PeerJ Preprints: Science Policyhttps://peerj.com/preprints/index.atom?journal=peerj&subject=7800Science Policy articles published in PeerJ PreprintsCYTO Lab Hacks: A platform for the exchange of innovations in cytometryhttps://peerj.com/preprints/279442019-10-222019-10-22Cláudia BispoBunny CotleurChristopher HallVirginia LitwinJakub NedbalBetsy Ohlsson-Wilhelm
This article reports on a conference workshop conducted at CYTO 2019. This workshop centered on an online directory for non-commercial cytometry innovations called CYTO Lab Hacks. The CYTO Lab Hacks website is being developed to become a curated platform to collate and to promote cytometry related materials developed by the wider scientific community. The website will present brief summaries and links to repositories with experimental protocols, descriptions of hardware changes, document templates, software code, and other innovations. The workshop outcomes, summarized in this manuscript, cover the topics of the website functionality and user experience, organization of the volunteer task force, and understanding the needs of the cytometry community in respect to sharing innovations.
This article reports on a conference workshop conducted at CYTO 2019. This workshop centered on an online directory for non-commercial cytometry innovations called CYTO Lab Hacks. The CYTO Lab Hacks website is being developed to become a curated platform to collate and to promote cytometry related materials developed by the wider scientific community. The website will present brief summaries and links to repositories with experimental protocols, descriptions of hardware changes, document templates, software code, and other innovations. The workshop outcomes, summarized in this manuscript, cover the topics of the website functionality and user experience, organization of the volunteer task force, and understanding the needs of the cytometry community in respect to sharing innovations.Pollutant release registers are key tools to help curb air pollutionhttps://peerj.com/preprints/279832019-09-252019-09-25Tony R Walker
Recent articles highlighting potential weakening of air pollution regulations in the United States should be a cause for concern for public health worldwide. Environmental regulations to curb air pollution, particularly fine-particle pollution, should be based on sound scientific evidence, not politics. Unfortunately, members of the public seldom read scientific articles published in reputable journals, but they do listen to politicians. However, members of the public can learn more about atmospheric pollutant releases, including fine-particulate matter from industrial facilities under ‘right-to-know’ legislation and public disclosure principles, using Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs). PRTRs are a key policy tools designed to curb air pollution and are used widely in many countries and help support enforcement of environmental pollution control regulations. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) launched the first PRTR, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) in 1987 and Canada followed suit with the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in 1993. Whilst PRTRs have been criticised for data accuracy and under reporting, they are still effective tools to curb air pollution through increased public understanding and engagement in decision-making.
Recent articles highlighting potential weakening of air pollution regulations in the United States should be a cause for concern for public health worldwide. Environmental regulations to curb air pollution, particularly fine-particle pollution, should be based on sound scientific evidence, not politics. Unfortunately, members of the public seldom read scientific articles published in reputable journals, but they do listen to politicians. However, members of the public can learn more about atmospheric pollutant releases, including fine-particulate matter from industrial facilities under ‘right-to-know’ legislation and public disclosure principles, using Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs). PRTRs are a key policy tools designed to curb air pollution and are used widely in many countries and help support enforcement of environmental pollution control regulations. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) launched the first PRTR, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) in 1987 and Canada followed suit with the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in 1993. Whilst PRTRs have been criticised for data accuracy and under reporting, they are still effective tools to curb air pollution through increased public understanding and engagement in decision-making.All change for climate changehttps://peerj.com/preprints/279822019-09-242019-09-24Tony R Walker
Governments, corporations and individuals all need to take immediate action to help change the global economy toward a circular economy. A circular economy which uses fewer resources and based on renewable clean technologies to help limit global warming to 1.5 °C. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report warned that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels would require current greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions to be cut in half by 2030. Yet actions by governments, corporations and individuals are lagging behind. Many countries are failing their obligations made under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Even the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency set a 50% reduction target of GHG emissions for global shipping by 2050, but this falls short of the IPCC target by 20 years. The United Nations climate summit in New York this week (September 2019) needs to send a strong wake up call to the entire world for us all to change. Change makers like Greta Thunberg has already done that. Individual actions to change consumer behaviour can play a major role to help reduce GHG emissions. Even reducing use of single-use plastics (a petroleum derivative) and incineration can help reduce GHG emissions. GHG emissions from plastics could reach 15% of the global carbon budget by 2050 if not curbed. In Europe, plastic production and incineration emits an estimated ~400 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Therefore, reducing single-use plastic use could curb GHG emissions.
