A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

Aldosterone does not require angiotensin II to activate NCC through a WNK4–SPAK–dependent pathway

We and others have recently shown that angiotensin II can activate the sodium chloride cotransporter (NCC) through a WNK4–SPAK-dependent pathway. Because WNK4 was previously shown to be a negative regulator of NCC, it has been postulated that angiotensin II converts WNK4 to a positive regulator. Here, we ask whether aldosterone requires angiotensin II to activate NCC and if their effects are additive. To do so, we infused vehicle or aldosterone in adrenalectomized rats that also received the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan. In the presence of losartan, aldosterone was still capable of increasing total and phosphorylated NCC twofold to threefold. The kinases WNK4 and SPAK also increased with aldosterone and losartan. A dose-dependent relationship between aldosterone and NCC, SPAK, and WNK4 was identified, suggesting that these are aldosterone-sensitive proteins. As more functional evidence of increased NCC activity, we showed that rats receiving aldosterone and losartan had a significantly greater natriuretic response to hydrochlorothiazide than rats receiving losartan only. To study whether angiotensin II could have an additive effect, rats receiving aldosterone with losartan were compared with rats receiving aldosterone only. Rats receiving aldosterone only retained more sodium and had twofold to fourfold increase in phosphorylated NCC. Together, our results demonstrate that aldosterone does not require angiotensin II to activate NCC and that WNK4 appears to act as a positive regulator in this pathway. The additive effect of angiotensin II may favor electroneutral sodium reabsorption during hypovolemia and may contribute to hypertension in diseases with an activated renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system