Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Academic Publishing’ Category


WordCloud Visualization of LPBI’s Top Twelve Articles by Views at All Time and their Research Categories in the Ontology of PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com

Curators: Daniel Menzin, Noam Steiner-Tomer, Zach Day, Ofer Markman, PhD, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Article Name
Live Link
Views
All Time
Categories of Research 


#1



Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View?





17,140Biological NetworksCANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyCell BiologyDisease BiologyGenome BiologyImaging-based Cancer Patient ManagementInternational Global Work in PharmaceuticalLiver & Digestive Diseases ResearchMetabolomicsMolecular Genetics & PharmaceuticalNutritionPharmaceutical Industry Competitive IntelligencePharmaceutical R&D InvestmentPopulation Health ManagementProteomicsStem Cells for Regenerative MedicineTechnology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical | Tagged Adenosine triphosphateATPGlycolysisHypoxia-inducible factorsKrebLactate dehydrogenaseMammalian target of rapamycinMitochondrionWarburg Effect


#2



Recent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management





14,553Biomarkers & Medical DiagnosticsHealth Economics and Outcomes ResearchHealthcare costs and reimbursementImaging-based Cancer Patient ManagementMedical Device Therapies for Altzheimer’s DiseaseMedical Devices R&D InvestmentMedical Imaging Technology, Image Processing/Computing, MRI, CT, Nuclear Medicine, Ultra Sound | Tagged breast biopsiesbreast cancerbreast cancer managementbreast cancer screeningbreast cystbreast lesionsbreast ultrasoundmammographyMRIPersonalized medicinePETsupport breast cancertomosynthesisyale university schoolyale university school of medicine 

#3

Do Novel Anticoagulants Affect the PT/INR? The Cases of XARELTO (rivaroxaban) and PRADAXA (dabigatran)


13,893Coagulation Therapy and Internal BleedingElectrophysiologyFDA Regulatory AffairsOrigins of Cardiovascular DiseasePharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular Disease | Tagged Academic Medical CenterAmsterdamAnticoagulantApixabanDabigatranDirect thrombin inhibitorDirect Xa inhibitorFood and Drug AdministrationNew England Journal of MedicineNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugNortheastern UniversityPRADAXAProthrombin timeRivaroxabanVTEWarfarin 

#4

Paclitaxel vs Abraxane (albumin-bound paclitaxel)cent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management


13,878BioSimilarsCANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyDisease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic DrugsNanotechnology for Drug DeliveryPharmaceutical AnalyticsPharmaceutical R&D InvestmentRegulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issues | Tagged Abraxanealbumin-bound paclitaxelbreast cancerclinical studiesFREE paclitaxellinear PKnon-linear PKPaclitaxelPharmacokineticsPKside effectsTaxol 


#5


Apixaban (Eliquis): Mechanism of Action, Drug Comparison and Additional Indications

8,367Coagulation Therapy and Internal BleedingFrontiers in Cardiology and Cardiovascular DisordersOrigins of Cardiovascular DiseasePharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular Disease, tagged Dabigatranrivaroxaban and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation 

#6

Clinical Indications for Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO) in the Adult Patient Market: Clinical Outcomes after Use, Therapy Demand and Cost of Care

8,068Medical Devices R&D InvestmentNitric Oxide in Health and DiseaseTechnology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical | Tagged ARDSAviva Lev-AriInhaled Nitric Oxidenitric oxideprostacyclinPulmonary hypertensionRespiratory failure 
#7

Our Team

6,553LPBI Group, e-Scientific Media, DFP, R&D-M3DP, R&D-Drug Discovery, US Patents: SOPs and Team Management 
#8
Mesothelin: An early detection biomarker for cancer (By Jack Andraka)
6,545Advanced Drug Manufacturing TechnologyBio Instrumentation in Experimental Life Sciences ResearchBiological Networks, Gene Regulation and EvolutionBiomarkers & Medical DiagnosticsBioSimilarsCANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyCancer Prevention: Research & ProgramsCell Biology, Signaling & Cell CircuitsDisease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic DrugsHealth Economics and Outcomes ResearchMedical Devices R&D InvestmentNanotechnology for Drug DeliveryPharmaceutical R&D InvestmentPopulation Health Management, Genetics & PharmaceuticalRegulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issuesTechnology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical | Tagged Blood testcarbon nanotubesearly detectionMesothelinPancreatic cancer 




#9






Biochemistry of the Coagulation Cascade and Platelet Aggregation: Nitric Oxide: Platelets, Circulatory Disorders, and Coagulation Effects