Governments, corporations and individuals all need to take immediate action to help change the global economy toward a circular economy. A circular economy which uses fewer resources and based on renewable clean technologies to help limit global warming to 1.5 °C. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report warned that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels would require current greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions to be cut in half by 2030. Yet actions by governments, corporations and individuals are lagging behind. Many countries are failing their obligations made under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Even the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency set a 50% reduction target of GHG emissions for global shipping by 2050, but this falls short of the IPCC target by 20 years. The United Nations climate summit in New York this week (September 2019) needs to send a strong wake up call to the entire world for us all to change. Change makers like Greta Thunberg has already done that. Individual actions to change consumer behaviour can play a major role to help reduce GHG emissions. Even reducing use of single-use plastics (a petroleum derivative) and incineration can help reduce GHG emissions. GHG emissions from plastics could reach 15% of the global carbon budget by 2050 if not curbed. In Europe, plastic production and incineration emits an estimated ~400 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Therefore, reducing single-use plastic use could curb GHG emissions.Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life scienceshttps://peerj.com/preprints/279542019-09-102019-09-10Naomi C PenfoldJessica K Polka
Preprints are gaining visibility in many fields. Thanks to the explosion of bioRxiv, an online server for preprints in biology, versions of manuscripts prior to the completion of journal-organized peer review are poised to become a standard component of the publishing experience in the life sciences. Here we provide an overview of current challenges facing preprints, both technical and social, and a vision for their future development, from unbundling the functions of publication to exploring different communication formats.
Preprints are gaining visibility in many fields. Thanks to the explosion of bioRxiv, an online server for preprints in biology, versions of manuscripts prior to the completion of journal-organized peer review are poised to become a standard component of the publishing experience in the life sciences. Here we provide an overview of current challenges facing preprints, both technical and social, and a vision for their future development, from unbundling the functions of publication to exploring different communication formats.The social context for conservation: amphibians in human-shaped landscapeshttps://peerj.com/preprints/279182019-08-272019-08-27Tibor HartelBen C ScheeleLaurentiu RozylowiczAndra Horcea-MilcuDan Cogalniceanu
Many human-shaped landscapes support viable amphibian populations due to the habitats created and/or maintained as a consequence of human actions. The challenges and approaches required to achieve the persistence of amphibians in human-shaped landscapes are markedly different from approaches commonly applied in protected areas. Contrary to protected areas or natural landscapes where amphibian conservationists can have direct control over management, in human-shaped landscapes, management options are best approached through understanding local communities’ values and socio-economic aspirations. However, consideration of the social aspects of amphibian conservation are vastly under-represented in the amphibian conservation literature. We propose that amphibian conservationists should: (i) assess the controllability of their mitigation actions for achieving long-term sustainability, (ii) understand the values and attitudes of individual landowners towards amphibians and amphibian-friendly management (local scale) and land stewardship on which amphibian conservation initiatives can be built (landscape scale), and (iii) understand the social and economic drivers of land-use change operating at regional levels, which is crucial for building adaptive potential in conservation programs. Since targeted amphibian conservation initiatives are limited in many human-shaped landscapes, consideration of the socio-economic context conducive to amphibian persistence is crucial.
