Search

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but traditional peer review at journals is coming under increased scrutiny for its inefficiency and lack of transparency. As preprints become more widely used and accepted, they raise the possibility of rethinking the peer-review process. Preprints are enabling new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial than traditional journal peer review, and to thus fundamentally shift the culture of peer review toward constructive collaboration. In this Consensus View, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to accelerate the growing momentum of preprint sharing and provide recommendations to empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints., Competing Interests: FB: I am the coordinator of TU Delft OPEN Publishing, a diamond open access university press, which supports open peer-review and preprints. SMB: I am the Editor in Chief of Rapid Reviews: Infectious Disease, a preprint review platform. AB: The MIT Press publishes RRC19 and RRID. KB: I am Executive Editor of the journal Development, published by The Company of Biologists. Several of our journals are affiliate journals for Review Commons. I oversee preLights, the Company’s preprint highlighting service. GC-S: I am an employee of the Medical Research Council-UKRI which has provided funding for ASAPbio, an organisation that promotes the use of preprints in the life sciences and preprint review initiatives. SD: I am CEO of ScienceOpen, an interactive discovery environment with publishing services based on open peer review of preprints and global peer review functionalities that can be applied to preprints from any repository. GD: ASAPbio Board of Directors, Review Commons Advisory Board, bioRxiv Affiliate. DE: I am a Data Scientist at Sciety/eLife, helping to bring preprint related data together and trying to make sense of it. SCE: I run journals carrying out open peer review and promoting use of preprints. MF: I am Executive Director of the Health Research Alliance, and on the Board of the Center for Open Science, which hosts OSF Preprints. KF: I am a Supervisory Technical Information Specialist and the Program Manager for PubMed Central at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. PMC selectively archives and indexes preprint records. MH: I manage Europe PMC, which indexes preprints and links preprint peer reviews to them. HH: I am the Program Manager of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which shares resources about and promotes the use of preprints in responsible research evaluation. SH: I am a co-founder of PREreview, and employed as the Content Manager of bioRxiv and medRxiv. DWH: I am an employee of Digital Science, which owns and operates Altmetric (which gathers attention about academic outputs including preprints), Dimensions (which indexes preprints), Elements (which tracks scholarly outputs including preprints for research institutions), Figshare (which hosts and provides preprint services) and Ripeta (which is used to assess trustmarkers in scholarly outputs including preprints); at the time of the conference, At the time of writing I was also a member of the ORCID board. SK: I consult for the biotech and plant breeding industries, e.g. BASF, Limagrain, Rijk Zwaan. I’m a member of the Two Blades Foundation Science Advisory Board. I’m a cofounder of Resurrect Bio. I serve on the Editorial Board of PLOS Biology. I’m an affiliate of bioRxiv. My other professional activities and research funding are listed on my CV, which is available online Curriculum vitae: Sophien Kamoun FRS. RK: I am Head of Strategy, cOAlition S. MML: I am an employee of ASCB managing a preprint curation service. ML: I am an employee of PLOS, which promotes the use of preprints across scientific fields and participates in the preprint review initiative Review Commons. RL: I am Managing Director of F1000, which operates a preprint combined with peer-review publishing model for researchers and funders / institutions / societies. TL: I am leading the development of the preprint peer review service Review Commons and I am Deputy Head of Scientific Publications at EMBO. ML: I am President of the European Research Council. EL: I am the founder and CEO of PeerRef, a journal-independent peer review platform. CJM: I am Director of Open Science at Hindawi which is now owned by Wiley. Wiley owns its own preprinting platform (Authorea) CSM: I am contributing in my personal capacity during my personal time. I am an open science advocate and policy wonk. GM: I am a co-founder and CEO of Qeios, an Open Science publishing platform that enables the open peer review of preprints. AM: I am an employee of SciELO, which promotes the use of preprints across scientific fields and has its own preprint server. SM: Managing Editor of Review Commons, a preprints peer-review platform KN: ASAPbio Board of Directors DP: I am Director of eLife, which promotes a preprint review publication model. JKP: I am an employee of ASAPbio, which promotes the use of preprints in the life sciences