5,235Aortic Valve: TAVR, TAVI vs Open Heart SurgeryBiomarkers & Medical DiagnosticsCell Biology, Signaling & Cell CircuitsChemical Biology and its relations to Metabolic DiseaseCoagulation Therapy and Internal BleedingDisease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic DrugsMetabolomicsMitral Valve: Repair and ReplacementNitric Oxide in Health and DiseasePersonalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic ResearchPharmaceutical Industry Competitive IntelligencePharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular DiseasePopulation Health Management, Nutrition and PhytochemistryProteomics | Tagged anti-inflammatoryanti-TNFAnticoagulantAntithrombinblood flow resistancecell junctionscellular adhesionCoumadinEndothelial cellsFactor IX and IXaFactor VII and VIIaFactor VIII and Factor VIIIaFactor X and XafibrinogenfibrinolysisheparinHypoxia-inducible factorsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugPartial thromboplastin timePhysiologyplasminplatelet aggregationplateletsprothrombinsoluble fibrinsubendothelial matrixThrombinthrombomodulinThrombustissue factorTNF-aVon Willebrand factorWH Seegers 
#10

Interaction of enzymes and hormones

5,173Cell Biology, Signaling & Cell CircuitsChemical Biology and its relations to Metabolic DiseaseMetabolomicsPopulation Health Management, Genetics & PharmaceuticalPopulation Health Management, Nutrition and PhytochemistryReproductive Andrology, Embryology, Genomic Endocrinology, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Reproductive Genomics | Tagged active compoundsenzymehormoneinteractionMetabolismTherapy 

#11

Akt inhibition for cancer treatment, where do we stand today?


4,865CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyCell Biology, Signaling & Cell Circuits | Tagged Cancer researchcancer therapyCell BiologymTORNF-κBPI3K/AKT pathwayPTENSignal transduction 

 

#12

The History and Creators of Total Parenteral Nutrition

 

4,660

 

Disease BiologyGastroenterologyUncategorized | Tagged Amino acidsenteral nutritionNutritionTPN

 

#1

Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View?

Article #1: WordCloud by DM

#2

Recent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management

Article #2: WordCloud by NT

#3

Do Novel Anticoagulants Affect the PT/INR? The Cases of XARELTO (rivaroxaban) and PRADAXA (dabigatran)

Article #3: WordCloud by ZD

#4

Paclitaxel vs Abraxane (albumin-bound paclitaxel)cent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management

Article #4: WordCloud by DM

#5

Apixaban (Eliquis): Mechanism of Action, Drug Comparison and Additional Indications

Article #5: WordCloud by ZD

#6

Clinical Indications for Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO) in the Adult Patient Market: Clinical Outcomes after Use, Therapy Demand and Cost of Care

Article #6: WordCloud by NT

#7

Our Team

Article #7: WordCloud by DM

Read Full Post »


The Castleman Disease Research Network publishes Phase 1 Results of Drug Repurposing Database for COVID-19

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD.

 

From CNN at https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/health/coronavirus-treatment-fajgenbaum-drug-review-scn-wellness/index.html

Updated 8:17 AM ET, Sat June 27, 2020

(CNN)Every morning, Dr. David Fajgenbaum takes three life-saving pills. He wakes up his 21-month-old daughter Amelia to help feed her. He usually grabs some Greek yogurt to eat quickly before sitting down in his home office. Then he spends most of the next 14 hours leading dozens of fellow researchers and volunteers in a systematic review of all the drugs that physicians and researchers have used so far to treat Covid-19. His team has already pored over more than 8,000 papers on how to treat coronavirus patients.

The 35-year-old associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine leads the school’s Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment & Laboratory. For the last few years, he has dedicated his life to studying Castleman disease, a rare condition that nearly claimed his life. Against epic odds, he found a drug that saved his own life six years ago, by creating a collaborative method for organizing medical research that could be applicable to thousands of human diseases. But after seeing how the same types of flares of immune-signaling cells, called cytokine storms, kill both Castleman and Covid-19 patients alike, his lab has devoted nearly all of its resources to aiding doctors fighting the pandemic.

A global repository for Covid-19 treatment data

Researchers working with his lab have reviewed published data on more than 150 drugs doctors around the world have to treat nearly 50,000 patients diagnosed with Covid-19. They’ve made their analysis public in a database called the Covid-19 Registry of Off-label & New Agents (or CORONA for short).
It’s a central repository of all available data in scientific journals on all the therapies used so far to curb the pandemic. This information can help doctors treat patients and tell researchers how to build clinical trials.The team’s process resembles that of the coordination Fajgenbaum used as a medical student to discover that he could repurpose Sirolimus, an immunosuppressant drug approved for kidney transplant patients, to prevent his body from producing deadly flares of immune-signaling cells called cytokines.The 13 members of Fajgenbaum’s lab recruited dozens of other scientific colleagues to join their coronavirus effort. And what this group is finding has ramifications for scientists globally.
This effort by Dr. Fajgenbaum’s lab and the resultant collaborative effort shows the power and speed at which a coordinated open science effort can achieve goals. Below is the description of the phased efforts planned and completed from the CORONA website.

CORONA (COvid19 Registry of Off-label & New Agents)

Drug Repurposing for COVID-19

Our overarching vision:  A world where data on all treatments that have been used against COVID19 are maintained in a central repository and analyzed so that physicians currently treating COVID19 patients know what treatments are most likely to help their patients and so that clinical trials can be appropriately prioritized.