Many human-shaped landscapes support viable amphibian populations due to the habitats created and/or maintained as a consequence of human actions. The challenges and approaches required to achieve the persistence of amphibians in human-shaped landscapes are markedly different from approaches commonly applied in protected areas. Contrary to protected areas or natural landscapes where amphibian conservationists can have direct control over management, in human-shaped landscapes, management options are best approached through understanding local communities’ values and socio-economic aspirations. However, consideration of the social aspects of amphibian conservation are vastly under-represented in the amphibian conservation literature. We propose that amphibian conservationists should: (i) assess the controllability of their mitigation actions for achieving long-term sustainability, (ii) understand the values and attitudes of individual landowners towards amphibians and amphibian-friendly management (local scale) and land stewardship on which amphibian conservation initiatives can be built (landscape scale), and (iii) understand the social and economic drivers of land-use change operating at regional levels, which is crucial for building adaptive potential in conservation programs. Since targeted amphibian conservation initiatives are limited in many human-shaped landscapes, consideration of the socio-economic context conducive to amphibian persistence is crucial.Governance planning for sustainable oceans in a small island statehttps://peerj.com/preprints/279162019-08-272019-08-27Gerald G SinghMarck OduberAndres Cisneros-MontemayorJorge Ridderstaat
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require coordinated policymaking for achievement. Aruba is a Small Island State (SIDS) with 90% of its jobs and GDP dependent on the oceans has prioritized SDG 14 – life below water, or the SDG Ocean goal – for achievement. We have developed a planning process, building off of the the literature on SDG interactions and stratetic policy planning literatures, to guide SDG policy development and implemented it in Aruba. We used a structured expert elicitation process to carry out the analysis for this process. The process involves first identifying priority areas based on determining which SDG Ocean target provides the most co-benefit across other SDGs. Next we determine the SDG areas that most contribute to key SDG Ocean targets. Using this information we determine the key policy areas important for promoting sustainable oceans. Finally, we determine the Aruban ministries and institutions responsible for the various SDG areas and based on which SDG areas are most important for SDG Ocean achievement we visualize a new institutional network to support the achievement of SDG Oceans. First, we determined that while increasing economic benfits for SIDS (SDG 14.7) was the most important SDG Ocean target when considering direct impacts, reducing marine pollution (SDG 14.1), restoring marine habitats (SDG 14.2), and marine protection (SDG 14.5) were the most important SDG Ocean targets when considering indirect impacts. SDG areas with the most beneficial consequences for the SDG Ocean targets were mitigating climate impacts (SDG 13), international partnerships (SDG 17), jobs and economy (SDG 8), conserving terrestrial area (SDG 15), strengthening institutions (SDG 16), and promoting sustainable consumption and production practices (SDG 12). When links between SDGs are not considered, the institutional network supporting sustainable oceans is relatively simple, with the Department of Nature and the Environment most central: it coordinates across the largest number of relevant institutions supporting the SDG Oceans goal. However, when SDG relationships are considered, the institutional network is relatively complex, and the Social and Economic Council is determined to be the most central and important in coordinating activities across the largest number of Aruban instutions that support the SDG Ocean goal. Transitioning to a sustainable future requires policymaking that works across social-ecological dimensions, and need to design coherent and integrative institutional structures with which to do this.
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require coordinated policymaking for achievement. Aruba is a Small Island State (SIDS) with 90% of its jobs and GDP dependent on the oceans has prioritized SDG 14 – life below water, or the SDG Ocean goal – for achievement. We have developed a planning process, building off of the the literature on SDG interactions and stratetic policy planning literatures, to guide SDG policy development and implemented it in Aruba. We used a structured expert elicitation process to carry out the analysis for this process. The process involves first identifying priority areas based on determining which SDG Ocean target provides the most co-benefit across other SDGs. Next we determine the SDG areas that most contribute to key SDG Ocean targets. Using this information we determine the key policy areas important for promoting sustainable oceans. Finally, we determine the Aruban ministries and institutions responsible for the various SDG areas and based on which SDG areas are most important for SDG Ocean achievement we visualize a new institutional network to support the achievement of SDG Oceans. First, we determined that while increasing economic benfits for SIDS (SDG 14.7) was the most important SDG Ocean target when considering direct impacts, reducing marine pollution (SDG 14.1), restoring marine habitats (SDG 14.2), and marine protection (SDG 14.5) were the most important SDG Ocean targets when considering indirect impacts. SDG areas with the most beneficial consequences for the SDG Ocean targets were mitigating climate impacts (SDG 13), international partnerships (SDG 17), jobs and economy (SDG 8), conserving terrestrial area (SDG 15), strengthening institutions (SDG 16), and promoting sustainable consumption and production practices (SDG 12). When links between SDGs are not considered, the institutional network supporting sustainable oceans is relatively simple, with the Department of Nature and the Environment most central: it coordinates across the largest number of relevant institutions supporting the SDG Oceans goal. However, when SDG relationships are considered, the institutional network is relatively complex, and the Social and Economic Council is determined to be the most central and important in coordinating activities across the largest number of Aruban instutions that support the SDG Ocean goal. Transitioning to a sustainable future requires policymaking that works across social-ecological dimensions, and need to design coherent and integrative institutional structures with which to do this.Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary notehttps://peerj.com/preprints/278342019-07-112019-07-11Humberto DebatDominique Babini
Latin America has historically led a firm and rising Open Access movement and represents the worldwide region with larger adoption of Open Access practices. Argentina has recently expressed its commitment to join Plan S, an initiative from a European consortium of research funders oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of scientific outputs. Here we suggest that the potential adhesion of Argentina or other Latin American nations to Plan S, even in its recently revised version, ignores the reality and tradition of Latin American Open Access publishing, and has still to demonstrate that it will encourage at a regional and global level the advancement of non-commercial Open Access initiatives.