and preprint review initiatives. IP: At the time of the drafting of the manuscript, I was an employee of ASAPbio, which promotes the use of preprints in the life sciences and preprint review initiatives. SJR: I am a Director of The Company of Biologists, which publishes journals and also runs a preprint highlighting service “preLights”. I am a bioRxiv Affiliate. DS: I am the Director of an open, journal-independent preprint review platform, PREreview. RS: Co-Founder bioRxiv, Co-Founder medRxiv, Employed as Assistant Director at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. KS: I am the Executive Director of COAR and a co-PI of the COAR Notify Initiative, which is developing a standard, interoperable approach to link research outputs with resources from external peer review services. JES: I am an employee of the Simons Foundation, which has provided funding for ASAPbio, an organization that promotes the use of preprints in the life sciences and preprint review initiatives. BS: HHMI Chief of Strategic Initiatives. DT: Science Program Officer at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The CZI Open Science program supports bioRxiv, medRxiv, ASAPbio, as well as several projects related to preprint curation and open peer review. RV: I am a co-founder of ASAPbio, which promotes the use of preprints in the life sciences and preprint review initiatives. I am co-founder of Review Commons, a journal-independent peer review platform. LW: I am involved in setting up a preprint review platform. FW: I am EMBO Director. I am on the advisory boards of bioRxiv and MedRxiv and several journals. MW: I am the Product Manager for Sciety, a platform for discovering and highlighting reviewed preprints. Other authors: None declared., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Rapid analysis of surrendered or seized drug samples provides important intelligence for health (e.g. treatment or harm reduction), and custodial services. Herein, three in-situ techniques, GC-MS, 1 H NMR and FT-IR spectroscopy, with searchable libraries, are used to analyse 318 samples qualitatively, using technique specific library-based searches, obtained over the period 24th - 29th August 2019. 259 samples were identified as consisting of a single component, of which cocaine was the most prevalent (n = 158). Median match scores for all three techniques were ≥ 0.84 and showed agreement except for metformin (n = 1), oxandrolone (identified as vitamin K by IR (n = 4)), diazepam (identified as zolpidem by FT-IR (n = 2)) and 2-Br-4,5-DMPEA (n = 1), a structural isomer of 2C-B identified as a polymer of cellulose (cardboard) by FT-IR. 51 samples were found to consist of two or more components, of which 49 were adulterated cocaine samples (45 binary and 4 tertiary samples). GC-MS identified all components present in the 49 adulterated cocaine samples, whereas IR identified only cocaine in 88 % of cases (adulterant only = 12 %). The breakdown for 1 H NMR spectroscopy was all components identified (51 %), cocaine only (33 %), adulterant only (10 %), cocaine and one adulterant (tertiary mixtures only, 6 %)., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: AA is the editor in chief of the British Journal of Pharmacology. WJB, ICC, and ME are authors of the original ARRIVE guidelines. WJB serves on the Independent Statistical Standing Committee of the funder CHDI foundation. AC is a Senior Editor for PLOS ONE. AC, CJM, MM, and ESS were involved in the IICARus trial. ME, MM, and ESS have received funding from NC3Rs. ME sits on the MRC ERPIC panel. STH is chair of the NC3Rs board; trusteeship of the BLF, Kennedy Trust, DSRU, and CRUK; member of Governing Board, Nuffield Council of Bioethics, member Science Panel for Health (EU H2020); founder and NEB Director Synairgen; consultant Novartis, Teva, and AZ; and chair MRC/GSK EMINENT Collaboration. VH, KL, EJP, and NPdS are NC3Rs staff; role includes promoting the ARRIVE guidelines. SEL and UD are on the advisory board of the UK Reproducibility Network. CJM has shareholdings in Hindawi, is on the publishing board of the Royal Society, and on the EU Open Science policy platform. UD, MM, NPdS, CJM, ESS, TS, and HW are members of EQIPD. MM is a member of the Animals in Science Committee and on the steering group of the UK Reproducibility Network. NPdS and TS are associate editors of BMJ Open Science. OHP is vice president of Academia Europaea, editor in chief of Function, senior executive editor of the Journal of Physiology, and member of the Board of the European Commission’s SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies). FR is an NC3Rs board member and has shareholdings in GSK. FR and NAK have shareholdings in AstraZeneca. PR is a member of the University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and editorial board member of Shock. ESS is editor in chief of BMJ Open Science. SDS’s role is to provide expertise and does not represent the opinion of the NIH. TS has shareholdings in Johnson & Johnson. SA, MTA, MB, PG, DWH, and KR declared no conflict of interest.