 

Phase 1: COMPLETED

Our team reviewed 2500+ papers & extracted data on over 9,000 COVID19 patients. We found 115 repurposed drugs that have been used to treat COVID19 patients and analyzed data on which ones seem most promising for clinical trials. This data is open source and can be used by physicians to treat patients and prioritize drugs for trials. The CDCN will keep this database updated as a resource for this global fight. Repurposed drugs give us the best chance to help COVID19 as quickly as possible! As disease hunters who have identified and repurposed drugs for Castleman disease, we’re applying our ChasingMyCure approach to COVID19.

Read our systematic literature review published in Infectious Diseases and Therapy at the following link: Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

From Fajgenbaum, D.C., Khor, J.S., Gorzewski, A. et al. Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review. Infect Dis Ther (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-020-00303-8

The following is the Abstract and link to the metastudy.  This study was a systematic review of literature with strict inclusion criteria.  Data was curated from these published studies and a total of 9152 patients were evaluated for treatment regimens for COVID19 complications and clinical response was curated for therapies in these curated studies.  Main insights from this study were as follows:

Key Summary Points

Why carry out this study?
  • Data on drugs that have been used to treat COVID-19 worldwide are currently spread throughout disparate publications.
  • We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify drugs that have been tried in COVID-19 patients and to explore clinically meaningful response time.
What was learned from the study?
  • We identified 115 uniquely referenced treatments administered to COVID-19 patients. Antivirals were the most frequently administered class; combination lopinavir/ritonavir was the most frequently used treatment.
  • This study presents the latest status of off-label and experimental treatments for COVID-19. Studies such as this are important for all diseases, especially those that do not currently have definitive evidence from randomized controlled trials or approved therapies.

Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been administered to COVID-19 patients but have not been systematically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all treatments reported to be administered to COVID-19 patients and to assess time to clinically meaningful response for treatments with sufficient data. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv for articles reporting treatments for COVID-19 patients published between 1 December 2019 and 27 March 2020. Data were analyzed descriptively. Of the 2706 articles identified, 155 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 9152 patients. The cohort was 45.4% female and 98.3% hospitalized, and mean (SD) age was 44.4 years (SD 21.0). The most frequently administered drug classes were antivirals, antibiotics, and corticosteroids, and of the 115 reported drugs, the most frequently administered was combination lopinavir/ritonavir, which was associated with a time to clinically meaningful response (complete symptom resolution or hospital discharge) of 11.7 (1.09) days. There were insufficient data to compare across treatments. Many treatments have been administered to the first 9152 reported cases of COVID-19. These data serve as the basis for an open-source registry of all reported treatments given to COVID-19 patients at www.CDCN.org/CORONA. Further work is needed to prioritize drugs for investigation in well-controlled clinical trials and treatment protocols.

Read the Press Release from PennMedicine at the following link: PennMedicine Press Release

Phase 2: Continue to update CORONA

Our team continues to work diligently to maintain an updated listing of all treatments reported to be used in COVID19 patients from papers in PubMed. We are also re-analyzing publicly available COVID19 single cell transcriptomic data alongside our iMCD data to search for novel insights and therapeutic targets.

You can visit the following link to access a database viewer built and managed by Matt Chadsey, owner of Nonlinear Ventures.

If you are a physician treating COVID19 patients, please visit the FDA’s CURE ID app to report de-identified information about drugs you’ve used to treat COVID19 in just a couple minutes.

For more information on COVID19 on this Open Access Journal please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

Read Full Post »


A Group of Leading Scientists is calling on PNAS to retract a Nobel Laureate’s paper

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

 

Mario Molina, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995, was the lead author of the paper now being questioned.

A group of leading scientists is calling on PNAS to retract a paper on the effectiveness of masks, saying the study has “egregious errors” and contains numerous “verifiably false” statements.

The scientists wrote a letter to the journal editors on Thursday, asking them to retract the study immediately “given the scope and severity of the issues we present, and the paper’s outsized and immediate public impact.”

The letter follows heated criticism of two other major coronavirus studies in May, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. Both papers were retracted amid concerns that a rush to publish coronavirus research had eroded safeguards at prestigious journals.

The study now under fire was published on June 11 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The lead author is Mario Molina, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995, with two other scientists, for finding a link between man-made chemicals and depletion of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.

Read More

REFERENCES

Mario J. Molina

 

Original Article under fire

Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19

Renyi ZhangYixin LiAnnie L. ZhangYuan Wang, and Mario J. Molina
  1. Contributed by Mario J. Molina, May 16, 2020 (sent for review May 14, 2020; reviewed by Manish Shrivastava and Tong Zhu)

 

Two major study retractions in one month have left researchers wondering if the peer review process is broken.

