ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot that processes and generates natural language text, offering human-like responses to a wide range of questions and prompts. Five days after its re...

BackgroundAlthough the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process.MethodsWeb-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates (...) between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal.ResultsOf 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed (e.g., emails that bounced n = 64, returned with an away from office message n = 70, or were changed/incorrect n = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals’ impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications (p = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications’ journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0–3.6) and corresponding authors’ median h-index and number of publications was 9 (IQR, 3–20) and 27 (IQR, 10–77), respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months (IQR, 3–8) and 7 months (IQR, 5–12), respectively. Most respondents (62.0%, n = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5 (5-point scale) prior to submission. Median number of journal submissions was 1 (IQR, 1–2), external peer reviews was 1 (IQR, 1–2), external peer reviewers was 3 (IQR, 2–4), and revisions requested was 1 (IQR, 1–1). Sharing manuscripts to a public online platform, instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, would have been considered by 55.2% (n = 186) of respondents.ConclusionCorresponding authors have high perceptions of their research and reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals. (shrink)

In the 1970s, the discovery of the problem of the hole in the ozone layer represented a crucial milestone in the history of science and the environment. Scientists such as Mario Molina and F. Sherry Rowland revealed that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), previously thought to be harmless, could destroy the ozone layer, leading to global awareness of environmental protection. However, they faced resistance from industry and misinformation. Confirmation of the problem came with Jonathan Shanklin’s work in Antarctica. The effects of ozone depletion, (...) such as increased skin cancer, were documented, and humanity reacted with the Montreal Protocol, phasing out harmful substances. Furthermore, the link between the historical success of science-based environmental actions and the modern challenges posed by misinformation should be emphasized, especially considering the rise of digital platforms as both tools and threats to public understanding. Today, tackling disinformation in global environmental problems represents a substantial challenge, requiring science education, raising awareness on social media, valuing traditional sources, training in source verification, recognizing science as a reliable source, and tackling environmental challenges based on science. This article proposes actionable solutions such as integrating critical media literacy into education, establishing international regulations to curb disinformation, and leveraging collaborative platforms to promote accurate scientific communication. It argues that strengthening international cooperation, modeled on the Montreal Protocol, is crucial to countering misinformation and fostering effective global environmental policies. The history of the Montreal Protocol highlights the importance of science, international cooperation, and determined action in protecting the environment and human health. (shrink)

In studying the thinkers discussed, we have generally used (translations of) their writings. The very breadth of this study makes one dependent upon ...

Although female and male gametes are presumably equivalent in their genetic contribution to embryos, they carry specific information, perhaps reversibly imprinted into the genomes during oogenesis and spermatogenesis, as to their maternal or paternal origin. This information is crucial for embryogenesis and, in the absence of at least one haploid set of chromosomes from each parent, embryos do not develop to term. The paternal genome is probably required for proliferation of extraembryonic tissues and the maternal genome for some stages of (...) embryogeneis. Furthermore, the effects of certain mutations are determined by the paternal or maternal origin of the inheritance. (shrink)

I will divide my discussion into two. In the first part I will discuss Godin and Gingras's delicious claim that the experimenter's regress is anticipated by Sextus Empiricus's formulation of scepticism. In the second part, I will try to deal with Godin and Gingras's ‘critical argument’, that the experimenter's regress would be redundant if we were less concerned with ‘frightening philosophers’.

Le volume s'enquiert des liens entre l'affectivite et l'activite philosophique. Sur le mode historique et/ou problematique il s'agit de traiter de questions telles que: Y a-t-il une ou des tonalites affectives specifiques a la philosophie: etonnement, angoisse, ennui, serenite, melancolie,...? L'activite philosophique est-elle associee a un deni de l'affectivite et sous quelles formes: nihilisme, detachement, refoulement...? Quel rapport le philosophe noue-t-il a l'ambivalence de l'affect (indecidabilite, double bind,...)? Qu'en est-il de la reception thematique de l'affectivite en philosophie: une philosophie ou (...) une phenomenologie de l'affectivite est-elle possible? Quel statut philosophique pour des sciences nouvelles - les neurosciences -qui pretendent etudier objectivement et techniquement l'affectivit. (shrink)

Festschrift volume in honour of Mohd. Sabir Hussain, b. 1935.

Rapid advancements in machine learning techniques allow mass surveillance to be applied on larger scales and utilize more and more personal data. These developments demand reconsideration of the privacy-security dilemma, which describes the tradeoffs between national security interests and individual privacy concerns. By investigating mass surveillance techniques that use bulk data collection and machine learning algorithms, we show why these methods are unlikely to pinpoint terrorists in order to prevent attacks. The diverse characteristics of terrorist attacks—especially when considering lone-wolf terrorism—lead (...) to irregular and isolated footprints. The irregularity of data affects the accuracy of machine learning algorithms and the mass surveillance that depends on them which can be explained by three kinds of known problems encountered in machine learning theory: class imbalance, the curse of dimensionality, and spurious correlations. Proponents of mass surveillance often invoke the distinction between collecting data and metadata, in which the latter is understood as a lesser breach of privacy. Their arguments commonly overlook the ambiguity in the definitions of data and metadata and ignore the ability of machine learning techniques to infer the former from the latter. Given the sparsity of datasets used for machine learning in counterterrorism and the privacy risks attendant with bulk data collection, policymakers and other relevant stakeholders should critically re-evaluate the likelihood of success of the algorithms and the collection of data on which they depend. (shrink)