Latin America has historically led a firm and rising Open Access movement and represents the worldwide region with larger adoption of Open Access practices. Argentina has recently expressed its commitment to join Plan S, an initiative from a European consortium of research funders oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of scientific outputs. Here we suggest that the potential adhesion of Argentina or other Latin American nations to Plan S, even in its recently revised version, ignores the reality and tradition of Latin American Open Access publishing, and has still to demonstrate that it will encourage at a regional and global level the advancement of non-commercial Open Access initiatives.Public opinion of captive cetacean attractions: A critique of Wassermannet al. (2018)https://peerj.com/preprints/278522019-07-112019-07-11Heather M Manitzas HillKelly Jaakkola
Wassermann et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5953) argued that previous public opinion research about marine mammal attractions should be considered unreliable due to possible biases in study design, which may have influenced participants’ responses. As in all scientific endeavors, reducing bias in order to gather more objective, evidence-based information is a worthy and commendable goal. Unfortunately, Wassermann et al. fell short in their efforts to produce an unbiased investigation into the beliefs of the general public about captive marine mammal attractions, due to a number of methodological flaws and biases in their own study. Specific concerns include a non-representative sample, methodological issues with data collection and coding procedures, a lack of reliability between data published and data provided, a failure to demonstrate inter-coder reliability, a failure to control for sequence effects in quantitative data, misrepresentation of databetween text and tables, and biased over-interpretation of qualitative responses. These errors undermine the authors’ conclusions and indeed render their findings uninterpretable. To achieve the goal of an unbiased understanding of public opinion about marine mammal attractions, further research on this topic is warranted using rigorous and sound scientific methodology.
Wassermann et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5953) argued that previous public opinion research about marine mammal attractions should be considered unreliable due to possible biases in study design, which may have influenced participants’ responses. As in all scientific endeavors, reducing bias in order to gather more objective, evidence-based information is a worthy and commendable goal. Unfortunately, Wassermann et al. fell short in their efforts to produce an unbiased investigation into the beliefs of the general public about captive marine mammal attractions, due to a number of methodological flaws and biases in their own study. Specific concerns include a non-representative sample, methodological issues with data collection and coding procedures, a lack of reliability between data published and data provided, a failure to demonstrate inter-coder reliability, a failure to control for sequence effects in quantitative data, misrepresentation of databetween text and tables, and biased over-interpretation of qualitative responses. These errors undermine the authors’ conclusions and indeed render their findings uninterpretable. To achieve the goal of an unbiased understanding of public opinion about marine mammal attractions, further research on this topic is warranted using rigorous and sound scientific methodology.Gender and other potential biases in peer review: Analysis of 38,250 external peer review reportshttps://peerj.com/preprints/275872019-06-192019-06-19Anna SeverinJoao MartinsFrançois DelavyAnne JorstadMatthias EggerRachel Heyard
Background The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) supports fundamental and use-inspired research in all disciplines. Peer reviewers assess the proposals submitted to the SNSF. We examined whether the gender of applicants and reviewers and other factors influenced the summary scores awarded.
Methods We analysed 38,250 reports on 12,294 grant applications across all disciplines 2006 to 2016. Proposals were rated on a scale from 1 (=worst) to 6 (=best) by 26,836 reviewers. We used linear mixed effects regression models adjusted for research topic, applicant's age, nationality, affiliation and calendar period to examine associations, and interactions between gender of the applicant and other variables.
Results In univariable analysis, male applicants received more favourable evaluation scores than female applicants (+0.19 points; 95% CI 0.14-0.23), and male reviewers awarded higher scores than female reviewers (+0.12; 95% CI 0.08-0.15). Applicant-nominated reviewers awarded higher scores than reviewers nominated by the SNSF (+0.53; 95% CI 0.50-0.56), and reviewers affiliated with research institutions outside of Switzerland more favourable scores than reviewers affiliated with Swiss institutions (+0.53; 95% CI 0.49-0.56). In multivariable analysis, differences between male and female applicants were attenuated (to +0.08; 95% CI 0.04-0.13) whereas results changed little for source of nomination and affiliation of reviewers. There was an interaction between gender of applicant and reviewer, and between gender of applicant and calendar period. Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers, with a greater difference for male than for female applicants (P=0.037 from test of interaction). The gender difference increased after September 2011, when new evaluation forms were introduced (P=0.033 from test of interaction).
