ASTRO Journals' Data Sharing Policy and Recommended Best Practices.

Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are important characteristics in scientific publishing. Although many researchers embrace these characteristics, data sharing has yet to become common practice. Nevertheless, data sharing is becoming an increasingly important topic among societies, publishers, researchers, patient advocates, and funders, especially as it pertains to data from clinical trials. In response, ASTRO developed a data policy and guide to best practices for authors submitting to its journals. ASTRO's data sharing policy is that authors should indicate, in data availability statements, if the data are being shared and if so, how the data may be accessed

What Are Reviewers Looking For? A Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Responses from a Questionnaire Sent to Faculty in Agricultural Communications

While peer review is the best system available for assessing the quality of research manuscripts, the system is imperfect at best. How peer review is conducted is often guided by unwritten rules, which can make writing articles for peer review more difficult. New reviewers also lack information on what other reviewers are looking for. This project assessed what reviewers were looking for when evaluating research papers. An anonymous link was sent to agricultural communications faculty members were eligible to review papers. There were 22 responses from the 43 faculty members who were sent the link to participate. Processes for reviewing varied, but it was typical to take notes while reading the article. About half of reviewers spent less than two hours per article. Overarching criteria reviewers were looking for were connection between sections of the paper, overall quality of work, writing quality, clarity, and the contribution of the work. Each section of research papers was also addressed in the study. The results of this study provide an overall roadmap for what agricultural communications reviewers are looking for, but it needs to be noted that different reviewers were looking for different things, so there will likely never be a single right approach for authors trying to clear the peer review hurdle. Future research is needed to further clarify the peer review process, including authors and those who have overseen the peer review process, such as editors and conference organizers

Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation

I reviewed the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review, which consisted of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, results-blind reviews, structured rating sheets, open peer review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish itpeer review, journals, publications

Peer review innovations in Humanities: how can scholars in A&H profit of the "wisdom of the crowds"?

Though supported by a large number of scholars in Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) disciplines traditional peer review does not live up to the needs of an efficient scholarly communication system and of quality research control. Therefore journals in STM are experimenting different forms of refereeing in combination with more traditional peer review system. Such is the case of PLoSONE, Biology Direct, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and JIME. However in STM disciplines public peer review is not regarded an alternative to more traditional quality certification forms. It may be the case in the Arts & Humanities. In A&H publishing system peer review is by far a less common practice. Therefore the adoption of a social peer review process could be very useful to foster research in humanities. Scholars in A&H can profit of the interactive evaluation forms of the public peer-review to strengthen the scholarly debate, to foster active international and interdisciplinary discussions, to focus social attention on topics in Humanities, to broaden the borders of the cultural and intellectual discourse among non-scholars (public debate). This paper will provide some examples of how social peer review has been adopted by innovative communities of scholars in humanities to publish new experimental digital book models. In the digital environment the concepts of “document”, of “completeness of a document” and of “evaluation” is fast changing. In a close future in scholarly publishing it might become possible to overcome the rigid distinction between ex-ante and ex-post evaluation as the evaluation process might become an enduring part of the text itsel

Informed consent and placebo effects: a content analysis of information leaflets to identify what clinical trial participants are told about placebos

BackgroundPlacebo groups are used in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to control for placebo effects, which can be large. Participants in trials can misunderstand written information particularly regarding technical aspects of trial design such as randomisation; the adequacy of written information about placebos has not been explored. We aimed to identify what participants in major RCTs in the UK are told about placebos and their effects.Methods and FindingsWe conducted a content analysis of 45 Participant Information Leaflets (PILs) using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. PILs were obtained from trials on a major registry of current UK clinical trials (the UKCRN database). Eligible leaflets were received from 44 non-commercial trials but only 1 commercial trial. The main limitation is the low response rate (13.5%), but characteristics of included trials were broadly representative of all non-commercial trials on the database. 84% of PILs were for trials with 50:50 randomisation ratios yet in almost every comparison the target treatments were prioritized over the placebos. Placebos were referred to significantly less frequently than target treatments (7 vs. 27 mentions, p<001) and were significantly less likely than target treatments to be described as triggering either beneficial effects (1 vs. 45, p<001) or adverse effects (4 vs. 39, p<001). 8 PILs (18%) explicitly stated that the placebo treatment was either undesirable or ineffective.ConclusionsPILs from recent high quality clinical trials emphasise the benefits and adverse effects of the target treatment, while largely ignoring the possible effects of the placebo. Thus they provide incomplete and at times inaccurate information about placebos. Trial participants should be more fully informed about the health changes that they might experience from a placebo. To do otherwise jeopardises informed consent and is inconsistent with not only the science of placebos but also the fundamental rationale underpinning placebo controlled trials

Suicidal behavior and antiepileptic drugs in epilepsy: analysis of the emerging evidence.

Two years after the warning issued by the Food and Drug Administration on an increased risk of suicide for people taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), a number of pharmacoepidemiologic studies have been published but the scientific community is far from definitive answers. The present paper is aimed at reviewing available evidence on the association between AEDs and suicidal behavior, discussing major variables involved such as the relationship between epilepsy, depression, and suicide and the psychotropic potential of AEDs. All studies published so far show a lack of concordance and are constrained by various methodological limitations. What seems to be established is that mood disorders represent a frequent comorbidity in epilepsy and suicide is a serious complication more frequently encountered in epilepsy rather than in the general population. Moreover, a subgroup of patients appears to be at risk of developing treatment-emergent psychiatric adverse effects of AEDs independently of the specific mechanism of action of the drug. The prior history of suicide attempt, especially preceding the onset of the epilepsy, may represent a key element explaining why what is observed is independent of the specific mechanism of the drug. In general terms, risks associated with stopping, or not even starting, AEDs in epilepsy might well be in excess of the risk of suicide in epilepsy, as deaths due to accident and epilepsy itself may predominate. Clinicians need to pay attention not only to seizure patterns when choosing the appropriate AED but also to a number of different parameters (eg, age, gender, working needs, medical comorbidities, history of psychiatric disorders, and suicidality before epilepsy onset) and not the least the mental state of the patient. Missing severe complications such as suicidal behavior or delaying its treatment may worsen the prognosis of epilepsy

When Curiosity Kills the Profits: an Experimental Examination

Economic theory predicts that in a first-price auction with equal and observable valuations, bidders earn zero profits. Theory also predicts that if valuations are not common knowledge, then since it is weakly dominated to bid your valuation, bidders will bid less and earn positive profits. Hence, rational players in an auction game should prefer less public information. We are perhaps more used to seeing these results in the equivalent Bertrand setting. In our experimental auction, we find that individuals without information on each other's valuations earn more profits than those with common knowledge. Then, given a choice between the two sets of rules, half the individuals still preferred to have the public information. We discuss possible explanations, including ambiguity aversion.First-price auctions, experiments, value of information, common knowledge, ambiguity aversion, Bertrand, public information