To investigate whether and how user data are shared by top rated medicines related mobile applications (apps) and to characterise privacy risks to app users, both clinicians and consumers.

This information was not explicitly stated in either article, but the sample and community description makes it clear that the participants of these studies are the same people, though the sample sizes differ slightly (ns = 85 and 86). However, this redundancy did not produce any analysis problems because the correlation matrix in the Grigorenko et al. (2001) article was not positive definite.

The serendipity of networked practice together with a heightened attention to the importance of protecting the place of human interaction in education resulted in many conference presentations and publications

The natural selection of bad science

West, L. H. T., Hore, T., & Boon, P. K. (1980). Publication rates and productivity.Vestes,23,32–37

The problems here stem from a lack of comprehensiveness, interoperability, and critical mass uptake as the de facto platform for PPPR. The result of this is a mess of different platforms having different types of commentary on different articles, or sometimes the same ones, none of which can be viewed easily in a single, standardised way. That doesn’t seem very efficient.

acing to convey a sense of momentum

Samson-Steinbach Delphine, Legeai Fabrice, Karsenty Emmanuelle et al. (2003) GénoPlante-Info (GPI): a collection of databases and bioinformatics resources for plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 179–182.

Pivotal roles are played by three enzymes, (phospho-fructokinase (PFK), pyruvate kinase (PK) and phosphofructoki-nase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase (PFKFB)) through their inhibi-tion or activation by three reaction intermediates (fructose-1,6-bisphosphate (F16BP), fructose-2,6-bisphosphate (F26BP), andphosphoenolpyruvate (PEP)) in glycolysis. These enzymes havemultiple isoforms (PFKL/M/P, PKM1/M2/L/R and PFKFB1-4)which are subjected to contrasting allosteric regulations [9–11].Each isoform, therefore, affects the glycolytic activity in a distinctmanner.All three isoforms of PFK are activated by F6P and F26BP [12],but only PFKM and PFKL are activated by F16BP [13–15].PFKFB is a bifunctional enzyme whose kinase and bisphosphatasedomains catalyze the formation and hydrolysis reaction of F26BP,respectively [9,16]. Isozymes of PFKFB differ in their kinase andphosphatase activities as well as in their sensitivity to feedbackinhibition by phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) [17–19]. Thus, eachisozyme of PFKFB has a profoundly distinct capacity inmodulating PFK activity. Pyruvate kinase (PK) in mammaliansystems is encoded by two genes that can produce two isoformseach. Except for the PKM1 isoform, the other three isoformsof PK, PKM2, PKL and PKR, are activated by F16BP to varyingextents [11]. The M2 isoform of PK, in addition to activation byF16BP, is also under the control of a host of allosteric modulatorsincluding serine, succinylaminoimidazolecarboxamide ribose-5-phosphate (SAICAR) and phenylalanine among others [

Belinda Cleary For Daily Mail Australia

T he Future of Publications in the Humanities

Does peer review work? Is peer review broken? The vast majority of authors believe it improves their final work, and since it’s evolving from this solid base, it’s clearly not broken. But before we can have a useful discussion about its purpose and effectiveness, we need to agree on which approach to peer review we’re talking about, then whether our expectations of it are reasonable and accurate.

Here are some variables around peer-review we have to understand before we know what kind of peer review we’re actually talking about: Is it blinded? If it is blinded, is it single-blinded or double-blinded? Is there statistical or methodological review in addition to external peer-review? Are the peer reviewers truly experts in the field or a more general assemblage of individuals? What are the promises and goals of the peer review process? What type of disclosure of financial or other potential competing interests is made? Are reviewers aware of these? Is there a senior editor of some sort involved along with outside peer reviewers? Is the peer-review “inherited” from another body, such as a committee or a preceding journal process (e.g., in “cascading” title situations or when expert panels have been involved)? Are there two tiers of peer review within the same journal’s practices? Is the peer-review done at the article level or at the corpus level (as happens with some supplements)? Is plagiarism-detection software used as part of the process? Are figures checked for manipulation? Is the peer reviewer graded by a senior editor as part of an internal evaluation and improvement process?

Is the only reason we persist with journals and their articles is because they provide a convenient means to weigh the pig?

Author and peer reviewer anonymity haven’t been shown to have an overall benefit, and they may cause harm. Part of the potential for harm is if journals act as though it’s a sufficiently effective mechanism to prevent bias.

Peer reviewers were more likely to substantiate the points they made (9, 14, 16, 17) when they knew they would be named. They were especially likely to provide extra substantiation if they were recommending an article be rejected, and they knew their report would be published if the article was accepted anyway (9, 15).