SOURCE

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/health/virus-journals.html

 

Scientists Letter to the Editor of PNAS

Click to access e7ef6fc5-c7c6-42f1-922b-a7788161af37.pdf

SOURCE

From: eScience <escienceinfo@comcast.net>

Subject: A group of leading scientists is calling on PNAS to retract a Nobel Laureate’s paper

Date: June 21, 2020 at 5:30:40 PM PDT

To: mfeldman@stanford.edu

Reply-To: escienceinfo@comcast.net

Read Full Post »


MIT, guided by open access principles, ends Elsevier negotiations, an act followed by other University Systems in the US and in Europe

Institute ends negotiations for a new journals contract in the absence of a proposal aligning with the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts.

MIT Libraries
June 11, 2020

MIT, Elsevier Stop Talking

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has ended its journal subscription contract negotiations with Elsevier, according to the school.

It adds that the publisher did not provide a contract that was in line with the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts, which advocates for the open sharing of research and educational material. Part of that policy, Inside Higher Ed notes, is the requirement that researchers must be able to retain copyright of their work, and it suspects that “may have been a sticking point in MIT’s negotiations with Elsevier.”

“I am disappointed that we were not able to reach a contract with Elsevier that honors the principles of the MIT Framework, but I am proud knowing that the MIT community — as well as hundreds of colleagues across the country — stand by the importance of these principles for advancing the public good and the progress of science,” Chris Bourg, director of the MIT Libraries, says in a statement. “In the face of these unprecedented global challenges, equitable and open access to knowledge is more critical than ever.”

Other institutions like the University of California as well as the State University of New York and the University of North Carolina have similarly ended contract negotiations with Elsevier, IHE adds.

https://www.genomeweb.com/scan/mit-elsevier-stop-talking?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Scan%20Fri%202020-06-12&utm_term=The%20Scan%20Bulletin#.XwykwZNKgdU

http://news.mit.edu/2020/guided-by-open-access-principles-mit-ends-elsevier-negotiations-0611

 

See

University of California accounts for nearly 10% of all published research in the United States. It’s also a significant partner of Elsevier, which publishes about 18% of all UC output and collects more than 25% of the university’s $40-million overall subscription budget.

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/12/09/university-of-california-accounts-for-nearly-10-of-all-published-research-in-the-united-states-its-also-a-significant-partner-of-elsevier-which-publishes-about-18-of-all-uc-o/

Read Full Post »


US Responses to Coronavirus Outbreak Expose Many Flaws in Our Medical System

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The  coronavirus pandemic has affected almost every country in every continent however, after months of the novel advent of novel COVID-19 cases, it has become apparent that the varied clinical responses in this epidemic (and outcomes) have laid bare some of the strong and weak aspects in, both our worldwide capabilities to respond to infectious outbreaks in a global coordinated response and in individual countries’ response to their localized epidemics.

 

Some nations, like Israel, have initiated a coordinated government-private-health system wide action plan and have shown success in limiting both new cases and COVID-19 related deaths.  After the initial Wuhan China outbreak, China closed borders and the government initiated health related procedures including the building of new hospitals. As of writing today, Wuhan has experienced no new cases of COVID-19 for two straight days.

 

However, the response in the US has been perplexing and has highlighted some glaring problems that have been augmented in this crisis, in the view of this writer.    In my view, which has been formulated after social discussion with members in the field ,these issues can be centered on three major areas of deficiencies in the United States that have hindered a rapid and successful response to this current crisis and potential future crises of this nature.

 

 

  1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States
  2. Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry
  3. Socio-geographical inequalities within the US healthcare system

 

1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States

 

For the past decade, anyone involved in science, whether directly as active bench scientists, regulatory scientists, scientists involved in science and health policy, or environmental scientists can attest to the constant pressure to not only defend their profession but also to defend the entire scientific process and community from an onslaught of misinformation, mistrust and anxiety toward the field of science.  This can be seen in many of the editorials in scientific publications including the journal Science and Scientific American (as shown below)

 

Stepping Away from Microscopes, Thousands Protest War on Science

Boston rally coincides with annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C.

byLauren McCauley, staff writer

Responding to the troubling suppression of science under the Trump administration, thousands of scientists, allies, and frontline communities are holding a rally in Boston’s Copley Square on Sunday.

#standupforscience Tweets

 

“Science serves the common good,” reads the call to action. “It protects the health of our communities, the safety of our families, the education of our children, the foundation of our economy and jobs, and the future we all want to live in and preserve for coming generations.”

It continues: 

But it’s under attack—both science itself, and the unalienable rights that scientists help uphold and protect. 

From the muzzling of scientists and government agencies, to the immigration ban, the deletion of scientific data, and the de-funding of public science, the erosion of our institutions of science is a dangerous direction for our country. Real people and communities bear the brunt of these actions.

The rally was planned to coincide with the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference, which draws thousands of science professionals, and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C. and in cities around the world on April 22.

 

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/19/stepping-away-microscopes-thousands-protest-war-science

https://images.app.goo.gl/UXizCsX4g5wZjVtz9

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/85438fbe-278d-11e7-928e-3624539060e8

 

 

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) also had marches for public awareness of science and meaningful science policy at their annual conference in Washington, D.C. in 2017 (see here for free recordings of some talks including Joe Biden’s announcement of the Cancer Moonshot program) and also sponsored events such as the Rally for Medical Research.  This patient advocacy effort is led by the cancer clinicians and scientific researchers to rally public support for cancer research for the benefit of those affected by the disease.

