Search

Background: There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods: Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results: A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions: Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence and death rate arising from malaria infection, and emergence of other diseases showing similar symptoms to malaria require the development of malaria-specific and sensitive devices for its diagnosis. To address this, the design and fabrication of low-cost, rapid, paper-based analytical devices (µPAD) using surface-immobilized aptamers to detect the presence of a recombinant malarial biomarker—Plasmodium falciparum lactate dehydrogenase (rPfLDH)—is reported in this study. Methods: Test zones on paper surfaces were created by covalently immobilizing streptavidin to the paper, subsequently attaching biotinylated aptamers to streptavidin. Aptamers selectively bound rPfLDH. The measurement of captured rPfLDH enzyme activity served as the means of detecting this biomarker. Enzyme activity across three replicate sensors was digitally quantified using the colorimetric Malstat assay. Results: Screening of several different aptamers reported in the literature showed that aptamers rLDH7 and 2008s immobilized in this manner specifically recognised and captured PfLDH. Using rLDH7, the sensitivity of the µPAD sensor was evaluated and the µPAD sensor was applied for preferential detection of rPfLDH, both in buffered solutions of the protein and in spiked serum and red blood cell lysate samples. In buffered solutions, the test zone of the µPAD sensor exhibited a KD of 24 ± 11 nM and an empirical limit of detection of 17 nM, respectively, a limit similar to commercial antibody-based sensors exposed to rPfLDH. The specific recognition of 133 nM rPfLDH in undiluted serum and blood samples was demonstrated by the µPAD. Conclusion: The reported µPAD demonstrates the potential of integrating aptamers into paper-based malarial rapid diagnostic tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous research has found that a "web-push" approach to data collection, which involves contacting people by mail to request an Internet survey response while withholding a paper response option until later in the contact process, consistently achieves lower response rates than a "paper-only" approach, whereby all respondents are contacted and requested to respond by mail.Method: An experiment was designed, as part of the Millennium Cohort Family Study, to compare response rates, sample representativeness, and cost between a web-push and a paper-only approach; each approach comprised 3 stages of mail contacts. The invited sample (n = 4,935) consisted of spouses married to U.S. Service members, who had been serving in the military between 2 and 5 years as of October, 2011.Results: The web-push methodology produced a significantly higher response rate, 32.8% compared to 27.8%. Each of the 3 stages of postal contact significantly contributed to response for both treatments with 87.1% of the web-push responses received over the Internet. The per-respondent cost of the paper-only treatment was almost 40% higher than the web-push treatment group. Analyses revealed no meaningfully significant differences between treatment groups in representation.Conclusion: These results provide evidence that a web-push methodology is more effective and less expensive than a paper-only approach among young military spouses, perhaps due to their heavy reliance on the internet, and we suggest that this approach may be more effective with the general population as they become more uniformly internet savvy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]