What makes a popular pooch?
An analysis of breed statistics from the US Kennel club database, containing records of more than 50 million dogs registered over the past 80 years, finds that some traits which might be considered favourable – such as longevity, health and a good temperament – are not correlated with overall popularity, measured by ownership. Instead, breed popularity over the past century is more likely to have been driven by changing fashions and fads, than by function.
Ghirlanda et al. PLoS One

Big data from big cats: Genome sequence of the Amur tiger
The first tiger genome sequence assembly and annotation reveals a 95.6 percent similarity to the domestic cat from it which diverged 10.8 million years ago. Comparative analysis with the genomes of other big cats like the snow leopard and African lion finds possible genetic signatures for their carnivorous lifestyle and powerful muscle strength, and could prove to be a valuable resource for future conservation efforts of these threatened species.
Sung Cho et al. Nature Communications

New methods to study how cells do the locomotion
How cells interact with one another when they come in to contact can be an important part of many biological processes; for example, directing the wound healing responses of epithelia. By contrast, regulatory failure of these contact processes can lead to malignancy, manifest in the invasiveness of cancerous cells. This concept is known as ‘contact inhibition of locomotion’, but due to the infrequency and unpredictability of some contact collisions, has so far proved difficult to study. Now a new assay to restrict such collisions to a one-dimensional surface guides cells into microscale furrows on an assay plate, in order to better manipulate their motility.
Scarpa et al. Biology Open

“It is essential that plant data are made available”
The vast amount of data generated by new high-throughput methods means that far more data is generated in the course of most experiments than is often needed for their final analysis. Developments in the fields of transcriptomics, metabolomics and proteomics means that large, open-access databases are readily available in which to make this data discoverable and re-usable  for all scientists. However, understanding what data should be deposited and where can be something of a minefield. A Commentary article in the Journal of Experimental Botany aims to summarise the current state of these fields for practising plant scientists, guiding them through the available options. The authors conclude that community-driven initiatives to improve access to data are essential to foster growth in the plant sciences and related disciplines.
Leonelli et al. Journal of Experimental Botany

Apes go for grapes when given a choice
In the wild, chimpanzees live in complex groups in which social interactions may mediate foraging decisions. However, the extent to which individuals are influenced by the perceived success of their social partners may vary among different species of non-human primates. In a reward-based feeding experiment in which chimps were offered the choice of high-value items like grapes versus low-value items like celery, individuals attempted to maximise their own rewards when they had previously received low-value items, regardless of the level of reward that they had seen other chimps given. However, they would only do so if they could be certain of receiving a high-value item. When food rewards could not be improved, individuals agreed to low-value items only when their test partners were also perceived to be obtaining the same low-value items, suggesting that some form of social facilitation does operate in this species.
Hopper et al. PeerJ

Identifying the master switch in fungal spore formation
In order to reproduce successfully, filamentous fungi such as Streptomyces send out aerial spores. A protein called WhiA  plays a critical role in initiating this sporulation, with mutant fungi lacking the protein being unable to proceed to the aerial phase of spore formation. Intriguingly the protein is also found in all Gram-positive bacteria, even those that do not sporulate. Understanding the regulatory networks that switch spore formation on and off will therefore provide valuable insights into the evolution of this feature of the fungal life-cycle. Previous work on this system has been hampered by logistical problems in obtaining sufficient fungal biomass in the spore phase to be able to use genomic techniques such as CHIP-seq. However, an emerging model species, Streptomyces venezuelae is able to overcome this by sporulating entirely in liquid culture. Applying the CHIP-seq techniques to this new system has now allowed researchers to confirm WhiA as a transcription factor and characterise the genes involved in spore formation that are under its control.
Bush et al. mBio

To coincide with this year’s Experimental Biology conference, BioMed Central and BMC Biology organised a panel discussion to discuss the increasing frustration with the peer review process from the scientific community.

Chaired by Greg Petsko (who neatly summarised some of the problems before the discussion here) the panel brought together representatives of each role in the process: scientist, reviewer and Editor (both academic and professional).

“The thesis is that there is something seriously wrong with the scientific review process… which has become, if not outright broken, distorted to the point where it’s hindering people’s careers, and causing more problems than it is solving.”

Greg Petsko, Weill Cornell Medical College, USA

The discussion itself is summarised here, and this video brings together some opinions voiced on the evening, from Greg Petsko, Emilie Marcus, Hidde Ploegh, Josh Sanes and Laurie Goodman.

“I do think there are inefficiencies … it’s important that we look for what those inefficiencies are and identify ways to improve them… that preserve the value and quality of peer review.”

Emilie Marcus, CEO Cell Press

 

Emilie Marcus, CEO of Cell Press and Editor of Cell, gives her thoughts on the role of the Editor and the reviewer in the process, and current inefficiencies in the system.

