Is hyperbaric oxygen therapy an effective treatment for autism? A review

Objectives: We review outcome studies regarding the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Method: Studies were identified through electronic bibliographic databases and manual searches of article reference lists. Results: A total of 8 studies met eligibility criteria, consisting of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one quasi-experimental study involving a comparison group, two pre-experimental one-group pretest–posttest studies, and two single-system designs. Studies reviewed did not offer credible evidence to suggest that HBOT is an effective treatment for autism. Conclusion: It is premature to call HBOT an effective treatment for Autism and ASD. Individuals clinically treated with HBOT outside the context of a RCT should have the effects of the therapy evaluated using rigorous single-subject designs

Grand theory in international relations: an investigation of a chimera

Grand theory is either understood as a particularly useful form of theory or a deeply problematic form of theory in the discipline of international relations (IR). Grand theory, for some, is useful as a "map", a "big picture" or a "framework" to orient and guide research. For others, grand theory either distracts attention from studying what matters in IR, or it is understood to have so many problematic effects that it should be abandoned. Despite the prominence of grand theory, there is no agreement on what constitutes a grand theory in IR. It is difficult to adjudicate whether grand theory is useful or problematic in general because theorists think that different types of grand theory are either useful or problematic. To gain a better understanding of whether grand theory is useful or problematic, I investigate three particular grand theories: Buzan's social structural approach (2004), Lebow's cultural theory (2008) and Ripsman et al.'s type III neoclassical realism (2016). I argue that Buzan (2004) and Lebow (2008) abandon their projects of grand theory while Ripsman et al. (2016) retain their commitment to grand theory. By answering why Buzan (2004) and Lebow (2008) abandoned grand theory, and why Ripsman et al. (2016) have retained their committed to grand theory, I aim to make a contribution as to whether grand theory can be viewed as useful or problematic in IR

“Where is War? We are War.” Teaching and Learning the Human Experience of War in the Classroom

How do we teach and learn the human experience of war? How far removed is this experience from a classroom? This article uses these questions as the starting point for an investigation into the presence/absence of war experience, the effects of narratives distancing war, and the consequences of challenging these narratives. It draws on the experience of an undergraduate module at the University of Kent that investigates the human experience of war in which students were asked to reflect on the question of distance between those living “war experiences” and their lives in a small British city. Unexpectedly in 2015, several students argued that this distance was the lecturer’s construction. By making war personal – without any of them having experienced a “warzone” – the students chose to argue that war was also their experience. This response directly challenges an established narrative in International Relations that the West has been essentially at peace since World War II, a narrative that obscures the fundamental role of war experience in the lives of ordinary citizens. It leads to a broadened understanding of war experience that has important conceptual, political, and normative implications in the study of war and on our political responsibility in the everyday

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible

In the Round: The Future of Food

In collaboration with PopTech, the Center for Complexity (CfC) hosted a two day convening in March 2019 to discuss the future of food, conducted in-the-round. Conversations-in-the-round offer an experimental and collaborative forum where a variety of perspectives collide to reimagine how we should approach navigating complex challenges. 30 professionals, community leaders, ag-tech startups, policymakers, local activists, global aid administrators, and many other important voices in the food industry were in attendance. We did not set out to create solutions, rather we devoted our time to exploration — a process that allowed us to assess, discover, reality-check, and strategically plan the next phase of the journey. A publication was created to capture the discussions, workshops, proposals, deign principles and actionable next steps. The outcomes of this first convening will guide what comes next. Our aim is to initiate a series of projects conducted by the CfC and our partners to advance the future of food according to shared design principles. We are working with PopTech to host further convenings.https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/cfc_projectsprograms_globalsecurity_futureoffood/1000/thumbnail.jp

Explaining Institutional Change: Why Elected Politicians Implement Direct Democracy