In 2010, the NC3Rs published the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to improve the reporting of animal research. Despite considerable levels of support from the scientific community, the impact on the quality of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. This position paper highlights the strategy of an expert working group established to revise the guidelines and facilitate their uptake. The group's initial work will focus on three main areas: prioritisation of the ARRIVE items into a tiered system, development of an explanation and elaboration document, and revision of specific items., Competing Interests: Competing interests AA: editor in chief of the British Journal of Pharmacology. DGA, WB, ICC and ME: authors of the original ARRIVE guidelines. WB: professor of Statistics at the University of Bristol, consults for HEFCE and the UK Home Office, work funded by many of the UK research councils, Defra, the British Academy and the RSPCA, serves on the Independent Statistical Standing Committee of the funder CHDI foundation, chair of the members committee of the Cathedral Schools Trust, a multiple academy trust and a governor of Wrington Church of England primary school. AC, CJM, MMcL and ESS: involved in the IICARus trial. ME, MMcL and ESS: have received funding from NC3Rs. ME: sits on the MRC ERPIC panel. STH: chair of the NC3Rs board, trusteeship of the BLF, Kennedy Trust, DSRU and CRUK, member of Governing Board, Nuffield Council of Bioethics, member Science Panel for Health (EU H2020), founder and NEB Director Synairgen, consultant Novartis, Teva and AZ, chair MRC/GSK EMINENT Collaboration. VH and NPdS: NC3Rs staff, role includes promoting the ARRIVE guidelines. CJMcC: shareholdings in Hindawi, on the publishing board of the Royal Society, on the EU Open Science policy platform. MMcL, NPdS, CJMcC, ESS, TS and HW: members of EQIPD. MMcL: member of the Animals in Science Committee. NPdS and TS: associate editors of BMJ Open Science. OP: vice president of Academia Europaea, senior executive editor of the Journal of Physiology, member of the Board of the European Commission’s SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies). FR: NC3Rs board member, shareholdings in AstraZeneca and GSK. ESS: editor in chief of BMJ Open Science. SDS: role is to provide expertise and does not represent the opinion of the NIH. TS: shareholdings in Johnson & Johnson. SA, MTA, MB, UD, PG, DWH, NAK, PR and KR declared no conflict of interest. ESS is editor in chief of this journal and was not part of the decision-making process for this manuscript.

Mosaic hybrid zones arise when ecologically differentiated taxa hybridize across a network of habitat patches. Frequent interbreeding across a small-scale patchwork can erode species differences that might have been preserved in a clinal hybrid zone. In particular, the rapid breakdown of neutral divergence sets an upper limit to the time for which differences at marker loci can persist. We present here a case study of a mosaic hybrid zone between the fire-bellied toads Bombina bombina and B. variegata (Anura: Discoglossidae) near Apahida in Romania. In our 20 x 20 km study area, we detected no evidence of a clinal transition but found a strong association between aquatic habitat and mean allele frequencies at four molecular markers. In particular, pure populations of B. bombina in ponds appear to cause massive introgression into the surrounding B. variegata gene pool found in temporary aquatic sites. Nevertheless, the genetic structure of these hybrid populations was remarkably similar to those of a previously studied transect near Pescenica (Croatia), which had both clinal and mosaic features: estimates of heterozygote deficit and linkage disequilibrium in each country are similar. In Apahida, the observed strong linkage disequilibria should stem from an imperfect habitat preference that guides most (but not all) adults into the habitats to which they are adapted. In the absence of a clinal structure, the inferred migration rate between habitats implies that associations between selected loci and neutral markers should break down rapidly. Although plausible selection strengths can maintain differentiation at those loci adapting the toads to either permanent or temporary breeding sites, the divergence at neutral markers must be transient. The hybrid zone may be approaching a state in which the gene pools are homogenized at all but the selected loci, not dissimilar from an early stage of sympatric divergence.

