• 2019-2023close
• Other ORP type close
• COVID-19 close

Formulário Padrões de Metadados de proveniência para reuso de dados de pesquisa de Covid 19 alinhados aos princípios FAIR . Do google forms.

Currently, there are metadata schemas (such as DataCite, or DDI) that can describe the concrete outputs of research, e.g., papers and datasets, but relatively little work has been done on finding a metadata schema for the research itself. The problem is that different disciplines have vastly different ways of organising research activities, for instance because of differences in funding models and mechanisms, or in requirements for approval, and thus differences in how and when research is split into discrete activities and labelled.

Après la crise majeure traversée par les institutions culturelles lors de la pandémie de la covid-19, la revue Culture & Musées a souhaité organiser une réflexion ouverte et constructive sur l’avenir des musées. Elle s’est inscrite dans le cadre de journées d’étude organisées pour la célébration du 20e anniversaire de la revue, qui avaient pour titre « Voir le musée autrement : le champ des possibles ». Cette livraison anniversaire se nourrit des discussions commencées lors de ces journées de l’automne 2021. Elle propose une approche prospective de la muséologie et du musée à partir d’une diversité de regards fondés à la fois sur des travaux de recherche et sur des expériences pratiques. La particularité de ce numéro spécial est en effet de mêler articles scientifiques et points de vue de professionnels, en encourageant une forme d’écriture plus libre et plus personnelle. With cultural institutions having gone through a major crisis during the Covid pandemic, Culture & Musées has sought to organize an open and constructive dialogue on the future of museums. This rethinking took place during the study days commemorating the Journal’s 20th anniversary, titled “Voir le musée autrement: le champ des possibles” (Looking at Museums Different: Realms of possibility). This anniversary issue is the fruit of these discussions which took place in Fall 2021. In it, a prospective approach to museology and museums is set forth, based on a wide variety of perspective anchored both in research and in practical experiences. This issue is distinctive in that it combines both academic articles and on-the-ground professional perspectives by encouraging a freer and more personal writing style. Tras la gran crisis que las instituciones culturales atravesaron durante la crisis del COVID, la revista Culture & Musées se propuso organizar una reflexión abierta y constructiva sobre el futuro de los museos. Esta se enmarcó en las jornadas de estudio organizadas durante en otoño de 2021, con motivo del 20º aniversario de la revista, que llevaban por título “Ver el museo de manera diferente : el campo de los posibles”. Este número de aniversario se inspira en los debates iniciados durante estas jornadas y propone un enfoque prospectivo de la museología y el museo desde una diversidad de perspectivas basadas tanto en trabajos de investigación como en experiencias prácticas. La particularidad de este número especial reside en la combinación de artículos científicos y puntos de vista profesionales, fomentando una forma de escritura más libre y personal.

Background: From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that vaccines would be necessary to stop the spread and severity of the virus. Many jurisdictions established COVID-vaccine-specific websites or web content to help inform their citizens about the vaccines. Although some criteria exist for analyzing health-related communication, there are few clear evaluative frameworks specifically for analyzing websites and even fewer specifically for vaccine information. Objective: Based on existing criteria and best practices in public health communication, my study aims to develop more comprehensive criteria for analyzing official, public-facing, public health/government websites about vaccination and then apply those criteria to select COVID-19 vaccine websites. Methods: I use content analysis methodology to develop vaccine website criteria and to evaluate websites. Using pre-existing frameworks and evaluative tools, incorporating current best practices in risk communication, and consulting with experts in the field, I developed a concise set of criteria for vaccine websites. I used these criteria to evaluate seven websites from Canada and the United States. Results: From my analysis, I identified ten criteria (functionality, accessibility, authorship, purpose, funding source, privacy policy, content quality, currency, unbiased, references) and organized them into three themes (usable, transparent, and helpful) and three tiers of website navigation. My application of these criteria against seven websites showed that individual websites scored well in a few criteria. However, there is much room for improvement, particularly in ensuring that information is unbiased, being transparent about funding sources, and ensuring that websites are accessible. Discussion and Conclusion: Fifteen recommendations are provided to support public health organizations in communicating with the public to help them make informed decisions to stay safe and healthy. These recommendations and the criteria on which they are based are intertwined and inextricable from their greater context. Consequently, these recommendations would be most effective when combined with other risk communication interventions.