In existing models of direct democratic institutions, the median voter benefits, but representative politicians are harmed since their policy choices can be overridden. This is a puzzle, since representative politicians were instrumental in creating these institutions. I build a model of direct democracy that explains why a representative might benefit from tying his or her own hands in this way. The key features are (1) that voters are uncertain about their representative's preferences; (2) that direct and representative elections are complementary ways for voters to control outcomes. The model shows that some politicians benefit from the introduction of direct democracy, since they are more likely to survive representative elections: direct democracy credibly prevents politicians from realising extreme outcomes. Historical evidence from the introduction of the initiative, referendum and recall in America broadly supports the theory, which also explains two empirical results that have puzzled scholars: legislators are trusted less, but reelected more, in US states with direct democracy. I conclude by discussing the potential for incomplete information and signaling models to improve our understanding of institutional change more generally

Assessing the impact of predatory journals on policy and guidance documents: a cross-sectional study protocol.

peer reviewed[en] INTRODUCTION: Many predatory journals fail to follow best publication practices. Studies assessing the impact of predatory journals have focused on how these articles are cited in reputable academic journals. However, it is possible that research from predatory journals is cited beyond the academic literature in policy documents and guidelines. Given that research used to inform public policy or government guidelines has the potential for widespread impact, we will examine whether predatory journals have penetrated public policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a descriptive study with no hypothesis testing. Policy documents that cite work from the known predatory publisher OMICS will be downloaded from the Overton database. Overton collects policy documents from over 1200 sources worldwide. Policy documents will be evaluated to determine how the predatory journal article is used. We will also extract epidemiological details of the policy documents, including: who funded their development, the discipline the work is relevant to and the name of the organisations producing the policy. The record of scholarly citations of the identified predatory articles will also be examined. Findings will be reported with descriptive statistics using counts and percentages. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval was required for this study since it does not involve human or animal research. Study findings will be discussed at workshops on journalology and predatory publishing and will be disseminated through preprint, peer-reviewed literature and conference presentations

Misregulation of Scm3p/HJURP Causes Chromosome Instability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Human Cells

The kinetochore (centromeric DNA and associated proteins) is a key determinant for high fidelity chromosome transmission. Evolutionarily conserved Scm3p is an essential component of centromeric chromatin and is required for assembly and function of kinetochores in humans, fission yeast, and budding yeast. Overexpression of HJURP, the mammalian homolog of budding yeast Scm3p, has been observed in lung and breast cancers and is associated with poor prognosis; however, the physiological relevance of these observations is not well understood. We overexpressed SCM3 and HJURP in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and HJURP in human cells and defined domains within Scm3p that mediate its chromosome loss phenotype. Our results showed that the overexpression of SCM3 (GALSCM3) or HJURP (GALHJURP) caused chromosome loss in a wild-type yeast strain, and overexpression of HJURP led to mitotic defects in human cells. GALSCM3 resulted in reduced viability in kinetochore mutants, premature separation of sister chromatids, and reduction in Cse4p and histone H4 at centromeres. Overexpression of CSE4 or histone H4 suppressed chromosome loss and restored levels of Cse4p at centromeres in GALSCM3 strains. Using mutant alleles of scm3, we identified a domain in the N-terminus of Scm3p that mediates its interaction with CEN DNA and determined that the chromosome loss phenotype of GALSCM3 is due to centromeric association of Scm3p devoid of Cse4p/H4. Furthermore, we determined that similar to other systems the centromeric association of Scm3p is cell cycle regulated. Our results show that altered stoichiometry of Scm3p/HJURP, Cse4p, and histone H4 lead to defects in chromosome segregation. We conclude that stringent regulation of HJURP and SCM3 expression are critical for genome stability

Justify your alpha

Benjamin et al. proposed changing the conventional “statistical significance” threshold (i.e.,the alpha level) from p ≤ .05 to p ≤ .005 for all novel claims with relatively low prior odds. They provided two arguments for why lowering the significance threshold would “immediately improve the reproducibility of scientific research.” First, a p-value near .05provides weak evidence for the alternative hypothesis. Second, under certain assumptions, an alpha of .05 leads to high false positive report probabilities (FPRP2 ; the probability that a significant finding is a false positive