Most Active Stocks Investing com India

If this latter group doesn’t believe that pre-print posting is good for them, we will not only fail to convince them to join us on this path, but we run the serious risk of making science worse than it already is. One of the few new things I learned at this meeting is how obsessed a large number of people are with technical definitions of priority. We spent 30 minutes talking about whether pre-prints should count in establishing priority for discoveries. First of all, I can’t believe there’s any question about this – of course they should! But more importantly who thinks that questions of priority actually get decided by carefully scrutinizing who published what, when and on what date?

If researchers switch from these pre-specified outcomes, without explaining that they have done so, then they break the assumptions of their statistical tests. That carries a significant risk of exaggerating findings, or simply getting them wrong, and this in turn helps to explain why so many trial results eventually turn out to be incorrect. These initiatives can generate conflict, because they set out to hold individuals to account. Most researchers maintain a public pose that science is about healthy, reciprocal, critical appraisal. But when you replicate someone’s methods and find discrepant results, there is inevitably a risk of friction.

Actions of civil disobedience like those of Aaron Swartz and Alexandra Elbakyan are a logical consequence of two decades of stalled negotiations and failed reform efforts. The old guard may be shaking their heads and murmuring darkly about gaming of any system that tries to capture the web-chatter sparked by new research. Any working scientist will have experienced the thrill of hearing exciting new findings reported at a conference where results do not need to be wrapped between the covers of a particular journal for their significance to be appreciated.

Top reviews from India

But journal editors now need to engage in a serious public discussion on why this is still happening. We are providing specific worked examples to facilitate this discussion, and if our project is regarded as provocative, then that is misguided. Audit and accountability are the bread and butter of good medicine, and good science.

For those of you who weren’t there and didn’t follow online or on video, here’s a rough summary of what happened . To make sure potential pitfalls and challenges of pre-prints were discussed. We can avoid high cost gold OA and achieve a system of valuation that works by ridding ourselves of the impact factor. There is a lot of replication going on in science, this is still standard procedure.

Personally, I would tend to hope that Sci-Hub would signal that time has run out and that the scientific community is now ready to shift gears and embark on a more effective strategy for infrastructure reform. Fortunately, Emilie Marcus, CEO of Cell Press and Editor-in-Chief of Cell, was at the meeting to explain it to us. Her response was, and I’m paraphrasing but I think I’m capturing it correctly, is that they are happy to publish papers initially posted as pre-prints so long as the information in the paper had not already been noticed by people in the field.

• The journal is a response to evidence that many scientific findings that are still relied upon cannot be replicated.
• Refunds will be issued only if it is determined that the item was not damaged while in your possession, or is not different from what was shipped to you.
• This also includes building reporting capabilities that support both operational reporting as well as analytic reporting.
• There’s also a mismatch in the items that bring in citations to the numerator and those that count as “citeable items” in the denominator.

And if anything has the power to undermine the benefits of pre-prints, it’s if we allow this mentality to dominate in the post-journal world. It’s not that it surprises me that journals have this kind of hold on people. But I was still flabbergasted that after a meeting whose entire point was that it would be really good for science if people posted pre-prints, someone could suggest that we should give journals – not scientists – the power to decide whether pre-print posting is okay. And I couldn’t believe that people in the audience didn’t rise up in outrage at the most glaring and obvious example of how dysfunctional and toxic – one might even say dystopian – our relationship to journals is. I don’t think Kirschner was trying to set down some kind of abstract principle.

Pfizer’s data showed that in the first 90 days of the baby’s life, the vaccine was 81% effective at preventing severe lower respiratory tract illnesses that require hospitalization or assisted breathing. Bourla said in a statement that Pfizer plans to launch 19 new products or new uses for existing drugs in the next 18 months. The company, for example, reported positive clinical trial data Tuesday for its maternal RSV vaccine that protects newborns.

A journal could change dramatically and any citation metric would not catch up for ~2 years. A comparison dataset from another journal is needed in order to calibrate ourselves. Another study of psychology studies found that only 39 out of 100 studies were successfully replicated. Said another way – if we explore all the reasons that a scientist can come to the conclusion that homeopathy works (when it clearly doesn’t) we will learn much about all the possible ways to fail when people do science . Our team in the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, UK, is now facing the same challenge.

List of Top 130 Companies in Spain (Spanish Company)

“The vaccine is very tolerable, and no safety signals were identified,” he said, though the full results of the trial have not been published. Simply Wall St’s Editorial Team provides unbiased, factual reporting on global stocks using in-depth fundamental analysis. The insider, Mikael Dohlsten, made the biggest insider sale in the last 12 months. That single transaction was for US$3.2m worth of shares at a price of US$49.36 each. So we know that an insider sold shares at around the present share price of US$48.33. We generally don’t like to see insider selling, but the lower the sale price, the more it concerns us.

Of course, inserting monopoly patent rights into trade agreements runs counter to those agreements’s stated purpose of dismantling barriers to global competition. Yet the pharmaceutical industry, reliably at the top of the list in both lobbying expenditures and political campaign contributions in the United States, quickly found willing partners on Capitol Hill and in the White House. The United States soon adopted intellectual property protection as a litmus test for its trade partners.

