authors of scientific papers. Components of the decision, including expected turnaround time, journal acceptance rate, and journal impact factor, vary in terms of accessibility. In this study, I collated recent turnaround times and impact factors for 82 journals that publish papers in the field of fisheries sciences. In addition, I gathered acceptance rates for the same journals when possible. Findings indicated clear among-journal differences in turnaround time, with median times-to-publication ranging from 79 to 323 days. There was no clear correlation between turnaround time and acceptance rate nor between turnaround time and impact factor; however, acceptance rate and impact factor were negatively correlated. I found no field-wide differences in turnaround time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, though some individual journals took significantly longer or significantly shorter to publish during the pandemic. Depending on their priorities, authors choosing a target journal should use the results of this study as guidance toward a more informed decision.

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Double-blind review, the process is as follows: ➢ In the title page the authors’ details (names and affiliations) are deleted. ➢ Any refer to previous work should be in a passive way with replacement of authors names with “Anonymous” word. ➢ Remove references to funding sources ➢ Do not include acknowledgments • Conference submission management system: iKNiTOcshttps://icmep.conferences.ekb.eg • Number of submissions received: 20 • Number of submissions sent for review: 20 • Number of submissions accepted: 6 • Number of withdrawn papers due to the change of conference date because of covid-19: 3 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 30 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 3 • Any additional info on review process: none • Contact person for queries: Prof. Dr. Gamal Mabrouk Abdelhamid gmabrouk@mtc.edu.eg, gmabrouk@hotmail.com

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.

The Sustainable Development Goals mandate that by 2030, all children should have access to quality early child development opportunities, healthcare and pre-primary education (United Nations, 2015). Yet validated measures of ECD in low and middle income countries (LMICs) are rare. To address this gap, a Systematic Review (SR) of measures available to profile the development of children between the ages of 0-5 years in LMICs was undertaken. Drawing on education, psychology and health databases, we identified reliable, valid or measures adapted for use in LMICs for either assessments of children’s development or their learning environments. The inclusion criteria were (1) peer reviewed papers published between January 2009 and May 2019; (2) assessment tools used to measure cognitive/language development or the early years or home environment in at least one LMIC; (3) report of the psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of the tool, and/or description of the cultural adaptability/translation process undertaken before applying it to a LMIC. Two hundred and forty-nine available records published in the last decade in peer-review journals and nine relevant systematic literature reviews were identified. Fifty-seven records were qualitatively synthesized based on their psychometric properties and cultural adaptation. Forty-three tools were reviewed utilising twelve criteria. Five elements of analysis present in Table 2 and 3 (study, population tested, validity, reliability and cultural adaptability/translation) focused on the tools’ psychometric properties and previous application in LMICs. A further seven dimensions outlined in Tables 4 and 5 identified specific characteristics of the tools from target age, administration method, domains, battery, accessibility, language and country/institution. We suggest these twelve key considerations for the selection of measurement tools that are applicable to effectively assess ECD in LMICs.

Background An aim of the funded learning disability project was to learn more about the knowledge base of the hospice staff around learning disabilities at end-of-life/bereavement; whilst also exploring how hospice care was perceived by those working in the learning disability community. National reports and research (LeDeR programme, 2018; Hunt et al., 2019; Heslop, Blair, Fleming et al., 2013; Oliver, 2017) have highlighted the need to improve end-of-life care and bereavement support for people with learning disabilities, so we explored our learning disability landscape through a survey. Aims To understand and identify the needs of those supporting people with learning disabilities from a hospice and learning disability perspective. Explore levels of confidence of varying health and social care professionals when talking about death, dying and bereavement to someone with a learning disability. Compare and contrast experiences and gaps in knowledge and experiences between hospice and learning disability carers. Inform the content and process of the training programme. Actions The project steering group collaboratively developed a survey to establish baseline data and increase knowledge. The survey shared with hospice staff and local learning disability organisations. Survey thematically analysed outcomes to illustrate similarities and differences within and across data sets. The data directly informed the three-session training programme. Outcomes Over 100 responses received, with a near equal split of hospice/non-hospice. The replies are being thematically analysed. The data directly informed the content and process of the training programme. The project is currently being prepared as a paper for publication in a peer reviewed journal to maximise dissemination of outcomes. Conclusion Learning is key in any project. By conducting the survey, we have learnt much about people’s levels of confidence, their understanding, and their training needs. The results of the survey have already influenced the project and when shared more widely, will help us develop a more compassionate community around people with learning disabilities.