Hidde Ploegh (whose high profile call in Nature to ‘End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments’ was referenced throughout the discussion) reiterates his point that funding for science should not be being spent on time-consuming rounds of review in order to publish in high-profile journals, but to ‘get the scientific question answered’.

Josh Sanes, co-Editor-in-Chief of Neural Development, discusses the non-linear effect that journal prestige currently has on the career progression of young scientists.

“The hierarchy of journals has an effect that’s completely disproportionate to the real difference in quality of the papers that are published.”

Joshua Sanes, Harvard University

Throughout the discussion, questions and comments from the floor were forthcoming, and Laurie Goodman (Editor of GigaScience) provided an example of open peer review at it’s most beneficial (which Biome has covered in more detail here).

Goodman concludes the video with her thoughts on how opening up the process can be beneficial, but that a ‘one size fits all’ approach cannot meet the needs of differing scientific communities.

September is World Alzheimer’s Month and this year’s theme is ‘Dementia: a journey of caring’.

World Alzheimer’s Month was founded by Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI), the organisation providing a global voice for dementia, who are working with Alzheimer associations across the world to focus attention on the care required by people with dementia throughout the course of the disease. As part of World Alzheimer’s Month, ADI have developed a Facebook app, ‘Let Memories Last‘, to allow people to experience what dementia is like.

In this video, Marc Wortmann, Executive Director of ADI, discusses the current challenges faced by the Alzheimer’s community and how the work of ADI is tackling some of these issues. Wortmann introduces the ADI 2013 World Alzheimer’s Report, which addresses the issue of long term care for people with dementia. He also discusses his recent commentary published in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy – now affiliated with ADI – on the need for national plans for Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

Wortmann goes on to provide his thoughts on research funding for Alzheimer’s disease and introduces the work of the 10/66 Dementia Research Group, a collective of researchers forming part of ADI that carry out population-based research into dementia, non-communicable diseases and ageing in low and middle income countries.

Mass vaccination for cholera: a promising strategy to control outbreaks
In 2010, oral cholera vaccines were added to WHO recommendations to control outbreaks, but questions remain about their feasibility and cost during outbreaks in remote areas. Now, the first large-scale assessment of oral cholera vaccines has been carried out in Guinea. The authors report high vaccination coverage, despite the remote rural setting, and found that the cost was similar to other vaccination campaigns. These results indicate that oral cholera vaccines are feasible in remote settings during an outbreak, and should be considered as another tool to prevent cholera epidemics, alongside efforts to improve sanitation.
Ciglenecki et al. PLoS Medicine

A new approach to overcome treatment resistance in prostate cancer
In some patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer, anti-apoptotic proteins such as Bcl-2 and Mcl-1 cause resistance to treatment and are associated with poor prognosis. Chemotherapy alone cannot counteract the effects of these proteins, and novel strategies to overcome treatment resistance are needed. A new study in prostate cancer cells has shown that the compound ABT-737, which binds to anti-apoptotic proteins, helps to overcome resistance and increases the efficacy of the chemotherapy agent docetaxel. While further validation is required, this compound has potential as a new therapeutic agent to increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy against prostate cancer.
Parrondo et al. PeerJ

Predicting chemotherapy response in lung cancer patients
Platinum-based chemotherapy is recommended to treat advanced lung cancer, but not all patients respond to treatment and it is therefore important to identify which patients could benefit from different therapy types. Researchers have developed a new method to analyze whether the predictive marker ERCC1 can stratify patients based on their response to chemotherapy. The results showed that patients with low ERCC1 levels benefit from treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy whereas those with high ERCC1 levels do not, suggesting this marker could be used in the clinic to guide treatment decisions for lung cancer.
Chen and Bepler. Journal of Personalized Medicine

Martial arts for weight loss?
Results from a pilot study in obese premenopausal women suggest that martial arts exercise could be an effective approach to improve body composition. The researchers found that those assigned to a 12-week martial arts exercise intervention had increased levels of the protein insulin-like growth factor-1, a marker of insulin sensitivity, and improved quality of life compared with the control group. Those completing the exercise program also had decreased fat-free mass and muscle mass. These preliminary results indicate that martial arts-based exercise programs are a promising approach to control weight in obese premenopausal women.
Chyu et al. Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health

Monitoring the effects of lithium treatment
Lithium-induced hyperparathyroidism (LIH), resulting in the excess production of parathyroid hormone, can occur in patients with bipolar disorder undergoing long-term lithium treatment. Elevated calcium levels could be the first sign of LIH, but are often overlooked in the clinic. New research carried out in the Netherlands has shown that blood calcium levels are significantly higher in bipolar patients treated with lithium compared with non-lithium treated controls, suggesting that calcium levels should be measured routinely in these patients to monitor the risk of developing LIH.
Twigt et al. International Journal of Bipolar Disorders