Source: https://leadingdiscoveries.aacr.org/cancer-patients-front-and-center/

 

 

     However, some feel that scientists are being too sensitive and that science policy and science-based decision making may not be under that much of a threat in this country. Yet even as some people think that there is no actual war on science and on scientists they realize that the public is not engaged in science and may not be sympathetic to the scientific process or trust scientists’ opinions. 

 

   

From Scientific American: Is There Really a War on Science? People who oppose vaccines, GMOs and climate change evidence may be more anxious than antagonistic

 

Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.

 

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/

 

      In general, it appears to be a major misunderstanding by the public of the scientific process, and principles of scientific discovery, which may be the fault of miscommunication by scientists or agendas which have the goals of subverting or misdirecting public policy decisions from scientific discourse and investigation.

 

This can lead to an information vacuum, which, in this age of rapid social media communication,

can quickly perpetuate misinformation.

 

This perpetuation of misinformation was very evident in a Twitter feed discussion with Dr. Eric Topol, M.D. (cardiologist and Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational  Institute) on the US President’s tweet on the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine based on President Trump referencing a single study in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.  The Twitter thread became a sort of “scientific journal club” with input from international scientists discussing and critiquing the results in the paper.  

 

Please note that when we scientists CRITIQUE a paper it does not mean CRITICIZE it.  A critique is merely an in depth analysis of the results and conclusions with an open discussion on the paper.  This is part of the normal peer review process.

 

Below is the original Tweet by Dr. Eric Topol as well as the ensuing tweet thread

 

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1241442247133900801?s=20

 

Within the tweet thread it was discussed some of the limitations or study design flaws of the referenced paper leading the scientists in this impromptu discussion that the study could not reasonably conclude that hydroxychloroquine was not a reliable therapeutic for this coronavirus strain.

 

The lesson: The public has to realize CRITIQUE does not mean CRITICISM.

 

Scientific discourse has to occur to allow for the proper critique of results.  When this is allowed science becomes better, more robust, and we protect ourselves from maybe heading down an incorrect path, which may have major impacts on a clinical outcome, in this case.

 

 

2.  Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry

 

In normal times, it is imperative for the patient-physician relationship to be intact in order for the physician to be able to communicate proper information to their patient during and after therapy/care.  In these critical times, this relationship and good communication skills becomes even more important.

 

Recently, I have had multiple communications, either through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets with cancer patients, cancer advocacy groups, and cancer survivorship forums concerning their risks of getting infected with the coronavirus and how they should handle various aspects of their therapy, whether they were currently undergoing therapy or just about to start chemotherapy.  This made me realize that there were a huge subset of patients who were not receiving all the information and support they needed; namely patients who are immunocompromised.

 

These are patients represent

  1. cancer patient undergoing/or about to start chemotherapy
  2. Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs: organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis patients
  3. Patients with immunodeficiency disorders

 

These concerns prompted me to write a posting curating the guidance from National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer centers to cancer patients concerning their risk to COVID19 (which can be found here).

 

Surprisingly, there were only 14 of the 51 US NCI Cancer Centers which had posted guidance (either there own or from organizations like NCI or the National Cancer Coalition Network (NCCN).  Most of the guidance to patients had stemmed from a paper written by Dr. Markham of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle Washington, the first major US city which was impacted by COVID19.

 

Also I was surprised at the reactions to this posting, with patients and oncologists enthusiastic to discuss concerns around the coronavirus problem.  This led to having additional contact with patients and oncologists who, as I was surprised, are not having these conversations with each other or are totally confused on courses of action during this pandemic.  There was a true need for each party, both patients/caregivers and physicians/oncologists to be able to communicate with each other and disseminate good information.

 

Last night there was a Tweet conversation on Twitter #OTChat sponsored by @OncologyTimes.  A few tweets are included below

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242611841613864960?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242616756658753538?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242615906846547978?s=20

 

The Lesson:  Rapid Communication of Vital Information in times of stress is crucial in maintaining a good patient/physician relationship and preventing Misinformation.

 

3.  Socio-geographical Inequalities in the US Healthcare System

It has become very clear that the US healthcare system is fractioned and multiple inequalities (based on race, sex, geography, socio-economic status, age) exist across the whole healthcare system.  These inequalities are exacerbated in times of stress, especially when access to care is limited.

 

An example:

 

On May 12, 2015, an Amtrak Northeast Regional train from Washington, D.C. bound for New York City derailed and wrecked on the Northeast Corridor in the Port Richmond neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Of 238 passengers and 5 crew on board, 8 were killed and over 200 injured, 11 critically. The train was traveling at 102 mph (164 km/h) in a 50 mph (80 km/h) zone of curved tracks when it derailed.[3]

Some of the passengers had to be extricated from the wrecked cars. Many of the passengers and local residents helped first responders during the rescue operation. Five local hospitals treated the injured. The derailment disrupted train service for several days. 