If only the OA movement consisted of a few more individuals cut from that same wood, we might have never arrived at a point where Sci-Hub was necessary. I openly admit that I’m not even close to playing in that league and the realization hurts. But even from within the OA community Alexandra Elbakyan is receiving some flak for a whole host of – compared to 48 million freed articles – tangential reasons, such as licensing, diluting the OA efforts, or scholarly societies. Of course, she reacted defensively, which is understandable for a host of reasons.

I’m Excited! A Post Pre-Print-Posting-Powwow Post

We strongly support open data7, and scientists should not regard all requests for data as harassment. But as scientists work to boost rigour, they risk making science more vulnerable to attacks. Here, we describe ways to distinguish scrutiny from harassment. Even if the company overcomes these hurdles, success is far from guaranteed. CRISPR is still a nascent technology, but Editas already faces competition from two other startups, Intellia Therapeutics and CRISPR Therapeutics.

Pre-prints are close to invisible in biology (we didn’t really have a viable pre-print server until a year or so ago) and other recent efforts to promote pre-print usage in biology have been poorly received. There is lots of evidence from social media that most members of the community fall somewhere in the skeptical to hostile range when discussing pre-prints. Some of it is selection bias – people hostile to pre-prints weren’t likely to agree to come to a meeting on pre-prints that they had to pay their own way to attend. If you include journal impact factors in the list of publications in your cv, you are statistically illiterate. Instead we need to find ways to attach to each piece of work the value that the scientific community places on it though use and citation.

The work can be physically straining and varies depending on department, but the rest of the job experience more than makes up for it. I left the job for personal reasons but it is without a doubt my favorite workplace so far. The Buying Capability Product Expert is accountable for business & technical analysis for products in the Procurement area. But Pfizer’s third-quarter global revenue fell 6% to $22.6 billion compared to the same period last year due to softening demand for its Covid vaccines internationally. The company sold $4.4 billion of its vaccine worldwide in the quarter, a decrease of 66% compared with the third quarter of 2021. No safety issues have been identified with Pfizer’s vaccine, Gruber said, and a panel of independent reviewers that looks over the study findings while the trial is progressing found no problems.

Given that contemporary conversations are mainly conducted by e-mail, broad-ranging FOI laws risk being tantamount to permanent wiretaps in academics’ offices. We fear that without the guarantee of privacy during e-mail conversations, self-censorship will have chilling effects on academic freedom and incisive discussion. Technique Use Abuse Call for data Permit the replication or inspection of analyses.

Science relies essentially but complacently on self-correction, yet scientific publishing raises severe disincentives against such correction. One publisher states that it will charge the author who initiates withdrawal of a published paper US$10,000. After attempting to address more than 25 of these errors with letters to authors or journals, and identifying at least a dozen more, we had to stop — the work took too much of our time. Our efforts revealed invalidating practices that occur repeatedly (see ‘Three common errors’) and showed how journals and authors react when faced with mistakes that need correction.

One journal did retract a paper when its authors refused to show their data or explain discrepancies that we had identified and alerted the journal to in a letter4. Journals rarely state whom to contact about potentially invalidating errors. We had to guess whether to send letters to a staff member or editor, formally submit the letter as a manuscript, or contact the authors of a paper directly. On a few occasions, we opted to contact authors when an apparent invalidating error may have merely been an ambiguous description. Often, journals provided no way to contact editors directly, and editorial staff corresponded without identifying themselves; we were unsure whether editors were involved.

General Electric Technical Analysis

Paxlovid also had a strong quarter, generating $7.5 billion in sales worldwide though mostly in the U.S. Pfizer raised its full-year sales guidance for its Covid-19 vaccine to $34 billion this year, up $2 billion from the company’s previous expectations. It is maintaining revenue expectations of $22 billion for the antiviral pill Paxlovid. Pfizer says it has enough https://1investing.in/ promising data on its respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, vaccine designed to protect newborns that it will end enrollment in the study and submit for US Food and Drug Administration approval by the end of the year. The stock underperformed when compared to some of its competitors Friday, as Johnson & Johnson JNJ, +0.77%rose 0.77% to $176.20, Merck & Co.

Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

There were four Nobelists at the meeting, many members of national academies, and other A-list scientists. It’s a small number of people in the grand scheme of things, but if these scientists demonstrate that they are really committed to making pre-prints by starting to post pre-prints in the next week . I am confident that their commitment is genuine – indeed some have already posted pre-prints from their labs since the meeting ended yesterday. The impact factor might have started out as a good idea, but its time has come and gone. Journal editors put a low priority on publishing replications of previous studies.

That, in turn, decreases the incentive for researchers to carry out replications. Ideally, anyone who detects a potential problem with a study will engage, whether by writing to authors and editors or by commenting online, and will do so in a collegial way. Scientists who engage in post-publication review often do so out of a sense Intraday buying and selling tutorial of duty to their community, but this important work does not come with the same prestige as other scientific endeavours. Recognizing and incentivizing such activities could go a long way to cleaning up the literature. Journals, publishers and scientific societies should standardize, streamline and publicize these processes.