How is research publishing going to progress in the next 20 years?:Transcription of Session for Editors, Associate Editors, Publishers and Others with an Interest in Scientific Publishing Held at IADR Meeting In Seattle on Wednesday, 20 March 2013

On March 20th 2013, a one‐hour session for E ditors, A ssociate Editors, P ublishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing was held at the IADR I nternational S ession in Seattle. Organised by K enneth E aton and C hris L ynch ( C hair and S ecretary, respectively, of the B ritish D ental E ditors F orum), the meeting sought to bring together leading international experts in dental publishing, as well as authors, reviewers and students engaged in research. The meeting was an overwhelming success, with more than 100 attendees. A panel involving four leading dental editors led a discussion on anticipated developments in publishing dental research with much involvement and contribution from audience members. This was the third such meeting held at the IADR for E ditors, A ssociate E ditors, P ublishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing. A follow up session will take place in C ape T own on 25 J une 2014 as part of the annual IADR meeting. The transcript of the meeting is reproduced in this article. Where possible speakers are identified by name. At the first time of mention their role/ position is also stated, thereafter only their name appears. We are grateful to S tephen H ancocks Ltd for their generous sponsorship of this event. For those who were not able to attend the authors hope this article gives a flavour of the discussions and will encourage colleagues to attend future events. Involvement is open to E ditors, A ssociate E ditors, Publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing. It is a very open group and all those with an interest will be welcome to join in.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106931/1/eje12089.pd

What's new pussycat? A genealogy of animal celebrity

Animal celebrity is a human creation informing us about our socially constructed natural world. It is relational, expressive of cultural proclivities, political power plays and the quotidian everyday, as well as serious philosophical reflections on the meaning of being human. This article attempts to outline some key contours in the genealogy of animal celebrity, showing how popular culture, including fairground attractions, public relations, Hollywood movies, documentary films, zoo attractions, commercial sport and mediatised moral panics - particularly those accompanying scientific developments such as cloning - help to order, categorise and license aspects of human understanding and feelings. The nature of [animal] charisma and celebrity are explored with assistance from Jumbo the Elephant, Guy the Gorilla, Paul the clairvoyant octopus, Uggie the film star, Nénette the orang-utan and Dolly the sheep. It argues that the issue of what it is to be human lies beneath the celebritised surface or, as Donna Haraway noted, the issue 'of having to face oneself'

Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions:a systematic review

Abstract Background Inconsistent outcome reporting is one significant hurdle to combining results from trials into systematic reviews. Core outcome sets (COS) can reduce this barrier. The aim of this review was to map outcomes reported in caries prevention and management randomised controlled trials (RCT) as a first step to COS development. We also investigated RCT characteristics and reporting of primary outcomes and sample size calculations. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched (1 January 1968 to 25 August 2015). Inclusion criteria: RCTs comparing any technique for prevention or management of caries with another or placebo and RCTs comparing interventions to support patients undergoing treatment of caries (without setting, dentition or age restrictions). Categories were developed through piloting and group consensus and outcomes grouped accordingly. Results Of 4773 search results, 764 were potentially relevant, full text was available for 731 papers and 605 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included. For all outcomes across the time periods 1968–1980 and 2001–2010, reporting of outcome ‘caries experience’ reduced from 39% to 18%; ‘clinical performance of the restoration’ reporting increased from 33% to 42% although there was a reduction to 22% in 2011–2015. Emerging outcome domains include ‘lesion activity’ and ‘pulp health-related outcomes’, accounting for 1% and 0%, respectively, during 1968–1980 and 10% and 4% for 2011–2015. Reporting ‘resource efficiency’ and ‘quality of life measures’ have remained at a low level. No publications reported tooth survival independent of an index such as DMFT or equivalent. Primary outcomes were only identified as such in 414 (68%) of the reports. Conclusions Over the past 50 years, outcome reporting for trials on prevention and management of carious lesions have tended to focus on outcomes measuring caries experience and restoration material clinical performance with lesion activity and cost-effectiveness increasingly being reported. Patient-reported and patient-focused outcomes are becoming more common (although as secondary outcomes) but remain low in use. The challenge with developing a COS will be balancing commonly previously reported outcomes against those more relevant for the future. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42015025310 . Registered on 14 August 2015, Trials (Schwendicke et al., Trials 16:397, 2015) and COMET initiative online (COMET, 2017)