Conclusions Our study showed that peer review of grant applications at SNSF might be prone to biases stemming from different applicant and reviewer characteristics. The SNSF abandoned the nomination of peer reviewers by applicants, and made members of panels aware of the other systematic differences in scores. The new form introduced in 2011 may inadvertently have given more emphasis to the applicant’s track record, and a revision is now under discussion. We encourage other funders to conduct similar studies, in order to improve the evidence base for rational and fair research funding.
Background The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) supports fundamental and use-inspired research in all disciplines. Peer reviewers assess the proposals submitted to the SNSF. We examined whether the gender of applicants and reviewers and other factors influenced the summary scores awarded.Methods We analysed 38,250 reports on 12,294 grant applications across all disciplines 2006 to 2016. Proposals were rated on a scale from 1 (=worst) to 6 (=best) by 26,836 reviewers. We used linear mixed effects regression models adjusted for research topic, applicant's age, nationality, affiliation and calendar period to examine associations, and interactions between gender of the applicant and other variables.Results In univariable analysis, male applicants received more favourable evaluation scores than female applicants (+0.19 points; 95% CI 0.14-0.23), and male reviewers awarded higher scores than female reviewers (+0.12; 95% CI 0.08-0.15). Applicant-nominated reviewers awarded higher scores than reviewers nominated by the SNSF (+0.53; 95% CI 0.50-0.56), and reviewers affiliated with research institutions outside of Switzerland more favourable scores than reviewers affiliated with Swiss institutions (+0.53; 95% CI 0.49-0.56). In multivariable analysis, differences between male and female applicants were attenuated (to +0.08; 95% CI 0.04-0.13) whereas results changed little for source of nomination and affiliation of reviewers. There was an interaction between gender of applicant and reviewer, and between gender of applicant and calendar period. Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers, with a greater difference for male than for female applicants (P=0.037 from test of interaction). The gender difference increased after September 2011, when new evaluation forms were introduced (P=0.033 from test of interaction).Conclusions Our study showed that peer review of grant applications at SNSF might be prone to biases stemming from different applicant and reviewer characteristics. The SNSF abandoned the nomination of peer reviewers by applicants, and made members of panels aware of the other systematic differences in scores. The new form introduced in 2011 may inadvertently have given more emphasis to the applicant’s track record, and a revision is now under discussion. We encourage other funders to conduct similar studies, in order to improve the evidence base for rational and fair research funding.Assessing the size of the affordability problem in scholarly publishinghttps://peerj.com/preprints/278092019-06-182019-06-18Alexander GrossmannBjörn Brembs
For many decades, the hyperinflation of subscription prices for scholarly journals have concerned scholarly institutions. After years of fruitless efforts to solve this “serials crisis”, open access has been proposed as the latest potential solution. However, also the prices for open access publishing are high and are rising well beyond inflation. What has been missing from the public discussion so far is a quantitative approach to determine the actual costs of efficiently publishing a scholarly article using state-of-the-art technologies, such that informed decisions can be made as to appropriate price levels. Here we provide a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving. We find that these costs range from less than US$200 per article in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review, to about US$1,000 per article in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%. The publication costs for a representative scholarly article today come to lie at around US$400. We discuss the additional non-publication items that make up the difference between publication costs and final price.
For many decades, the hyperinflation of subscription prices for scholarly journals have concerned scholarly institutions. After years of fruitless efforts to solve this “serials crisis”, open access has been proposed as the latest potential solution. However, also the prices for open access publishing are high and are rising well beyond inflation. What has been missing from the public discussion so far is a quantitative approach to determine the actual costs of efficiently publishing a scholarly article using state-of-the-art technologies, such that informed decisions can be made as to appropriate price levels. Here we provide a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving. We find that these costs range from less than US$200 per article in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review, to about US$1,000 per article in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%. The publication costs for a representative scholarly article today come to lie at around US$400. We discuss the additional non-publication items that make up the difference between publication costs and final price.