Dear Editor,Herein is my response to manuscript ID XXXXX, entitled [“Why Hermione was better than Harry in almost every respect”] [by Ronald Frump and colleagues] to the [Journal of Squirrel-Puppy Relationships].The authors present [insert general overview of research and key findings]. This research is [well-suited/not-suitable] for the remit of the journal.[Insert any comments regarding potential conflicts of interest, or about areas of relevant expertise that you feel you are lacking].I recommend [accept/minor revisions/major revisions/oblivion], pending x, y, and z.Basic reportingFiguresAre the figures legible, relevant, and integrated into the textDataAre the supporting data included in the manuscript or in a relevant repositoryAre the data presented in a way that is consistent with the FAIR principles ( designWas the way in which the research was conducted the best way to answer the relevant questionsValidity of the findingsAre the conclusions supported by the resultsDo the results contribute to the research field, irrespective of whether they are ‘negative’ or a replication studyGeneral commentsIs the language used appropriate for a scientific publicationIs the structure appropriateAbstractIs the abstract concise, and does it convey the main research findingsAre any key points of context or conclusions missingIntroductionDoes this cover the published literature sufficientlyDoes it provide enough context in which to place the current researchAre any key citations missingIs the history of the research conveyed at all for historical significanceDoes it finish with a paragraph summarising the relevance of the current researchMaterials and methodsAre the methods clear and easy to followCan the methods be replicated if neededAre the source materials/data openly available, and is appropriate justification provided if notWere any statistical analyses applied performed appropriatelyResultsAre the results presented in a coherent fashionAre the results reported in a way that is supported by the dataDiscussionAre the new results placed into context of the relevant literatureIs a balanced argument providedAre the full implications of the new results discussed in sufficient detailConclusionsAre the conclusions supported by the resultsAre they concise and written in an impactful way (not over-embellished)Additional commentsAnything else you want to add that doesn’t fit aboveCongratulations to the authors on a great piece of work, and I look forward to seeing their research [published/rejected/re-written with all of the references to my own tangentially-relevant work included.]Sincerely,[Ralph Lauren]ReferencesAny additional papers you have cited within your report
Poster ischool small
How do we collectively feel about our future? Do we look forward to it with anxiety or vigor? Are we apprehensive or optimistic of what the future will bring? Since mood affects performance and well-being, the answers to these questions matter greatly to anyone concerned with public policy. The web is awash with material indicative of public mood, collective forecasting and personal relics. Several efforts have been undertaken to assess emotional status from online sources such as blogs, emails, web sites (Balog & De Rijke 2006) and search engine queries (see, for example, Google Trends). However, these efforts are limited, by the nature of their source material, to hindsight and near-present observations. The work presented here is concerned with collective speculations about the future. We present a visual analysis of publicly available textual content from, a popular web service that allows its users to send themselves emails to be delivered at a later date, up to 30 years in the future. Many of these emails resemble "confessional" time capsules: their content is intended to project the user’s present emotional state at the origination date towards the indicated delivery date. These emails fall into two broad categories of content: a) conjectures about the future and b) mementos regarding the present or the past. By aggregating mood indicators extracted from messages directed to future dates, we can thus assess short and long term shifts in the collective emotional perception toward a particular point in the future. This principle is related to "wisdom of crowd" phenomena as observed in finance and prediction markets (Surowiecki 2004). Numerous psychometric instruments to assess individual mood states and monitor their fluctuations over time exist, the most prominent of which is the 65 item Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire (McNair, Loor, & Droppleman 1971). The 6 dimensional factor analytical structure of the POMS (tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue and confusion) has been validated repeatedly (Norcross, Guadagnoli, & Prochaska 2006) and applied in hundreds of studies since its inception (McNair, Heuchert, & Shilony 2003). To make the POMS questionnaire applicable to the open-ended nature of email content, we extended the POMS set of 65 adjectives by nearly 793 synonyms using WordNet and Roget’s Thesaurus. We calculated the occurrences of extended POMS terms in the content of 30,000 publicly available "future" emails and mapped them to a normalized six-dimensional mood vector representing levels of tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue and confusion. These mood vectors were grouped according to the delivery date of the original email, resulting in a set of mood state vectors. Statistically significant mood changes were detected especially for depression and vigor indicators. The computation of mood levels was then implemented with a more specific textual analysis of the entire email corpus, aimed at identifying manifestations of conjectures and mementos. The results, presented in this poster, blend two different visual representation of the content analyzed: an "emotional timeline" - a cumulative depiction of mood levels between 2007 and 2036 - and a superimposed topic map of mementos and conjectures - an ontological model of commonly used terms and adjectives illustrating the chains of word association.

Alberto Pepe

and 1 more

Documenting the context in which data are collected is an integral part of the scientific research lifecycle. In field-based research, contextual information provides a detailed description of scientific practices and thus enables data interpretation and reuse. For field data, losing contextual information often means losing the data altogether. Yet, documenting the context of distributed, collaborative, field-based research can be a significant challenge due to the unpredictable nature of real-world settings and to the high degree of variability in data collection methods and scientific practices of different researchers. In this article, we propose the use of microblogging as a mechanism to support collection, ingestion, and publication of contextual information about the variegated digital artifacts that are produced in field research. We perform interviews with scholars involved in field-based environmental and urban sensing research, to determine the extent of adoption of Twitter and similar microblogging platforms and their potential use for field-specific research applications. Based on the results of these interviews as well as participant observation of field activities, we present the design, development, and pilot evaluation of a microblogging application integrated with an existing data collection platform on a handheld device. We investigate whether microblogging accommodates the variable and unpredictable nature of highly mobile research and whether it represents a suitable mechanism to document the context of field research data early in the scientific information lifecycle.
Covid virus 3d

Alberto Pepe

and 4 more

We're in a crisis We are in the midst of an unprecedented global crisis. Just weeks since its outbreak, the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has already affected, and will continue to affect, our daily lives, around the globe, for the foreseeable future. The answers and the solutions to this crisis will come from science. But the crisis affects science, too.It affects students, educators, and researchers; not just their day-to-day lives, social ties, and work routines, but also their ability to actively collaborate, convene in face-to-face meetings, attend academic conferences, teach and learn in an open university setting, pay a visit to the library, work overnight at the laboratory, and so on.But the thing is: science cannot stop. Scientific progress must go on. For each one of the challenges that scientists face in this time of crisis, there is, or there will be, a solution. We believe that the solution is not to be found in a single technological tool, product, framework, institution, funding agency, or company. It is the global cyber-infrastructure of scientific collaboration, built on scientific rigor, intellectual curiosity, and cooperation, that will enable science to advance in such difficult times. The power of scientific collaborationAs scientists, publishers, science communicators and technologists, we believe that: a. Science is the solution to the ongoing crisis. Now more than ever, reliance on the scientific method, rigor and clarity of scientific communication, transparency, reproducibility, and seamless sharing of all research data (including negative results), are fundamental to solving this health crisis and advancing human progress.b. Global collaboration and cooperation, beyond and above national and economic interests, is necessary not only at the scientific level, but also at the political and societal level. We're more interconnected and interdependent today than ever. And such interconnectedness extends to the ecological ecosystem in which we live. A crisis of such scale requires global solidarity, bipartisan political action, civic participation, and long-term thinking.