Exploring disparities in colorectal cancer survival rates
There are persistent differences in colorectal cancer survival rates between the USA and Europe; five-year survival is reported to be 12–14 percent higher in the USA. Now, an investigation of over 12,500 people has been carried out to find the reasons behind this disparity. The authors found that on average tumors are recorded at an earlier stage in the USA, and surgery and adjuvant therapies are used more extensively, suggesting these differences could explain the variation in survival rates.
Allemani et al. BMJ Open

Rilpivirine for the treatment of HIV
Antiretroviral therapy has been tremendously successful in treating HIV, resulting in longer life expectancy and improved quality of life in HIV-infected individuals. The reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI) efavirenz is commonly recommended as a first-line HIV treatment, but its use is limited by side effects.A number of second-generation RTIs have consequently been developed to overcome this problem. In a review article, Kiat Ruxrungtham and colleagues discuss the clinical development of rilpivirine, a newer RTI, and describe its efficacy in comparison with efavirenz. The authors conclude that rilpivirine is associated with fewer side effects than efavirenz, and recommend its use in treatment-naïve HIV positive individuals.
Putcharoen et al. HIV/AIDS – Research and Palliative Care

Basel Declaration Society logo

How did the Basel Declaration come into being?

The Basel Declaration originated as the result of about 80 scientists from different European countries meeting in Basel, Switzerland, in November 2010 to discuss how to improve the general understanding and public perception of the need for research involving animals. At that time, we were aware that a new European Union directive governing animal research was being drafted without significant involvement from the scientific community at large. Events in Switzerland, and several other European countries, made scientists realise the need to be proactive rather than reactive concerning issues involving research using animals. In particular, there was an urgent need for more openness and permanent dialogue among the different stakeholders, i.e. researchers, animal welfare officers, Editors, and of course the general public.

What is the aim of the Basel Declaration?

The Basel Declaration was adopted in November 2010 as an explicit call for more trust, transparency and open communication concerning academic research with animals. Since then, over 2400 scientists from all over the world have signed the Basel Declaration and committed themselves to research with animals that respects the highest ethical standards. The cornerstones of the Basel Declaration include a commitment to the best care of animals and strict adherence to the 3R principles: of replacement, reduction and refinement when using animals in scientific experiments. (see more below).

In addition, the Basel Declaration supports improved education and training of all people using animals for research and open and transparent communication. Signatories of the Basel Declaration acknowledge that animal research is essential for medical progress and that basic and applied research are inseparably linked. The Basel Declaration Society (BDS) was formally founded in 2011 to provide a ‘home’ for the Declaration and to bring its principles to fruition through different activities. For example, the annual Basel Declaration Award aims to improve the technical knowledge and practical skills of people involved in animal experimentation. A second major task of the BDS is to organize conferences such as the recent London conference on ‘Transparency in animal research: Implementing openness in publication and communication’ which had over 100 participants from across the world.

Scientists, animal welfare officers and Editors often refer to the ‘3R principles’ when using animals in research. Can you elaborate on their importance?

The 3R principles that stand for replacement, reduction and refinement were formulated by Russell and Birch in 1959 in their book titled ‘The principles of humane experimentation’. ‘Replacement’ refers to methods that avoid or replace the use of animals (e.g. use of cell lines, computer models or human volunteers). ‘Reduction’ refers to the use of fewer animals where possible (e.g. by improvement in the statistical design of experiments). ‘Refinement’ refers to improvements to the care of animals which minimise any possible pain or distress when the use of animals is unavoidable.

Nowadays, the 3Rs have become an integral part of most national laws and the European Directive governing animal research in Europe. The practical implementation of the 3Rs means that studies must be designed such that experiments involving animals are only done when no valid alternative exists and they should use the minimal number of animals to obtain reproducible and statistically relevant results. Furthermore, the most appropriate methodology and analysis must be used and efforts made to keep any possible distress and suffering of animals to a minimum.

It is important to realize that the 3R principles do not implicitly aim to replace all experiments using animals, but to minimize their number where possible. Good research groups combine animal studies with cellular and increasingly more in silico approaches. In fact, a central tenet of systems biology is to combine quantitative biology in animal and cellular models with in silico approaches, which is fully in line with the 3R principles. Finally, animal studies are always rather expensive, which provides an additional incentive to minimize the number of animal experiments. Again, I think researchers need to be open about all these issues and let the general public know how they have implemented the 3Rs in their research.

Since 1964 research involving people should comply with the ‘Declaration of Helsinki’. Why has it taken so long for something similar to come about for research involving animals?

