Open Peer Review Module (OPRM). Final Report

Research productivity is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Technological innovations, a surge in available computing power, and the ease with which digital information is stored and communicated is helping researchers to cross experimentation boundaries, to increase data availability, and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge. As a result, traditional research is being transformed into a dynamic and globally interconnected effort where ideas, tools and results can be made instantly accessible to the entire academic community. Institutional and multidisciplinary open access repositories play a crucial role in this emerging landscape by enabling immediate accessibility to all kinds of research output. One important element still missing from open access repositories, however, is a quantitative assessment of the hosted research items that will facilitate the process of selecting the most relevant and distinguished content. Common currently available metrics, such as number of visits and downloads, do not reflect the quality of a research work, which can only be assessed directly by peers offering their expert opinion together with quantitative ratings based on specific criteria. To address this issue we developed an Open Peer Review Module (OPRM) to be installed on existing open access repositories and offered as an overlay service. Any digital research work hosted in a compliant repository can then be evaluated by an unlimited number of peers who offer not only a qualitative assessment in the form of text, but also quantitative measures that are used to build the reputation of the research work and its authors. Crucially, this evaluation system is open and transparent. By open we mean that the full text of the peer reviews are publicly available along with the original research work. By transparent we mean that the identity of the reviewers is disclosed to the authors and to the public. In our model, openness and transparency are two elemental aspects we consider necessary to address the issue of biased or non-expert opinions, which is inherent in the anonymous peer review model, characterized by the unaccountability of reviewers. Importantly, our open peer review module includes a reviewer reputation system based on the assessment of reviews themselves by other peer reviewers. This allows a sophisticated scaling of the importance of each review on the overall assessment of a research work, based on the reputation of the reviewer. The implementation of a peer review layer on top of institutional repositories could have the potential to transform the current academic publication landscape by introducing new scholarly workflows where a research item can be openly evaluated by the world’s experts right at the institutional repository of its authors, before being submitted to an academic journal. This workflow challenges the current practices of peer review research evaluation. In most cases, journals, acting as brands in a competitive market, foster academic competition for a limited number of publication slots, instead of promoting open scholarship and collaboration. The integration of peer review in repositories will enable direct and transparent academic collaboration between authors and reviewers. In addition, the use of the OPRM will produce novel metrics directly reflecting the perceived quality of a research work by expert peers, contrary to current available altmetrics that only indirectly account for quality through usage statistics.OpenAIR

Open Peer Review Module for Open Access Repositories

Presentamos el primer módulo de revisión por pares abierto para repositorios de acceso abierto. El módulo, diseñado en esta primera etapa para la integración con repositorios DSpace, para evitar ‘endogamia’, permite a cualquier especialista ofrecer una evaluación cualitativa y cuantitativa de cualquier trabajo de investigación alojado en un repositorio compatible. El sistema se apoya en el uso de métricas ponderadas de reputación para artículos, revisiones, autores y revisores. Una función de búsqueda avanzada permite a los usuarios del repositorio filtrar u ordenar los trabajos de investigación por su reputación, que se calcula basándose en las revisiones que recibe. La integración de la revisión por pares en los repositorios promueve la discusión abierta al permitir una colaboración directa, abierta y transparente entre los autores y los revisores, y produce nuevas métricas que reflejan directamente la calidad de un trabajo de investigación percibida por los colegas expertos, al contrario que las métricas actuales disponibles que dan cuenta de la calidad solo de manera indirecta a través de las estadísticas de uso. El sistema de revisión por pares implementado permite que los revisores de un trabajo y los autores del mismo (derecho de réplica) que estén en la base de datos del repositorio pueden hacer comentarios sobre las revisiones del trabajo. Esta es una opción que podría ser ampliada a todos los especialistas en la materia registrados en el repositorio pero sin tenerlos en cuenta en las métricas. El módulo de revisión por pares en abierto ya se ha instalado en dos importantes repositorios españoles (DIGITAL.CSIC, e-IEO) con resultados iniciales prometedores.We present the first open peer review module for open access repositories. The module, designed in this first stage for integration with DSpace repositories, in order to avoid “inbreeding”, enables any scholar to offer a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of any research object hosted in a compliant repository. Weighted reputation metrics are calculated for articles, reviews, authors and reviewers. An advanced search function allows repository users to filter or sort research objects based on their reputation, which it is calculated based on the reviews received. The integration of peer review in repositories promotes open scholarship by enabling a direct, open and transparent collaboration between authors and reviewers, and produces novel metrics directly reflecting the perceived quality of a research work by expert peers, contrary to current available metrics that only indirectly account for quality through usage statistics. Reviewers of the work and the authors of the work (right of reply) at the repository data base can comment on the reviews of that work. This option may be extended to all specialists in the field registered at the repository but without taking them into account in metrics. The open peer review module has already been installed in two major Spanish repositories (DIGITAL.CSIC, e-IEO) with promising initial results.OpenAIR