(Source Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Philadelphia_train_derailment)

What was not reported was the difficulties that first responders, namely paramedics had in finding an emergency room capable of taking on the massive load of patients.  In the years prior to this accident, several hospitals, due to monetary reasons, had to close their emergency rooms or reduce them in size. In addition only two in Philadelphia were capable of accepting gun shot victims (Temple University Hospital was the closest to the derailment but one of the emergency rooms which would accept gun shot victims. This was important as Temple University ER, being in North Philadelphia, is usually very busy on any given night.  The stress to the local health system revealed how one disaster could easily overburden many hospitals.

 

Over the past decade many hospitals, especially rural hospitals, have been shuttered or consolidated into bigger health systems.  The graphic below shows this

From Bloomberg: US Hospital Closings Leave Patients with Nowhere to go

 

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/JdZ6UtaG3Ra3EA3J8

 

Note the huge swath of hospital closures in the midwest, especially in rural areas.  This has become an ongoing problem as the health care system deals with rising costs.

 

Lesson:  Epidemic Stresses an already stressed out US healthcare system

 

Please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

for more up-to-date scientific, clinical information as well as persona stories, videos, interviews and economic impact analyses

and @pharma_BI

Read Full Post »


Lesson 7 of Cell Signaling 7 Motility: Tubulin and Tutorial Quizes for #TUBiol3373

Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

This lesson (lesson 7) will discuss the last type of cytoskeletal structure: microtubules and tubulin.  In addition I want to go over the last quiz answers and also introduce some new poll quizes.

I had given the lecture 7 over Canvas and each of you can download and go over the lecture but I will highlight a few slides in the lecture.

Let’s first review:

Remember that microtubules are the largest of the three cytoskeletal structures:

actin microfilaments < intermediate filaments < microtubules

This is very important to understand as the microtubules, as shown later, shuttle organelles and cellular structures like synaptic vesicles, as well as forming the centrisome and spindle fibers of mitosis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now remember the quiz question from last time

Remember that actin monomers (the G actin binds ATP)  while tubulin, the protein which makes up the microtubules binds GTP {although it is a little more complex than that as the following diagram shows}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how the growth at the plus end is dependent on tubulin heterodimer GTP while when GDP is only bound to tubulin (both forms) you get a destabilization of the plus end and removal of tubulin dimers (catastrophe) if there is no source of tubulin GTP dimers (alpha tubulin GTP with beta tubulin GTP).

 

 

 

 

Also remember that like actin microfilaments you can have treadmilling (the plus end  continues growing while minus end undergoes catasrophe).  The VIDEO below describes these processes:

 

 

 

Certain SNPs and mutants of tubulin are found and can result in drastic phenotypic changes in microtubule stability and structure. Below is an article where a mutation in tubulin can result in microtubule catastrophe or destabilization of microtubule structures.

 

From: A mutation uncouples the tubulin conformational and GTPase cycles, revealing allosteric control of microtubule dynamics;, E.A. Geyer et al..; elife 2015;4:e10113

Abstract

Microtubule dynamic instability depends on the GTPase activity of the polymerizing αβ-tubulin subunits, which cycle through at least three distinct conformations as they move into and out of microtubules. How this conformational cycle contributes to microtubule growing, shrinking, and switching remains unknown. Here, we report that a buried mutation in αβ-tubulin yields microtubules with dramatically reduced shrinking rate and catastrophe frequency. The mutation causes these effects by suppressing a conformational change that normally occurs in response to GTP hydrolysis in the lattice, without detectably changing the conformation of unpolymerized αβ-tubulin. Thus, the mutation weakens the coupling between the conformational and GTPase cycles of αβ-tubulin. By showing that the mutation predominantly affects post-GTPase conformational and dynamic properties of microtubules, our data reveal that the strength of the allosteric response to GDP in the lattice dictates the frequency of catastrophe and the severity of rapid shrinking.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10113.001

 

Remember the term allosterism: change in the affinity for binding of a ligand or substrate that is caused by the binding of another ligand away from the active site (for example like 2,3 DPG effect on oxygen binding to hemoglobin

 

Cellular transport of organelles and vesicles: a function of microtubules

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the above figure (figure 9 in your Powerpoint) shows the movement of organelles and vesicles in two different types of cells along microtubules.

Note the magenta arrow which goes from the nucleus toward the plus end of the microtubule (at cell membrane) is referred to as anterograde transport and is movement away from center of cell to the periphery.  Retrograde transport is movement of organelles and vesicles from periphery of cell to the center of the cell.

