Search

Thick accumulations of Neoproterozoic and early Phanerozoic strata are distributed throughout much of the arid continental interior of western North America, providing an expansive and well-exposed archive of this important time in Earth’s history. The information presented herein supplements evaluations regarding the utility and limitations of this archive by providing an integrated sedimentological, paleontological, and geochronological description for Precambrian-Cambrian strata exposed in the area and by reporting the discovery of new trace and body fossils housed there. The first chapter of this dissertation describes the sedimentology and stratigraphy of Precambrian-Cambrian conglomeratic and sandstone-dominated units exposed in the central Great Basin. Seven localities distributed along a 600 km north-south transect are described using existing data supplemented by information compiled from more than 5 kilometers of newly measured stratigraphic section. These data collectively facilitate development of a unified framework regarding the nature and timing of deposition in the area while also providing a series of stratigraphic tie points applicable to both regional and global correlation schemes. The second chapter reports the discovery of Zoophycos burrows from early Cambrian sediments exposed in eastern California. The Zoophycos ichnogenus is a well-known and considerably-studied deposit feeding trace fossil that, like other deposit feeding burrows, had not previously been reported in pre-Ordovician strata, making these the oldest examples of this celebrated burrow. Most importantly, Zoophycos burrows reported herein provide the earliest definitive evidence of deposit feeding to date, pushing back the advent of this feeding strategy to near the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary. This dissertation’s final chapter reports medusozoan macrofossils from the early Cambrian Zabriskie Quartzite as the earliest fossil evidence of cnidarian medusae and the oldest example of a metazoan mass stranding event currently on record. Given that these are fossils of nonmineralized forms, the Zabriskie fossils also advance reconstruction of the taphonomic dynamics responsible for the preservation of soft-bodied macrofauna in nearshore facies through the Precambrian-Cambrian transition. The features of this comparison imply that a preservational bias may have been introduced near the onset of the Phanerozoic, shifting the predominant environment for soft-bodied preservation in sandstone facies from subtidal environments to the supralittoral zone.

Canada has undertaken commitments to recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples in fisheries through policies and agreements, including Integrated Fishery Management Plans, the Reconciliation Strategy, and Land Claim Agreements (LCAs). In addition to recognizing rights, these commitments were intended to respect geographic adjacency principles, to enhance the economic viability of Indigenous communities, and to be reflective of community dependence on marine resources. We examined the determinants of quota allocations in commercial fisheries involving Nunatsiavut, Northern Labrador, the first self-governing region for the Inuit peoples in Canada. It has been argued that current fishery allocations for Nunatsiavut Inuit have not satisfied federal commitments to recognize Indigenous rights. Indicators that measure equity in commercial allocations for the turbot or Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) and northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) fisheries were identified and assessed. In these two cases, historical allocations continue to predominate for allocations based upon equity or other social or economic considerations. We illustrate equity-enhancing changes in the quota distribution under scenarios of different levels of inequality aversion, and we make qualitative assessments of the effects of these allocations to Nunatsiavut for socioeconomic welfare. This approach could benefit fisheries governance in Northern Labrador, where federal commitments to equity objectives continue to be endorsed but have not yet been integrated fully into quota allocations.

Background Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important source of bias in trials. Despite legislation, guidelines and public commitments on correct reporting from journals, outcome misreporting continues to be prevalent. We aimed to document the extent of misreporting, establish whether it was possible to publish correction letters on all misreported trials as they were published, and monitor responses from editors and trialists to understand why outcome misreporting persists despite public commitments to address it. Methods We identified five high-impact journals endorsing Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) and assessed all trials over a six-week period to identify every correctly and incorrectly reported outcome, comparing published reports against published protocols or registry entries, using CONSORT as the gold standard. A correction letter describing all discrepancies was submitted to the journal for all misreported trials, and detailed coding sheets were shared publicly. The proportion of letters published and delay to publication were assessed over 12 months of follow-up. Correspondence received from journals and authors was documented and themes were extracted. Results Sixty-seven trials were assessed in total. Outcome reporting was poor overall and there was wide variation between journals on pre-specified primary outcomes (mean 76% correctly reported, journal range 25–96%), secondary outcomes (mean 55%, range 31–72%), and number of undeclared additional outcomes per trial (mean 5.4, range 2.9–8.3). Fifty-eight trials had discrepancies requiring a correction letter (87%, journal range 67–100%). Twenty-three letters were published (40%) with extensive variation between journals (range 0–100%). Where letters were published, there were delays (median 99 days, range 0–257 days). Twenty-nine studies had a pre-trial protocol publicly available (43%, range 0–86%). Qualitative analysis demonstrated extensive misunderstandings among journal editors about correct outcome reporting and CONSORT. Some journals did not engage positively when provided correspondence that identified misreporting; we identified possible breaches of ethics and publishing guidelines. Conclusions All five journals were listed as endorsing CONSORT, but all exhibited extensive breaches of this guidance, and most rejected correction letters documenting shortcomings. Readers are likely to be misled by this discrepancy. We discuss the advantages of prospective methodology research sharing all data openly and pro-actively in real time as feedback on critiqued studies. This is the first empirical study of major academic journals’ willingness to publish a cohort of comparable and objective correction letters on misreported high-impact studies. Suggested improvements include changes to correspondence processes at journals, alternatives for indexed post-publication peer review, changes to CONSORT’s mechanisms for enforcement, and novel strategies for research on methods and reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important and prevalent source of bias in clinical trials. COMPare (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project) monitored all trials in five leading journals for correct outcome reporting, submitted correction letters on all misreported trials in real time, and then monitored responses from editors and trialists. From the trialists’ responses, we aimed to answer two related questions. First, what can trialists’ responses to corrections on their own misreported trials tell us about trialists’ knowledge of correct outcome reporting? Second, what can a cohort of responses to a standardised correction letter tell us about how researchers respond to systematic critical post-publication peer review? Methods All correspondence from trialists, published by journals in response to a correction letter from COMPare, was filed and indexed. We analysed the letters qualitatively and identified key themes in researchers’ errors about correct outcome reporting, and approaches taken by researchers when their work was criticised. Results Trialists frequently expressed views that contradicted the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines or made inaccurate statements about correct outcome reporting. Common themes were: stating that pre-specification after trial commencement is acceptable; incorrect statements about registries; incorrect statements around the handling of multiple time points; and failure to recognise the need to report changes to pre-specified outcomes in the trial report. We identified additional themes in the approaches taken by researchers when responding to critical correspondence, including the following: ad hominem criticism; arguing that trialists should be trusted, rather than follow guidelines for trial reporting; appealing to the existence of a novel category of outcomes whose results need not necessarily be reported; incorrect statements by researchers about their own paper; and statements undermining transparency infrastructure, such as trial registers. Conclusions Researchers commonly make incorrect statements about correct trial reporting. There are recurring themes in researchers’ responses when their work is criticised, some of which fall short of the scientific ideal. Research on methodological shortcomings is now common, typically in the form of retrospective cohort studies describing the overall prevalence of a problem. We argue that prospective cohort studies which additionally issue correction letters in real time on each individual flawed study—and then follow-up responses from trialists and journals—are more impactful, more informative for those consuming the studies critiqued, more informative on the causes of shortcomings in research, and a better use of research resources. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3172-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

