Search

For gay, queer and bisexual men, and men who have sex with men (MSM), the presence of apps such as Grindr, Scruff, Tinder, Recon, and others have long represented a complex online ecosystem in which identities are formed and constructed in a space intensely governed by social, contractual, and – increasingly – criminal law backed regulation and norms. The publication of the UK Government's Online Safety Bill in late 2020 and revised Bill in March 2022 marked a further legal and policy intervention in regulating online harms to improve safety. It follows other interventions, notably the Criminal Justice and Court Act 2015, which criminalises intimate image sharing in cases where it is done without consent and intends to cause distress. This article draws on original focus group data to examine the navigation of these "Dating" Apps and Networks by their users from a novel perspective arguing that the current legal approach risks both over and under-legislating what is a complex and subtle online ecosystem. It focuses on the construction of identities – the characteristic proxies deployed, management of location-aware features, visuality, and images (re)shared. We seek to provide an essential counterpoint to existing and dominant narratives relating to online safety and identity regulation.

This article examines the scope and meaning of ‘sexual harm’ within the context of ancillary sentencing orders in England and Wales. It argues that the statutory definition provided in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, recently replicated in the Sentencing Act 2020, does not extend to the transmission of sexually communicable infections and that, subsequently, it is inappropriate for Sexual Harm Prevention Orders to be imposed with the aim of preventing transmissions of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). It suggests that recent case law reinforces this point and that the questions this raises reflect the broader need for further scrutiny of the aims and purposes of sentencing, and criminalisation more generally, in instances of STI transmission.

Preprint servers, such as arXiv and bioRxiv, have disrupted the scientific communication landscape by providing rapid access to research before peer review. medRxiv was launched as a free online repository for preprints in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences in 2019. In this review, we present the uptake of preprint server use in nephrology and discuss specific considerations regarding preprint server use in medicine. Distribution of kidney-related research on preprint servers is rising at an exponential rate. Survey of nephrology journals identified that 15 of 17 (88%) are publishing original research accepted submissions that have been uploaded to preprint servers. After reviewing 52 clinically impactful trials in nephrology discussed in the online Nephrology Journal Club (NephJC), an average lag of 300 days was found between study completion and publication, indicating an opportunity for faster research dissemination. Rapid review of papers discussing benefits and risks of preprint server use from the researcher, publisher, or end user perspective identified 53 papers that met criteria. Potential benefits of biomedical preprint servers included rapid dissemination, improved transparency of the peer review process, greater visibility and recognition, and collaboration. However, these benefits come at the risk of rapid spread of results not yet subjected to the rigors of peer review. Preprint servers shift the burden of critical appraisal to the reader. Media may be especially at risk due to their focus on "late-breaking" information. Preprint servers have played an even larger role when late-breaking research results are of special interest, such as during the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 has brought both the benefits and risks of preprint servers to the forefront. Given the prominent online presence of the nephrology community, it is poised to lead the medicine community in appropriate use of preprint servers.

Globalisation is a major driving factor in the Higher Education sector, which has resulted in significant developments relating to international academic mobility. This includes the establishment of international campuses, increasingly global facing research and extensive student international exchange schemes. We explore the advice given to LGBTQ+ staff and students in UK Higher Education Institutions (‘HEIs”) who engage in international mobility of this kind. Analysing data collected through Freedom of Information requests, we demonstrate that the advice given is overwhelmingly heteronormative, ignoring the potential challenges that LGBTQ+ travellers might fact and underestimating the impact of the disparate global landscape of LGBTQ+ rights. Drawing on agency literature, we argue that HEIs should develop detailed and informed policy which gives LGBTQ+ travellers greater agency during the travel process. We suggest that the lessons that can be learned from the UK context can be applied internationally by HEIs adapting to and developing in the increasingly globalised HE landscape.

Purpose of reviewPreprint servers including arXiv and bioRxiv have disrupted the scientific communication landscape by providing rapid access to pre--peer reviewed research. MedRxiv is a recently launched free online repository for preprints in the health sciences. We sought to summarize potential benefits and risks to preprint server use, from both the researcher and end--user perspective, and evaluate the uptake of preprint servers in the nephrology community.Sources of InformationWe performed a rapid review of articles describing preprint servers and their use. We approached the 20 highest impact nephrology journals regarding their policy towards the use of preprint servers. We evaluated the average time from study completion to publication of impactful articles in nephrology. Finally, we evaluated the number of nephrology articles submitted to preprint servers.FindingsTo date over 600 kidney--related articles have been uploaded to bioRxiv and medRxiv. The average time from study completion to publication was over 10 months. 16 of the top 20 nephrology journals currently accept research submitted to a preprint server. Transparency and collaboration, visibility and recognition, and rapid dissemination of results were identified as benefits of preprint servers. Concerns exist regarding the potential risk of non--peer reviewed medical research being publicly available.LimitationsPreprint servers remain a recent phenomenon in health sciences and their long-- term impact on the medical literature remains to be seen.ImplicationsThe quantity of research submitted to preprint servers is likely to continue to grow. The model for dissemination of research results will need to adapt to incorporate preprint servers.

This submission was prepared in response to a call for evidence launched on 29 March 2 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications entitled “The Internet: To Regulate or Not to Regulate?”. The broad inquiry sought evidence to explore how the regulation of the internet should be improved, and to consider whether online platforms which mediate individuals’ use of the internet have sufficient accountability and transparency, and whether they use fair and effective processes to moderate content. This collaborative response, prepared on behalf of NINSO (The Northumbria Internet & Society Research Interest Group), provides recommendations in relation to the wide range of issues raised by the Committee. The key themes that are highlighted by NINSO to be addressed by any reform are effective user education and the power imbalance between the platform and user. NINSO recommends that an empirical, holistic, evidence-based approach should be applied which is tailored appropriately to the size and resources of the platform as well as the context of the situation.