Scientists in general like to focus on their research and rarely communicate with the general public with the exception of major scientific breakthroughs. In spite of the fact that the 3R principles were conceived in 1959 and progressively implemented in the laws, rules and regulations governing animal research in different countries, it took scientists a long time to realize that it is important that they take a clear stand on the issues concerning animal experimentation. Rather than being pressed by lawmakers and animal welfare organizations, scientists have to be at the forefront too. The scientific community at large is becoming more aware of their responsibility toward the general public and the number of scientists willing to endorse ethically responsible animal research and engage in an open dialog concerning these issues is increasing. I hope that for the students and postdoctoral fellows that we are training today, this responsibility and permanent dialog with society will simply be a natural part of their ‘daily routine’. It is important to make the general public aware of the fact that we have nothing to hide and that research will actually benefit from using the highest standards for the treatment of animals as put forward in the Basel Declaration.

Rolf Zeller talking at the third Basel Declaration Society conference in London, UK.

How can scientists promote public understanding of the importance of animal models in research?

It is very simple – by being totally transparent about research involving animals. It is still not uncommon that press releases concerning major scientific discoveries downplay or even fail to mention the essential role of animal models in achieving the progress. In addition, there is a second major problem: once development of a drug or clinical procedure enters clinical trials in humans and final approval, the often decades of basic and applied research using different animal models are simply ‘forgotten’. Imagine the opposite scenario that openly acknowledges the role that animals played. For example, on each drug or surgical device etc there could be a caption saying “this drug/device was developed and tested using animals for your health and safety”.

Short of that, all scientists must be completely open and frank about the importance of research with animals for basic and applied biomedical research progress and combat the erroneous allegations that animal research has not cured one patient by making appropriate counterarguments. For example, at the recent conference it was noted that scientists in the UK that are engaged in open communication about the importance and contribution of animal research to medical progress have not become the targets of extremists, which is still most often used as an argument against openness.

What should journals be doing to promote transparency in animal research?

I think scientific journals should endorse and enforce guidelines such as the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, which are intended to improve the reporting of animal experiments. I consider it important that we, as researchers and peer reviewers, work together with editors and publishers to have a set of one – not many – universally implemented guidelines governing the publication of animal research. Peer reviewers must be asked to specifically comment on the parts of the studies involving animals with respect to the 3R principles of replacement, reduction and refinement and the methods used. The journals should work together with the relevant organizations and funding bodies to provide open access, curated and searchable databases that make available all primary and ‘so-called’ negative data generated from a particular study. This should be implemented in a manner similar to what is now standard for genome and omics data sets. Journals should also make the readers aware of these databases and the importance of full disclosure of all animal experiments. The only exceptions might be cases where full disclosure might infringe on patenting/licensing. These issues were also discussed in detail at the recent London conference and the relevant position papers can be downloaded here.

What are the main challenges facing the Basel Declaration Society today?

I think there was a sense at the London conference that the Basel Declaration and its Society have made a big step toward becoming a truly global organization. The BDS must network with the relevant national organizations to work toward rallying more scientists to join and help the worldwide implementation of the aims of the Basel Declaration. Open dialogue about experiments involving animals must become permanent and not limited to periods when animal research and/or scientists are specifically threatened – this is a very long process. The BDS is an independent grass-root organization for academic research and animal welfare scientists, but it is important to interact with other relevant bodies such as the pharmaceutical industry to generate synergies. The BDS needs to raise more funds from individual and institutional members and donations, so that future conferences can be organized. The London conference was unique in bringing together different stakeholders from academia, granting agencies, journals, pharmaceutical organizations, lawmakers and animal welfare organizations for two days of intense and fruitful discussions. These conferences are important to further the broad implementation of the Basel Declaration into daily research practice, which deserves more support in my opinion!

Mice get glammed up to unveil complex social relationships
The use of cosmetics on animals can be controversial, but for one group of mice under investigation by researchers from Germany and Israel, getting a colourful makeover has helped to uncover some of the secrets of social interaction. Individual mice had their hair dyed with different ultraviolet colours, and their movement and behaviour tracked by an automated detection system as they went about their daily lives in the lab. From this, the researchers were able to infer that previous models that account only for the characteristics of individual mice were not enough to explain the observed interactions, and that the early environment in which individuals had been raised can have far larger effects on how they behave when in a group.
Shemesh et al. eLife

“The systematics community is doing a poor job of making datasets available”
A survey of some 7,500 publications from journals in evolutionary biology and systematics reveals that only around 17 percent of articles provided accessible phylogenetic trees and alignments, despite many journals now requiring that this data be made available in freely-accessible databases. As such, this lack of accessibility puts into serious question the reproducibility of the science, in what the authors of this perspective article deem to be a failure by this field on a massive scale. They argue that only by incentivising openness in data sharing, by giving credit to authors who demonstrate best practice in this area, can the community make substantial progress in the future.
Drew et al. PLoS Biology

