1. |
- Mills, James A., et al.
(författare)
-
Archiving Primary Data : Solutions for Long-Term Studies
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Trends in Ecology & Evolution. - : Elsevier BV. - 0169-5347 .- 1872-8383. ; 30:10, s. 581-589
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The recent trend for journals to require open access to primary data included in publications has been embraced by many biologists, but has caused apprehension amongst researchers engaged in long-term ecological and evolutionary studies. A worldwide survey of 73 principal investigators (PIs) with long-term studies revealed positive attitudes towards sharing data with the agreement or involvement of the PI, and 93% of PIs have historically shared data. Only 8% were in favor of uncontrolled, open access to primary data while 63% expressed serious concern. We present here their viewpoint on an issue that can have non-trivial scientific consequences. We discuss potential costs of public data archiving and provide possible solutions to meet the needs of journals and researchers.
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Ho, Vanessa C., et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing immediate emotions in the theory of planned behavior can substantially contribute to increases in pro-environmental behavior
- 2024
-
Ingår i: FRONTIERS IN CLIMATE. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2624-9553. ; 6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is a highly influential and powerful behavior change model that offers promising guidance on promoting urgently needed, pro-environmental action. Recent pro-environmental research has successfully augmented TPB using anticipated emotions-the emotions an individual consciously predicts they will experience in relation to possible outcomes of their decision. However, immediate emotions-the emotions an individual actually experiences during decision-making-have received far less attention. Given that immediate emotions are relevant to pro-environmental decision-making and can address the theoretical and empirical limitations of TPB, we contend that pro-environmental studies should explicitly examine immediate emotions within the TPB framework. This article aims to stimulate rigorous research that enhances pro-environmental communication and policymaking by providing integrative insights into immediate emotions along with recommendations for evaluating immediate emotions in a pro-environmental TPB context.
|
|
5. |
- Kepp, Kasper P., et al.
(författare)
-
Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 173
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|