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

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 and reduce the biases of existing models as much 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 could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and 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

Genome-Wide Association Study and Functional Characterization Identifies Candidate Genes for Insulin-Stimulated Glucose Uptake

Distinct tissue-specific mechanisms mediate insulin action in fasting and postprandial states. Previous genetic studies have largely focused on insulin resistance in the fasting state, where hepatic insulin action dominates. Here we studied genetic variants influencing insulin levels measured 2 h after a glucose challenge in \u3e55,000 participants from three ancestry groups. We identified ten new loci (P \u3c 5 × 10-8) not previously associated with postchallenge insulin resistance, eight of which were shown to share their genetic architecture with type 2 diabetes in colocalization analyses. We investigated candidate genes at a subset of associated loci in cultured cells and identified nine candidate genes newly implicated in the expression or trafficking of GLUT4, the key glucose transporter in postprandial glucose uptake in muscle and fat. By focusing on postprandial insulin resistance, we highlighted the mechanisms of action at type 2 diabetes loci that are not adequately captured by studies of fasting glycemic traits

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

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 and reduce the biases of existing models as much 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 could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and 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

The role of endocrine and metabolic system in COVID-19 disease - the transcampus experience and review of evidence from international collaborating groups.

The COVID-19 Pandemic has led to a world health crisis with major socioeconomic consequences that have deeply affected our daily lives. Until the end of May 2022, more than 500 million people have been infected by COVID-19 and more than 6 million have died from the disease. Unprecedented efforts in research, illustrated by the more than 250 000 publications in PubMed, have led to the identification of important pathophysiological mechanisms affected by SARS-CoV-2 and have resulted in the development of effective vaccines and treatment protocols for patients with COVID-19

The interface of COVID-19, diabetes, and depression.

Comorbid diabetes with depression is a challenging and often under-recognized clinical problem. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, a communicable disease is thriving on the increasing incidences of these non-communicable diseases. These three different health problems are bidirectionally connected forming a vicious cycle. Firstly, depressed individuals show a higher risk of developing diabetes and patients with diabetes have a higher risk of developing symptoms of depression. Secondly, patients with diabetes have a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 as well as of experiencing breakthrough infections. Thirdly, in both patients with type 2 diabetes and in COVID-19 survivors the prevalence of depression seems to be increased. Fourthly, lockdown and quarantine measurements during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in depression. Therefore, it is of importance to increase the awareness of this interface between depression, diabetes and COVID-19. Finally, as symptoms of post-COVID, diabetes and depression may be overlapping, there is a need for educating skilled personnel in the management of these comorbidities

Metabolic regulation of activins in healthy individuals and in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery

Objective: Follistatin binds and inactivates activins, which are potent inhibitors of muscle growth and metabolism and are currently being developed for the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). We have recently reported that follistatin is regulated by glucose (and not lipids) and can prospectively predict the metabolic improvements observed after bariatric surgery. We utilized novel assays herein to investigate whether activins are regulated by glucose or lipids, whether their circulating levels change after bariatric surgery and whether these changes are predictors of metabolic outcomes up to 12 months later. Design and Methods: Activin A, B, AB and their ratios to follistatin were measured in (a) healthy humans (n = 32) undergoing oral or intravenous lipid or glucose intake over 6 h, (b) morbidly obese individuals with or without type 2 diabetes undergoing three different types of bariatric surgery (gastric banding, Roux-en-Y bypass or sleeve gastrectomy) in two clinical studies (n = 14 for the first and n = 27 for the second study). Results: Glucose intake downregulates circulating activin A, B and AB, indicating the presence of a feedback loop. Activin A decreases (~30%), activin AB increases (~25%) and activin B does not change after bariatric surgery. The changes in activin AB and its ratio to follistatin 3 months after bariatric surgery can predict the BMI reduction and the improvement in insulin and HOMA-IR observed 6 months postoperatively. Conclusion: Activins are implicated in glucose regulation in humans as part of a feedback loop with glucose or insulin and predict metabolic outcomes prospectively after bariatric surgery. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Lt