Note that kinesin is involved in anterograde transport while dyenin is involved in retrograde transport

Also refer to the Wiki page which shows a nice cartoon of this walking down a microtubule on the right hand side of the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonal_transport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cilia; a cellular structure of microtubules (we will talk about cilia later)

for more information on structure of Cillia please see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21698/

This is from a posting by Dr. Larry Bernstein of Yale University at https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/11/04/cilia-and-tubulin/

 

RESEARCHERS VIDEO AND MEASURE TUBULIN TRANSPORT IN CILIA FOR THE FIRST TIME.

http://health-innovations.org/2015/01/27/researchers-image-and-measure-tubulin-transport-in-cilia/

 

 

https://michellepetersen76.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/uga-researchers-image-and-measure-tubulin-transport-in-cilia-healthinnovations1.png

 

Defective cilia can lead to a host of diseases and conditions in the human body, from rare, inherited bone malformations to blindness, male infertility, kidney disease and obesity. It is known that these tiny cell organelles become deformed and cause these diseases because of a problem related to their assembly, which requires the translocation of vast quantities of the vital cell protein tubulin. What they didn’t know was how tubulin and another cell organelle known as flagella fit into the process.

Now, a new study from University of Georgia shows the mechanism behind tubulin transport and its assembly into cilia, including the first video imagery of the process. The study was published in the Journal of Cell Biology.

Cilia are found throughout the body, so defects in cilia formation affect cells that line airways, brain ventricles or the reproductive track.  One of the main causes of male infertility is the cilia won’t function properly.

The team used total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy to analyze moving protein particles inside the cilia of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a green alga widely used as a model for cilia analysis.

The team exploited the natural behaviour of the organism, which is to attach by its cilia to a smooth surface, such as a microscope glass cover. This positions the cilia within the 200-nanometer reach of the total internal reflection fluorescence microscope allowing for the imaging of individual proteins as they move inside the cilia.  A video explaining the process was published along with the study.

Tubulin is transported by this process called intraflagellar transport, or IFT.  Though it has long been suspected in the field and there was indirect evidence to support the theory, this is the first time it has been shown directly, through live imaging, that IFT does function as a tubulin pump.  The team observed that about 400,000 tubulin dimers need to be transported within 60 minutes to assemble a single cilium. Being able to see tubulin moving into cilia allowed for first insights into how this transport is regulated to make sure cilia will have the correct size.

The new findings are expected to have wide implications for a variety of diseases and conditions related to cilia defects in the body.  The team state that they are on the very basic side of this research.  But because more and more diseases are being connected to cilia-related conditions, including obesity and even diabetes, the number of people working on cilia has greatly expanded over the last few years.

 

So here are the answer to last weeks polls

  1. Actin filaments are the SMALLEST of the cytoskeletal structures.  As shown in this lecture it is tubulin that binds GTP.  Actin binds ATP.
  2.  ARP2/3 or actin related proteins 2 and 3 are nucleating proteins that assist in initiating growth of branched chain micofiliment networks.  Formins are associated with unbranched actin formations.
  3.  The answer is GAPs or GTPase activating proteins.  Remember RAS in active state when GTP is bound and when you hydrolyze the GTP to GDP Ras is inactive state

 

 

 

 

 

4.  Okay so I did a type here but the best answer was acetylcholinesterase (AchE) degrading acetylcholine.  Acetylcholinesterase degrades the neurotransmitter acetylcholine into choline and acetate not as I accidentally put into acetylCoA.  The freed choline can then be taken back up into the presynaptic neuron and then, with a new acetyl group (with Coenzyme A) will form acetylcholine.

 

Synthesis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine

 

 

 

The neuromuscular junction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to all who took the quiz.  Remember it is for your benefit.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


GenomeWeb acquisition by Crain Communication announced on 9/6/2019

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC ACQUIRES ONLINE NEWS ORGANIZATION GENOMEWEB

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 6, 2019

Crain Communications Inc has acquired GenomeWeb, an online news organization serving the global community of scientists, technology professionals and executives who use and develop the latest advanced tools in molecular biology research and molecular diagnostics.

GenomeWeb’s editorial mission is to cover the scientific and economic ecosystem spurred by the advent of high-throughput genome sequencing. The brand operates the largest online newsroom focused on advanced molecular research tools in order to provide readers with exclusive news and in-depth analysis of this rapidly evolving market.

“We are excited to add GenomeWeb to our family of brands,” said KC Crain, president and chief operating officer of Crain Communications. “GenomeWeb’s history and expertise in journalism, and their commitment to top-level reporting, makes it an attractive business and a perfect complement to our family of business-to-business brands.”

The GenomeWeb team (not including remote employees) in their New York office.

GenomeWeb was launched in 1997 and currently has a staff of 30 employees located in New York. GenomeWeb’s leadership team includes Bernadette Toner, chief executive officer, and Greg Anderson, chief operating officer.

“GenomeWeb is proud to be joining a company that has supported high-quality, independent business journalism for more than a century,” Toner said. “We look forward to working with the Crain Communications team to serve our growing readership in the life science and healthcare markets.”

The official acquisition date was September 1, 2019.