New mechanism for the regulation of chromatin structure
Histones are proteins that act as spools around which DNA can form structures called nucleosomes which, when packaged into repeating units, form chromatin and thereby the structure of the cell nucleus. These histones may be replication-independent or replication-dependent; the latter are used to assemble chromatin structure during DNA replication. Although these histones were known to exist in a number of different isoforms, until now they were all thought to be largely identical in their function. However, a new analysis using bladder cancer cell lines has shown dramatic differences between these isoforms and those in healthy bladder cells, and suggests that these distinct cellular functions could play a crucial role in carcinogenesis.
Singh et al. Nucleic Acids Research

Scientists harnessing the power of social media
Still sceptical about how microblogging can help your research? If you’ve not yet signed up to Twitter, conservation scientist Emily Darling (otherwise known as @emilysdarling) and friends guide you through the brave new world of scientific communication via Twitter, and highlight how the various stages of the lifecycle of a scientific publication can be influenced by this social media platform. Using examples from their own experience of conducting ‘open science in real time’, they show how peer-review, collaboration and research impact can all benefit from embracing this new, simple, digital communication tool.
Darling et al. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Resurrecting woolly mammoth history
Although woolly mammoths died out some 12,000 years ago, their extraordinarily well-preserved remains in Siberian permafrost has meant that much can be inferred about their demographic history. However, little is known outside of Siberia, and questions remain about the relationship between these populations and those on the more western end of their range. Now, a major analysis of ancient DNA from bone, tooth and tusk samples found in Europe identifies a previously uncharacterised lineage from this region, and suggests these populations expanding here from America following exposure of the newly-formed Bering Land Bridge.
Palkopoulou et al. Proceedings of the Royal Society B

New organelle identified in plants
Tannins are compounds found in most vascular plants that play a key role in defence against UV damage and natural enemies. To you and I, they’re probably best known for the bitter taste they give to tea, and some of the complexities of a good wine. Now, an interdisciplinary research team from France and Hungary have pinpointed the precise place that these chemicals are synthesised and found a whole new organelle in the process: what they term the tannosome. These tiny cellular compartments had previously been difficult to distinguish from the more easily-identifiable green structures of the chloroplast.
Brillouet et al. Annals of Botany

Jenny Dunn, conservation scientist, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK.

Conservation scientist Jenny Dunn of the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) discusses the reasons that first lead to her submitting research through Peerage of Science, whilst also outlining ongoing work investigating blood parasites in wild bird populations – including her recent research published in BMC Ecology on yellowhammers (Emberiza citrinella), a declining species of farmland specialists.

A yellowhammer bird. Image source: Jenny Dunn, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Jenny Dunn began her research career at the University of Leeds, focusing on farmland bird ecology, particularly the interactions between food availability, predation risk, and blood parasites using the red-listed yellowhammer as a study species. Now at the RSPB Dunn leads a project on turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) monitoring and conservation that aims to determine why this species has experienced such rapid declines in UK populations over the last 40 years, as well as testing the potential for a new agri-environment scheme designed to provide a food source for birds returning from winter migration. Dunn is also a visiting research fellow in the school of biology at the University of Leeds, UK.

For more on the Peerage of Science initiative take a look at Biome’s Q&A with co-founder Janne-Tuomas Seppänen.

DNA test for improved detection of schistosomiasis
Schistosomiasis, a disease carried by parasitic worms, is currently diagnosed by the detection of parasite eggs in the urine or feces using microscopy. However, infections are often missed in travelers if egg excretion has not yet started, and more sensitive diagnostic techniques are required. Now, researchers have developed a PCR-based technique for improved detection of the Schistosoma haematobium parasite. The technique, which identifies parasite DNA, was found to be more sensitive than microscopy for diagnosing infection, and offers a promising new approach for improved diagnosis of the disease.
Cnops et al. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Linking stress, nutrition and diabetes in African-Americans
Poor nutrition combined with high stress levels can increase type 2 diabetes risk, and it is known that ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by lack of access to a healthy diet in the USA. A new study could explain how African-Americans can reduce stress and cut diabetes risk. Researchers from the University of Michigan, USA found that those who integrate their family’s culture into mainstream American culture have reduced stress and stress-influenced eating behavior. This in turn could lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, suggesting that sociocultural orientation could be very important for reducing disease risk in ethnic minorities, as well as improving quality of life.
Hasson et al. Journal of Obesity

