Culture change in academia: Making sharing the new norm

Keynote address by neuroscientist and Open Access advocate Erin Mckiernan followed by a panel discussion featuring Pitt faculty Brian Beaton, Gordon Mitchell, Lara Putnam, and Jackie Smith. The event was sponsored by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh in celebration of the 7th International open Access Week, October 20-26, 2014. From the event announcement: "Join a lively discussion with Erin McKiernan, an early career researcher in experimental and computational neuroscience and a leading advocate for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science. McKiernan will explore the powerful, positive benefits of openness in scholarly research, the tension between personal success as a researcher and Open Science, and the need for reform in our academic evaluation and incentive systems. Panel discussion following with University of Pittsburgh faculty members: Brian Beaton (Moderator) Assistant Professor, School of Information Sciences and Interim Director, Sara Fine Institute for Interpersonal Behavior and Technology; Gordon Mitchell, Associate Professor of Communication and Assistant Dean, University Honors College; Lara Putnam, Professor of History and former co-senior editor, Hispanic American Historical Review; Jackie Smith, Professor of Sociology and editor, Journal of World-Systems Research. More about Erin McKiernan: McKiernan is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario. Previously she served as a researcher affiliated with the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, where she experienced firsthand the impact of cost barriers to accessing scholarly research. McKiernan has written about open access for international media outlets, such as The Conversation and The Guardian, and blogs about her experiences with Open Science. You can also follow her on Twitter at @emckiernan13.

Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations

Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication. Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT. Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors. These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions

Transgenic overexpression of 14-3-3 zeta protects hippocampus against endoplasmic reticulum stress and status epilepticus in vivo.

14-3-3 proteins are ubiquitous molecular chaperones that are abundantly expressed in the brain where they regulate cell functions including metabolism, the cell cycle and apoptosis. Brain levels of several 14-3-3 isoforms are altered in diseases of the nervous system, including epilepsy. The 14-3-3 zeta (ζ) isoform has been linked to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) function in neurons, with reduced levels provoking ER stress and increasing vulnerability to excitotoxic injury. Here we report that transgenic overexpression of 14-3-3ζ in mice results in selective changes to the unfolded protein response pathway in the hippocampus, including down-regulation of glucose-regulated proteins 78 and 94, activating transcription factors 4 and 6, and Xbp1 splicing. No differences were found between wild-type mice and transgenic mice for levels of other 14-3-3 isoforms or various other 14-3-3 binding proteins. 14-3-3ζ overexpressing mice were potently protected against cell death caused by intracerebroventricular injection of the ER stressor tunicamycin. 14-3-3ζ overexpressing mice were also potently protected against neuronal death caused by prolonged seizures. These studies demonstrate that increased 14-3-3ζ levels protect against ER stress and seizure-damage despite down-regulation of the unfolded protein response. Delivery of 14-3-3ζ may protect against pathologic changes resulting from prolonged or repeated seizures or where injuries provoke ER stress

Crosslinking and Mechanical Properties Significantly Influence Cell Attachment, Proliferation, and Migration Within Collagen Glycosaminoglycan Scaffolds.

Crosslinking and the resultant changes in mechanical properties have been shown to influence cellular activity within collagen biomaterials. With this in mind, we sought to determine the effects of crosslinking on both the compressive modulus of collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds and the activity of osteoblasts seeded within them. Dehydrothermal, 1-ethyl-3-3-dimethyl aminopropyl carbodiimide and glutaraldehyde crosslinking treatments were first investigated for their effect on the compressive modulus of the scaffolds. After this, the most promising treatments were used to study the effects of crosslinking on cellular attachment, proliferation, and infiltration. Our experiments have demonstrated that a wide range of scaffold compressive moduli can be attained by varying the parameters of the crosslinking treatments. 1-Ethyl-3-3-dimethyl aminopropyl carbodiimide and glutaraldehyde treatments produced the stiffest scaffolds (fourfold increase when compared to dehydrothermal crosslinking). When cells were seeded onto the scaffolds, the stiffest scaffolds also showed increased cell number and enhanced cellular distribution when compared to the other groups. Taken together, these results indicate that crosslinking can be used to produce collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds with a range of compressive moduli, and that increased stiffness enhances cellular activity within the scaffolds

Histological examination of the gills as a method of detecting asymptomatic carriers of A. Salmonicida in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Copyright © 1986 J.F. McArdle et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Peer-reviewed

Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics

The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments

Use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

We analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master’s institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF