Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of a new wave of 'Open Science' or 'Open Research' has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of 'global' databases. The presented facts, arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system

A MOOC approach for training researchers in developing countries

We report on an online course in research writing offered in a massive open online course (MOOC) format for developing country researchers. The concepts of cognitive presence, teacher presence, and social presence informed the design of the course, with a philosophy of strong social interaction supported by guest facilitators. The course was developed with low-bandwidth elements and hosted on a Moodle site. It was offered twice as a MOOC and 2830 learners from more than 90 countries, mainly in the developing world, took part. The average completion rate was 53%. Female learners and learners who were active in the forums were more likely to complete the course. Our MOOC approach may be a useful model for continuing professional development training in the developing world

Ten Myths around Open Scholarly Publishing

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system

Whole-genome sequencing provides new insights into the clonal architecture of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma

The molecular genetic relationship between esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor lesion, Barrett's esophagus, is poorly understood. Using whole-genome sequencing on 23 paired Barrett's esophagus and EAC samples, together with one in-depth Barrett's esophagus case study sampled over time and space, we have provided the following new insights: (i) Barrett's esophagus is polyclonal and highly mutated even in the absence of dysplasia; (ii) when cancer develops, copy number increases and heterogeneity persists such that the spectrum of mutations often shows surprisingly little overlap between EAC and adjacent Barrett's esophagus; and (iii) despite differences in specific coding mutations, the mutational context suggests a common causative insult underlying these two conditions. From a clinical perspective, the histopathological assessment of dysplasia appears to be a poor reflection of the molecular disarray within the Barrett's epithelium, and a molecular Cytosponge technique overcomes sampling bias and has the capacity to reflect the entire clonal architecture.</p