What determines high quality primary care?
The quality of primary care varies across countries and regions, and there are many different models currently in use. As primary care is the first point of consultation for patients in most countries, it is important to ensure that a high quality service is provided. Research carried out in Canada has identified the characteristics of primary care practices that are associated with high quality of care. These include physician remuneration, sharing administrative resources and the monitoring of competence. Given that these characteristics are largely affected by the organization of primary care practices, the authors conclude that decision-makers should help to improve the quality of healthcare through investing in effective team-based care.
Beaulieu et al. CMAJ

siRNA: a new approach to treat pancreatic fibrosis?
Pancreatic fibrosis – the accumulation of connective tissue occurring in patients with chronic pancreatitis – disrupts the production of hormones by the pancreas. There is currently no approved treatment for this disease. New research carried out in rats has identified siRNA as a potential therapy for the condition. Researchers showed that siRNA against the collagen protein gp46 can be specifically targeted to fibrotic areas of the pancreas, and that treatment with this siRNA reduces the degree of fibrosis. Further investigations into the off-target effects of this approach are now required in order to validate the potential of siRNA- based therapies to treat pancreatic fibrosis.
Ishiwatari et al. Gut

‘Mini-brains’ could aid understanding of neurological diseases
Due to the complexity of the human brain, it is extremely difficult to study brain disorders in animal models, and there is a need to develop models that mimic human disease more closely. Now, in research freely available in Nature, it has been shown that given the right conditions, human stem cells can assemble into miniature regions of the brain. These ‘mini brains’ were used to model some aspects of microcephaly, a condition causing reduced brain growth and cognitive impairment. The authors conclude that, although research is at an early stage, stem-cell derived models are a promising approach to improve understanding of complex neurological diseases and aid in the development of new therapies.
Lancaster et al. Nature

Passive smoking linked to type 2 diabetes
The negative effects of smoking are well-known and new harms are increasingly being identified. Now, collaborative research from France, the US and Mexico has shown that second-hand smoke exposure could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. Through analyzing records, the researchers found that women with at least one parent who smoked have an 18 percent increased risk of developing diabetes, and adult second-hand smoke exposure is also associated with elevated risk. The authors speculate that higher fat mass caused by early nicotine exposure could explain the link, providing further evidence for the importance of smoke-free environments.
Lajous et al. Diabetes Care

Dairy products and colorectal cancer risk
Mounting evidence suggests that consumption of dairy products is linked to a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. New research from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) consortium has investigated this association further, to uncover whether different types of dairy products affect cancer risk. The authors divided dairy products into skimmed, semi-skimmed and whole milk, together with yoghurt and cheese, and found that the fat content of dairy products does not influence cancer risk. The results confirmed the protective role of dairy products against colorectal cancer, but suggest that the type of dairy product consumed does not affect the relationship.
Murphy et al. PLOS One

New program for managing fatigue in MS
In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), fatigue is one of the most commonly-reported and disabling symptoms, and is very difficult to treat. A clinical trial carried out in the UK has investigated the effectiveness of a new group-based fatigue management program – the FACETS intervention – for these patients. The results showed that the program reduces fatigue severity in MS patients, suggesting that this approach could be integrated into MS care practice to help improve quality of life in these patients.
Thomas et al. BMJ Open

Isaac Newton

The UK’s Royal Society is arguably the oldest learned society still in existence, and one of which Newton was a Fellow. In June 2012 it produced an influential report on Science as an Open Enterprise. The first of its ten recommendations states that “Scientists should communicate the data they collect and the models they create, to allow free and open access, and in ways that are intelligible, assessable and usable for other specialists.” There are numerous reasons why this is a good thing. One is that tenet of the scientific method – reproducibility or replication – backing up claims, auditing methods and validating results. Perhaps more often preached than practiced, we have recently seen much hand-wringing on the topic of open scrutiny. See Nature’s ‘cut out and keep’ collection of articles on the topic and a recent keynote of mine.

But where defence is a kind of backward-looking perspective, contribution is a forward-looking one. Scientific insight is gained by the pooling of data for (re)examination, combination and processing of data by others. The use of data is one of the points of its production. Scientific knowledge and understanding is a cumulative affair. The biology community should be rightly proud of its track record in providing, curating and contributing to core public data facilities, and of its data campaigns and data deposition declarations.

Josh Sommer, founder of the Chordoma Foundation, refers to ‘knowledge turning’ (the turns of a process to derive more good) between laboratories, by which he means the ability of information to smoothly move between researchers and feed into the knowledge-making process that is scientific research. Cameron Neylon, co-author of the Panton Principles for open data in science, argues that the success of this process depends on lowering frictions. One friction is licensing. Open Licensing helps oil the wheels of knowledge turning.

BioMed Central’s adoption of the Creative Commons CC0 waiver opens up the way that data published in their journals can be used, so that it can be freely mined, analysed, and reused. This step was a result of an open consultation where, encouragingly, six to one of respondents were in favour. The consultation report addressed many issues and one in particular is the friction potential of credit. Credit is important. Newton’s “giants” quote is actually part of the discussion with Hooke about scientific credit.