This paper demonstrates the effect of habitat heterogeneity and a habitat preference on the genetic structure of a hybrid zone between the toads Bombina bombina and B. variegata (Anura: Discoglossidae); 1613 toads from 85 sites across a transect near Pešćenica, Croatia, were scored for five unlinked diagnostic allozyme markers. These were found to be largely concordant. Aside from minor systematic deviations, there was little variance in allele frequency among loci within sites. Yet the allele frequencies did not follow a smooth cline, but formed a mosaic in the center, such that neighboring sites could differ markedly in their enzyme score. A detailed ecological survey revealed a correlation between this pattern and habitat. In keeping with the typical breeding sites of the parental taxa, B. bombina-like hybrids were found more often in ponds, whereas B. variegata-like hybrids were more common in puddles. In addition, there was significant heterozygote deficit (F IS ) and strong linkage disequilibrium (R), both of which were stronger on the B. bombina side of the transect, and stronger in puddles than ponds. Mark-recapture data showed: (1) that the animals disperse beyond the scale of the habitat pattern; (2) frequent turn-over of individuals within sites; and (3) nonrandom movement between two sites of different habitat type. We conclude that an active habitat preference must contribute to the observed association between marker alleles and habitat. As a consequence, there is incomplete mixing of the two gene pools, which could explain the high level of F IS and R. The asymmetry in these parameters may reflect asymmetry in the preference or in the distribution of habitats across the zone. We discuss the implications of habitat preference for the dynamics of hybrid zones., (© 1998 The Society for the Study of Evolution.)

In this study we tested the hypothesis that the increased susceptibility of non-secretors of blood group antigens to recurrent urinary tract infections might be due, in part, to lower levels of IgA reported for non-secretor Caucasian women. Total serum IgA and IgG levels of 200 women in a retrospective study group monitored by the local pyelonephritis unit for 20 yr was compared with those of 100 women from a prospective group recently referred to the clinic. Immunoglobulin levels of the retrospective group were analyzed with reference to the secretor state of the patient, improvement over the 20 yr and presence or absence of renal scars. Total IgA and IgG levels were significantly higher in the sera of non-secretors with or without renal scars and also among patients who had clinically improved over the 20-yr period. Most women appeared to improve regardless of age of onset of infections or treatment prescribed. It was suggested that improvement might be associated with a self-immunization phenomenon. The significantly higher levels of IgA and IgG found among the women in the retrospective study compared with the levels found in the sera of age-matched women in the prospective study is evidence for this hypothesis. The implications of these findings for further investigations of the pathogenesis of urinary tract infections are discussed.

In a study of 718 women referred for specialist investigation for recurrent urinary tract infections, 250 (34.8%, P less than 0.01) were non-secretors. The proportion of non-secretors among the women with renal scars (42.6%) was higher than that found for women with no evidence of renal scars (36.6%). Among 29 patients in whom symptoms began in childhood or adolescence, 51.7% were non-secretors. The proportion of non-secretors among individuals with renal scars in this study (42.6%) and that reported in the accompanying paper for Swedish children (40%) suggests that non-secretion might influence the pathogenic sequelae of these infections. Possible host-parasite interactions underlying the increased proportion of non-secretors among women with recurrent urinary tract infections and those leading to development of renal scars are discussed.

One of the innate defences against superficial infections by Candida species appears to be the ability of an individual to secrete the water-soluble form of his ABO blood group antigens into body fluids. There was a significantly higher number of non-secretors (48.9%) among 174 patients with either oral or vaginal candida infections compared with the proportion of non-secretors in the local population (26.6%). The protective effect afforded by the secretor gene might be due to the ability of glycocompounds in the body fluids of secretors to inhibit adhesins on the surface of the yeast. In attachment studies, preincubation of blastospores with boiled secretor saliva significantly reduced their ability to bind to epithelial cells. Non-secretor saliva did not reduce the binding and often enhanced the numbers of attached yeasts. Possible host-parasite interactions underlying the susceptibility of non-secretors to candida and other infections are discussed.

Strains of Escherichia coli isolated from urine of secretors (242) and non-secretors (121) were compared for their serotype and their ability to express mannose-sensitive (MS) haemagglutinins and mannose-resistant (MR) haemagglutinins and to produce haemolysin. The results of the survey refuted our hypothesis that strains with characteristics associated with virulence, those with MR haemagglutinins and/or haemolysins, would be isolated more frequently from non-secretors. MR haemagglutinins were detected among 36.4% of isolates from secretors and 27.3% of isolates from non-secretors. Haemolysin production was detected among 19.8% of isolates from secretors and 12.5% of isolates from non-secretors. Both MR haemagglutinins and haemolysin were detected only on 12.4% of strains from secretors and 6.7% of strains from non-secretors.