It's not often you find effective treatments for negative symptoms. As a schizoid myself, this looks like a valuable tool. I'd be fascinated to see how LDN and ULDN perform.

These are the effects I was expecting to find. cGMP plays a role in SCN nighttime signalling, though I expect it has other mechanisms as well.

This is probably due to nasal congestion.

As expected. This study was placebo controlled, too.

This may mean ritanserin is superior. Amitriptyline is a dirtier drug affecting more than just serotonin receptors. Therefore, ritanserin likely has fewer side effects. However, I'm not currently aware of any studies demonstrating this.

Pleskac, T. J., Kyung, E., Chapman, G. B., & Urminsky, O. (2021, April 23). Single- or double-blind review? A field study of system preference, reliability, bias, and validity. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q2tkw

Da viele Autoren Pre-Prints ihrer Texte oder Präsentationen zu ihren Texten inst Netz stellen, ist es für die Gutachter oft nicht so schwer den Autor zu erraten - besonders bei kleinen Fach-Gemeinschaften. Insofern kann man bei double blind nie sicher sein, ob es am Ende doch nur single-blind ist.

Isaacson, Walter. ‘Opinion | I Was Part of a Trial for Pfizer’s Covid-19 Vaccine. It’s a Miracle for Genetic Medicine.’ Washington Post. Accessed 6 March 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-took-the-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-its-a-miracle-for-genetic-medicine/2020/11/09/77e652d0-22bf-11eb-952e-0c475972cfc0_story.html.

Zhu, F.-C., Guan, X.-H., Li, Y.-H., Huang, J.-Y., Jiang, T., Hou, L.-H., Li, J.-X., Yang, B.-F., Wang, L., Wang, W.-J., Wu, S.-P., Wang, Z., Wu, X.-H., Xu, J.-J., Zhang, Z., Jia, S.-Y., Wang, B.-S., Hu, Y., Liu, J.-J., … Chen, W. (2020). Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. The Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31605-6

Ennis, E. G. (2020, April 16). A Novel Solution to Academic Publishing. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gqxmu

• Salah satu alasan untuk tidak mengunggah preprint adalah takut idenya dicuri,

• Ini adalah faktor budaya yang lain. Ketakutan yang tidak beralasan. Justru dengan mengunggah preprint, peneliti dapat mengklaim ide lebih awal.

• Preprint ada yang bagus dan ada yang buruk, peninjauan akan ada di tangan pembaca. Ini adalah hambatan budaya berikutnya, ketika mayoritas pembaca ingin melimpahkan tanggungjawab untuk memverifikasi, memeriksa, dan menjamin kualitas suatu makalah kepada para peninjau.

• Pengalihan tanggungjawab ini sulit dilakukan ketika dokumen PR sendiri tertutup, dan tidak lepas dari bias.

• Selain itu, dosen akan menyalahi prinsip yang disebarluaskan kepada para mahasiswa, untuk membaca secara kritis.

Is there anything it can't do? I have noted, however, that larger doses cause nausea for me. That is, 3 or more grams on an empty stomach. I just vomited after taking 7.5 grams before my meal, but I have not yet established the causal link. It is the largest amount I've ever taken at one time. I suspect that it may have contributed significantly, but that it was also one out of half a dozen factors.

Fish, Stanley. 1988. “Guest Column: No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission.” PMLA 103 (5): 739–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/462513.

An interesting essay in the context I'm reading it (alongside Foucault's What is an author in preparation for a discussion of scientific authorship.

Among the interesting things about it are the way it encapsulates a distinction between the humanities and sciences in method (though Fish doesn't see it and it comes back to bite him in the Sokol affair). What Frye thinks is important because he is an author-function in Foucault's terms, I.e. a discourse initiator to whom we return for new insight.

Fish cites Peters and Ceci 1982 on peer review, and sides with those who argue that ethos should count in review of science as well.

Also interesting for an illustration of how much the field changed, from new criticism in the 1970s (when the first draft was written) until "now" i.e. 1989 when political criticism is the norm.