The CC0 waiver to published data means that legally there is no requirement for author attribution. But a norm of science is reciprocity. It’s credit where credit is due. It’s being a good citizen. Citation is not like money, where we have a limited pile of credits that we might run out of. Citation is, instead, like love.

The quid quo pro tenet of science means that if data producers have made their data openly licensed then its consumers should credit them wherever possible. Please do. For if we are to see further, it is by standing shoulder to shoulder with each other.

Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, Co-Founder, Managing Director of Peerage of Science, postdoctoral fellow, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

To explain more about this initiative, and how our participation will benefit all involved with the peer review process, Biome interviews one of the co-founders of Peerage of Science, Janne-Tuomas Seppänen. Having founded Peerage of Science in 2011, alongside Janne Kotiaho and Mikko Mönkkönen, Seppänen is now managing director of the company. With the mission to fundamentally change how peer review is done, and to provide a service to authors, reviewers and publishers, Peerage of Science won the 2012 ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers) Publishing Innovation Award. Seppänen is also an active scientist, and is currently an Academy of Finland postdoctoral fellow at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Where did the inspiration for Peerage of Science come from?

There are many things that led to the idea, but here are some events I am consciously aware of.

Firstly, when I started getting my first reviewing requests as a fresh PhD some years ago, it felt like an initiation, sort of coming-of-age for a scientist. I put a lot of effort into trying to provide as thorough and justified evaluations as I could, and afterwards tried to enquire from editors whether my work was up to par, was it good or bad. Usually there was no response. The only yardstick was trying to compare my work to other reviewer’s reports on the same articles, but not all journals provided the opportunity to see other reviews, some did not even notify about the final decision.

Secondly, discussions (ok, rants) with other young postdocs about the high variance in the quality of peer reviews in the traditional system: sometimes they were thorough, justified, even brilliant, but then again too often hastily written, flippant, dismissive without analytical justification. People seemed resigned that even though that’s bad, there is no better system possible. I could not and cannot accept that.

Finally, the data in a paper by Pautasso and Schäfer in 2010 in Scientometrics about peer review delay made me realize that it’s not just the unlucky or inferior manuscripts of mine – peer review is very slow for everyone. When I introduced the Pautasso and Schäfer 2010 paper in our research groups gathering where we discuss current topics, there was a lively volley of responses and ideas being thrown around as usual. One sentence was ringing in my head when I went to bed that evening: “Someone should start a service”. I got up, writing and drawing flowcharts till sunrise, then went to describe the key concepts of Peerage of Science to Mikko Mönkkönen and Janne Kotiaho, who now are the other two founders of the company.

What makes it work?

The most important thing that makes Peerage of Science work is our peer-review-of-peer-review. The fact that reviewers know their report will be read, judged and scored by impartial colleagues, results in social pressure to justify arguments carefully, be thorough and fair, yet ruthlessly critical if the article does deserve a bashing. Astonishingly, even though the service provides almost absolute anonymity for reviewers, the kind of abuse of anonymity that sometimes occurs in the traditional system is nearly absent in Peerage of Science. The quality of course still varies, but that is now measured, and high quality work gets its due recognition and further motivates to build reviewer reputation.

There are a few other key concepts. To be able to submit manuscripts author must have positive ‘Review Balance’, which goes up by completing peer reviewing and down when your own manuscripts are reviewed by others. Unforgiving deadlines coldly enforced by code result in predictable and dependable schedules, as reviewers engage knowing they will be automatically dropped from a process without recourse if they miss a deadline. Free self-engagement of interested reviewers (once they’ve first passed our identity and validation process) naturally matches expertise with suitable papers. Structured and standardized limited-length ‘essays’ as peer review reports provide highly usable and comparable material, which both authors writing revisions, as well as editors making decisions, can utilize more efficiently.

Finally, the thing that makes Peerage of Science work is the feature available to editors: anonymous, silent tracking of any peer review process while being able to make a direct publishing offer to authors anytime, before they submit the work anywhere. A peer review process may be followed concurrently by many journals, and authors may receive more than one offer to choose from. From the publisher’s point-of-view, this is perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of the service.

How long is the peer review process in Peerage of Science?

The author specifies the deadlines for the four stages of peer review upon manuscript upload, and they usually pick our default values of ‘14 + 7 + 21 + 7’ days. But it is perhaps more interesting to look at how fast reviewers respond within the bounds of those deadlines.  On average, reviewers send in their essay in 15.2 days (±7.9 days std). Reviewers then get access to each other’s reviews and must score each other; a reviewer does that on average in 2.6 days (±1.8 days std). Authors then must revise the manuscript by the deadline they set for themselves in the beginning. Reviewers get notified about upload of the revisions and must then provide a final evaluation; on average a reviewer gets it done in 5.8 days (±4.9 days std).