Z Malezijo sta imeli s Tino neporavnane račune, saj je obisk leta 2020 preprečil nanometrski velikan znan pod imenom SARS-CoV-2. Letos spomladi pa je končno poletela v Kuala Lumpur, kjer se je tritedenska avantura začela. Po zaužitju nekaj čarov ikonske arhitekture jo je mahnila v višavje s precej bolj prijetno klimo in neskončnimi plantažami čaja, med katerimi kraljujejo rastlinjaki z jagodami in drugimi kulturami, ki jim tropska vlaga in vročina ne ustrezata. Pot nadaljuje proti severovzhodu dežele na rajske otoke Perhentian. Načrtovala je sicer oddih, a so jo lepote koralnih grebenov, pisane ribice, morske želve, skati in celo (vegetarijanski) morski psi vedno znova vabili v svoj objem pod vodo. Večino časa tako preživi s potapljaško masko na glavi. Vrne se na celino in poleti v svetovljanski Georgetown, kjer se znajde v »mali Kitajski« in se zabava ob iskanju uličnih grafitov. A vročina in vlaga sta tukaj še bolj ubijalski kot v prestolnici, zato se umakne na Penang Hill, kjer nekoliko lažje zadiha. Sledi let v Kuching in raziskovanje Bornea, kjer jo navduši na novo odprt Muzej bornejskih kultur, še bolj pa stik z naravo. Obišče divje orangutane in nacionalni park Bako, ker se sreča z makaki, opicami rilčarji, srebrnolistnimi opicami, bornejskimi divjimi prašiči, pa tudi s strupeno zeleno suličarko. Po siloviti tropski nevihti komaj posuši obleke in gojzarje, ko je že čas za vrnitev na celino, ogled zgodovinskega mesta Melaka, zadnje nakupe in let proti Evropi...