1 Abraham WT, Stevenson LW, Bourge RC, et al. Sustained effi cacy of pulmonary artery pressure to guide adjustment of chronic heart failure therapy: complete follow-up results from the CHAMPION randomised trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 453–61. 2 Adamson PB, Abraham WT, Aaron M, et al. CHAMPION trial rationale and design: the long-term safety and clinical effi cacy of a wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system. J Card Fail 2011; 17: 3–10. its consequences were not adequately considered before the introduction of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. The letter by Paraskevas and others illustrates that such unidirectional focus on benefi ts is still a problem.

The Article by Noriaki Ohuchi and colleagues (Jan 23, p 341) reports outcomes that are different to those initially registered.

We have identified discrepancies in the Article by Williams and colleagues between prespecified and reported outcomes.

The intent of this research is to offer a quantitative analysis of self-determined faculty motivation within the current corporate model of higher education across public and private research universities. With such a heightened integration of accountability structures, external reward systems, and the ongoing drive for more money and institutional prestige, this study examines faculty attitudes towards their work and the institution using Deci and Ryan's (1985) self-determination theory (SDT). Under the corporatized model of higher education, a gap is found in the literature that explores the role of SDT's three innate needs (i.e., autonomy, competency, and relatedness) and their effect upon tenured or tenured-track academic faculty across public and nonprofit research institutions. This dissertation explores the following four questions: 1) what differences, if any, exist in the fulfillment of basic psychological needs and experiences of corporatization between the public and nonprofit sectors academic faculty; 2) how does corporatization directly impact job involvement and intentions to leave; 3) what role do the three basic psychological needs of self-determination theory play in faculty job involvement and turnover intention; and 4) does self-determined motivation mediate the impact of corporatization. A faculty survey is applied as the research tool with the purpose of accessing the appropriate data to answer the four research questions. Three basic innate needs of self-determination theory and the construct referred to as corporatization are used as the predictor variables. In order to determine the impact of corporatization across the sectors and the role of self-determined motivation, job involvement and intentions to leave are used as the criterion variables. Data was collected from four private nonprofit and four public four-year research institutions across the United States.

The Conficker worm is one of the most sophisticated malware programs ever created. Each new version of the worm included additional methods of propagation, detection avoidance, and self-defense. This article examines useful practices employed by the worm that would benefit many organizations.

The Article by Matthew Armstrong and colleagues (Feb 13, p 679) reports different outcomes to those initially registered in the trial protocol.

Research in quantitative Information Technology (IT) risk analysis has increased in the past decade, but much of that research has focused on creating new approaches that replace existing ones. Since organizations have extensive sunk costs invested in their risk management programs, there exists a need to extend and improve existing approaches. Additionally, many quantitative approaches are difficult to implement without mathematical expertise or specialized tools, focus on quantifying individual vulnerabilities, provide little insight into underlying process gaps affecting IT risk and do not facilitate including environmental factors in risk ratings. Our research focuses on identifying attributes or characteristics of risk that are missing from existing approaches, and quantifying their relevance using statistical analysis techniques. We seek to identify and quantify attributes that further close the gap between enumerating IT risks and understanding the actual risk they present. In this paper we identify the relationship between risk findings as a key attribute, and demonstrate using correlation to quantify the relationship. Correlation analysis enables organizations to uncover process gaps, and situations where default risk ratings may not be sufficient. In this paper, we discuss the benefits of correlating risk findings and demonstrate value and feasibility through an empirical case study.