What strikes me in these numbers is that the peer-review-of-peer-review gets done very fast, on average under half the time its deadline would dictate. It appears reviewers are curious to have a look at what other reviewers have said as soon as that becomes possible, and scoring other reviewers is a task they are eager to complete. Our rather unique and new cross-reviewing practice thus seems to be one of the best-working pieces of the system.

What sort of feedback have you received from the community?

Scientists are by nature open-minded but highly skeptical of any new idea, and that is reflected in some of the very early writings just after Peerage of Science launched in October 2011 (for example SciLogs and Trends in Ecology and Evolution). But mostly the early response was of curiosity and questions on how it works (for example Lab Times and INNGE).

During the almost two years since launch, I think both the scientific and the publishing communities have begun to see Peerage of Science as something that’s here to stay, rather than just curious novelty. We now get invited to give talks at publishing conferences and seminars (for example the forthcoming ALPSP Future of Peer Review seminar) as well as scientific workshops. Other new ventures like Altmetric have established collaborations with us, and even mainstream popular media occasionally mentions Peerage of Science when discussing academic publishing (for example the Economist).

One form of feedback we are very happy about are the two official accolades Peerage of Science has received:  the ALPSP Innovation Award and the Award by Communications Professionals of Finnish Universities.

Which peers are most active on Peerage of Science?

I think the demographics of the peer reviewers are probably very similar to the traditional system. About half of the reviews are done by professors and mid-career scientists; slightly fewer are done by postdocs.

But postdocs are clearly more active proportionally than others, as their proportion of the peer population is just 28.3 percent, yet they do 42.1 percent of the reviews.

Although reviewers have strict anonymity in any given peer review process, information on who has the right to review in the system is publicly available. Anyone can use a searchable map on our website to see who is in.

Do you see Peerage of Science broadening its scope to manuscripts outside of evolution and ecology?

Yes. In principle, manuscripts in any field of science can already be submitted to the system. The challenge is first having a critical mass of reviewers available. But authors can easily help with that themselves, first creating user accounts and inviting all of their own colleagues and asking those people to do the same for a few of theirs. If authors planning to submit articles manage to make invitations viral even for a short time, there can be a sufficient number of unaffiliated reviewers available from their field very quickly.

Expanding in evolution, ecology and conservation science was easier as the founders themselves are active scientists in those fields and recognized by name by many journal editors and colleagues. In other scientific fields Peerage of Science is more like just another start-up, and more effort is required in establishing trust and recognition.

Ideally, to get started in each new field it would help to first partner with one visionary highest-caliber journal of that field, with a mutually beneficial long-term agreement to get the ball rolling.

What are the main differences between Peerage of Science and other peer review services such as Axios Review and Rubriq?

If we look at the key concepts listed above under ‘What makes it work’, I believe they are all unique to Peerage of Science, and not available in other services. Most importantly, much of our philosophy rests on the concept of peer-review-of-peer-review, while other services are more editor-centric.

Peerage of Science features concurrent consideration by participating journals, any one of which can send a publishing offer to authors anytime. The other services seem to largely continue to operate within the confines of traditional sequential submission.

Also, Peerage of Science believes that publishers, in return for the revenue they make from publishing, want to continue to be the entity that makes peer review possible in terms of resources, and that scientific integrity is best guaranteed when reviewers are motivated by seeking academic recognition from their peers, rather than monetary payment from authors. Hence our business model is ‘publisher-pays’, while many of the other services operate on ‘author-pays’ models.

What’s next for Peerage of Science?

We want to promote respect for and appreciation of high-quality peer reviewing work. Towards this goal we are soon releasing an embeddable CV-widget, which peers can use to display their PEQ-scores (Peerage Essay Quality denoting the quality of their reviews) and number of reviews done in their own online CV’s and personal websites. Also, we will continue to award ‘The Peerage of Science Annual Reviewer Prize’ every year to promote peer reviewing as high-profile scientific work, rather than just a duty or a chore.

Looking to future, we are excited about Peerage of Science Commissions – a service currently being built on the foundation of our growing database. Any kind of organization needing paid scientific, cross-peer-reviewed peer review for larger projects, like for example academic book production, for evaluating grant applications, conference abstracts, doing research excellence assessments, or in hiring decisions, can have Peerage of Science arrange that evaluation. The idea is to relay paid professional opportunities for the best peer reviewers who earn their reputation in peer reviewing journal articles in the system, and offer an efficient one-stop solution for customer organizations.

To find out about the author experience of Peerage of Science, listen to our podcast with BMC Ecology author Jenny Dunn.