This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/8275863. This review reflects comments and contributions from Melissa Chim, Nicolás Hinrichs, Allie Tatarian, Ashley Farley, Yueh Cho, and Stephen Gabrielson. Review synthesized by Stephen Gabrielson. Rong and Waltman undertoook a global survey of authors who published between 2021 and early 2022 to capture their thoughts and behaviors regarding preprinting. Major comments: We do not have any major comments regarding this preprint Minor comments: Preprinting is presented as both protective of scooping and associated with a risk of scooping; I think within the growing practice this is not just unresolved, but a crucial topic that abounds in conversations. It should therefore be addressed explicitly if contradictory claims are already being reported. +1 to above. There are a few different topics that are viewed as both benefit and harm by respondents, such as establishing priority vs getting scooped, accelerating research communication vs premature media coverage, and more citations/showing progress for grants/jobs vs lack of recognition. Acknowledging or expounding upon these contradictions could add to the impact of this paper. I agree with the previous comments of the dichotomy of risks and benefits. There is a lot to potentially unpack here and is most likely a suggestion for a future study. I would have loved to see the survey include more about citing preprints. I appreciate that it was highlighted that the survey was inspired by previous surveys on preprints. However, to better track perspectives and behaviors over time it could be better to use the same survey instrument. And if the previous surveys had gaps that needed to be addressed it would be useful to describe those gaps. I appreciate that a more global perspective was taken, as research is truly a global enterprise. Was the response rate higher in Europe due to more & stronger OA/OS policies? This could motivate the reason for responding. The career stage data makes sense and is interesting to me. A potential limitation that would be worth mentioning is that survey respondents were picked by being a published author. I would assume that this would negate researchers who haven't published yet or often. It was good to see common assumptions/experiences of preprinting in certain disciplines be confirmed with data. In section 2.1, I appreciate the space savings in referencing the survey form, but having already described its parts, albeit it having only 10 questions on preprinting, I think it would have been better to include them here. In section 2.2, I believe the authors assume that "deduplicated" is a known term? I'd appreciate having it explained here. In section 3.1, half of the survey participants reported learning about preprinting from reading preprints. I found this very interesting and wonder if preprints will play a bigger role in coursework/formal training. In section 3.1 under "Experience with posting preprints", the authors refer to whether ResearchGate is a preprint server. Some readers will likely not be familiar with this debate. I would either drop this parenthetical or expand upon this idea. ResearchGate is not included in any preprint server list I have seen in the last several years. You can include a preprint in your ResearchGate profile, but the preprint is already submitted to a preprint server to get a DOI. If this is the case, can we consider ResearchGate a preprint server? In section 3.1 under "Experience with posting preprints", the authors note that 15% of participants had posted their work as a preprint after it had been accepted by a journal. I didn't think that many journals allow for this. Or are authors doing this regardless of journal policies? I suppose they could be aligned with journal policies, but I would assume that those are already OA publications. The term postprint is typically defined as the accepted, peer-reviewed version of a manuscript submitted to a journal. I would consider postprints to be a separate, distinct research output. In section 3.1 under "Willingness to post preprints", I am surprised that COVID-19 pandemic did not cause a major shift in preprinting for the medical and health sciences. It would be interesting to see COVID-19-related topics compared to others in medical and health sciences subject. I found the survey responses in section 3.1 under "Benefits of preprinting" to be interesting. Open science is being framed very closely with citizen science in niches such as digital humanities, etc. I really like figures 8-10, but I'm worried they won't be legible to colorblind readers. A yellow-blue, magenta-green, or red-white gradient would be more accessible. Same concerns for the other figures as well. In section 3.1 under "Concerns about preprinting", I think I know what "premature media coverage" means but I'm not sure I completely get it. Does it have to do with journalists reporting on a non-peer-reviewed item? Or is it more about announcing something too soon? Or does it potentially take away excitement for the final version of record? I feel like there is a lot to unpack here. Section 3.1 on "Concerns about preprinting" is a great section on attitudes toward preprints. In regard to the respondents concern around self-plagiarism with journal submission, I don't know whether the author's experiences are typical or not. The plagiarism check is part of the initial check for quality of the received manuscript. Reviewers are unlikely to check for plagiarism. In section 3.1 under "Encouraging preprinting", the idea of not encouraging or opposing preprinting due to lack of peer review and low credibility of preprints is an interesting dynamic. What harm is being made? The same article could be published somewhere and may be found to be unsubstantiated post publication. In section 4.1, I would like to see a discussion about whether these differences between research areas in the preprinting adoption are due to how dominance of the major journals in respective area. In section 4.2, I find "integrating preprinting in journal submission workflows" to be an interesting recommendation that needs more detail. If most authors are publishing in the top 5 commercial publishers and the preprints are submitted through their workflows this could become an issue. One of the strengths of preprint servers now are that they are journal agnostic and independent from publisher business models. We should protect this. From my perspective, seeing this as a common response means that researchers have a hard time thinking past the concept of a journal. Instead, we are just layering on complexities while still trudging through the traditional publishing process. In this scenario the benefits become more limited. Also in section 4.2, would it be possible to include preprints in tenure portfolios as part of the second recommendation? Also in section 4.2, I'm not sure if these recommendations are ordered in terms of importance, but the third recommendation on "Developing new approaches for quality assurance and peer review of preprint" would be my number one. Also in section 4.2, these guidelines can help researchers eliminate their doubts on scooping. It could also be an opportunity to include librarians for providing education on citation practices and copyright issues. The data availability section should also include a direct link to the data: https://zenodo.org/record/8186558. Comments on reporting: Very much appreciated the availability of the data and the survey instrument. It was quite easy to access and assess. Suggestions for future studies: I think there's an opportunity for future studies on how the Chinese respondents' experiences differed from those in the rest of the world (e.g. 58% knew about preprints through submitting to a journal). Another opportunity may be to explore the role of librarians in promoting preprints in higher education institutions, and how it can be incorporated into formal training. +1 to the above comment, plus generally delving into why differences are seen in different parts of the world. There are a few potential avenues for this - are preprints less beneficial/more risky in some parts of the world or for some types of labs? Are preprints simply more well-advertised in the US? It would be interesting to map the survey results by region to the preprinting encouragement or requirement from funders/institutions in that region. I agree with doing research on why the differences exist. It would be interesting to know what determines the preference of a particular preprint server by users in a particular region and if researchers prefer preprint servers with a broader scope as compared to those for specific research areas. The overrepresentation of senior researchers could be overcome by sending survey invitations to the first authors, who may not make a decision to preprinting their manuscript, but have discussions about it with the corresponding author. Competing interests The author declares that they have no competing interests.

SRQR Checklist for "Navigating techno-stress: A qualitative exploration of university faculty's experiences and perspectives in the Peruvian context amidst the return to classes and the post-COVID-19 era"

Supplementary files containing the "multivariant" model and parameter estimation problem version 20230522_175758 and the "antibody-level" model and parameter estimation problem version 20230327_182130_compr and code for generating the model and aggregating the data.

En los últimos días se está hablando mucho de un incremento de casos de covid-19. Volvemos a tener conocidos de círculo cercano o familiares que han contraído la enfermedad y los medios de comunicación están informando sobre ello. También se está especulando con las posibles causas: desde la expansión de una nueva variante hasta el cese de la obligatoriedad del uso de las mascarillas tras finalizar la emergencia sanitaria de importancia internacional. No