Communication training for aircrews: A review of theoretical and pragmatic aspects of training program design

This study is the final report of a project studying methods of communications training applicable to both civilian and military aviation personnel, including multiperson teams or single pilot fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft. A review is provided of a number of theories proposed as relevant for producing training materials for improved communications. Criteria are given for evaluating the applicability of training programs to the aviation environment, and these criteria are applied to United Airlines' Resources Management Training, as well as to a number of commercially available general purpose training programs. The report considers in detail assertiveness training and grid management training, examining their theoretical background and attempts made to validate their effectiveness. It was found that there are substantive difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of both training programs, as well as problems with the theories underlying them. However, because the aviation environment offers unique advantages for studying the effectiveness of communications training, recommendations are made on the design of appropriate training programs and on procedures that might be used to validate them

Public COAPI Toolkit of Open Access Policy Resources

The Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI, https://sparcopen.org/coapi ) is committed to sharing information and resources to assist in the development and implementation of institutional Open Access (OA) policies. The COAPI Toolkit includes a diverse collection of resources that COAPI members have developed in the course of their OA policy initiatives. These resources are openly accessible and published here under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licenses, unless otherwise noted on the resources themselves

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field