GenomeWeb will join Crain’s portfolio of brands, which includes: Ad Age, Creativity, Automotive News, Automotive News Canada, Automotive News China, Automotive News Europe, Automotive News Mexico, Automobilwoche, Autoweek, Crain’s Chicago Business, Crain’s Cleveland Business, Crain’s New York Business, Crain’s Detroit Business, Modern Healthcare, Staffing Industry Analysts, Pensions & Investments, Plastics News, Plastics News Europe, Plastics News China, Rubber & Plastics News, European Rubber Journal, Tire Business, Urethanes Technology International, and Plastics & Rubber World.

About GenomeWeb

GenomeWeb is an independent online news organization based in New York. Since 1997, GenomeWeb has served the global community of scientists, technology professionals, and executives who use and develop the latest advanced tools in molecular biology research and molecular diagnostics.

GenomeWeb’s editorial mission is to cover the scientific and economic ecosystem spurred by the advent of high-throughput genome sequencing. It operates the largest online newsroom focused on advanced molecular research tools in order to provide readers with exclusive news and in-depth analysis of this rapidly evolving market.

GenomeWeb users can be found in major scientific organizations around the world, including biopharmaceutical companies, research universities, biomedical institutes, clinical labs, and government laboratories. Advertisers include leading suppliers of research tools, analytical instruments, information technology and molecular diagnostics.

To learn more about GenomeWeb, visit genomeweb.com.

About Crain Communications

Crain Communications is a privately held media company that produces trusted and relevant news publications, lead generation, research and data products, digital platforms, custom publishing, and events with uncompromising integrity. Crain’s 23 brands reach 6 million business decision-makers and consumers across the United States and in select markets in Europe and Asia. Many of Crain’s brands are the most influential media properties in the verticals they serve including Automotive NewsAutoweekAd AgeModern HealthcarePlastics News, and Pensions & Investments. Headquartered in Detroit, the company has 650 employees in 10 locations delivering exceptional news content over a variety of platforms to empower the success of its readers and clients.

To learn more about Crain Communications Inc, visit crain.com.

Contact: Ariel Black
Corporate Communications
(313) 446-6065
corp_comm@crain.com

https://www.crain.com/news/crain-communications-inc-acquires-online-news-organization-genomeweb/

 

GenomeWeb Announcement

From: GenomeWeb <customerservice@genomeweb.com>

Subject: GenomeWeb Is Joining the Crain Communications Family

Date: September 5, 2019 at 9:00:26 AM PDT

 

I’m pleased to announce that GenomeWeb has been acquired by Crain Communications, a family owned media company with a 100-year history of supporting high-quality business journalism.

GenomeWeb will remain an independent business unit under Crain. All our operations and staff will remain unchanged, as will our commitment to independent reporting on the life science and healthcare markets.

We look forward to working with the Crain team to better serve our readers’ news and information needs.

Please feel free to contact me, the GenomeWeb editorial team (editorial@genomeweb.com), or your GenomeWeb sales representative with any questions.

Thanks for reading GenomeWeb!

Bernadette Toner

CEO

 

Other related articles published on e-Scientific Publishing in this Open Access Online Scientific Publishing include the following: 

GenomeWeb Daily News Index: Future is Better for Some than for Others NanoString, Accelerate, PacBio Shares Sharply up in September; Myriad, Sequenom Down

MEDIA organizations as Followers of @pharma_BI the Official Twitter Account of LPBI Group (136 out of 505 Followers): Number of Followers’ Followers, Institutions (I) and Individuals (Persons(P)), RED = Mostly Honored to be followed by

The Digital Age Gave Rise to New Definitions – New Benchmarks were born on the World Wide Web for the Intangible Asset of Firm’s Reputation: Pay a Premium for buying e-Reputation

e-Scientific Publishing: The Competitive Advantage of a Powerhouse for Curation of Scientific Findings and Methodology Development for e-Scientific Publishing – LPBI Group, A Case in Point

FIVE Forthcoming Books on CRISPR in 2019-2020: Flooded market or CRISPR-fatigued readers – Not to Worry !!!!!

Electronic Scientific AGORA: Comment Exchanges by Global Scientists on Articles published in the Open Access Journal @pharmaceuticalintelligence.com – Four Case Studies

 

Read Full Post »


@PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com Journal: Article Publication by LPBI Group’s FIT Members, January 2019 – June 2019

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 2/24/2020

 

Curator’s Name

1/1/2019 – 6/30/2019

7/1/2019 – 12/31/2019

Dr. Sudipta Saha

20

11
Dr. Stephen J. Williams 37 17
Dr. Irina Robu

19

9
Dr. Dror Nir

4

2
Gail S. Thornton

7

6
Amnon Denzig

1

Rick Mandhal

1

Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari

94

[51.37%]

51

[53.6%]

Total for 2019:

281

183

97+1 (Joel) = 98

 

Read Full Post »


Dr. Williams Selection of Institutions and Persons of Influence on Life Sciences and Pharma on Twitter.com Blue=Digital Media RED=Follower @pharma_BI

 

Reporter of Number of Followers: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Dr. Stephen J. Williams Selection of Institutional and Persons of Influence on Life Sciences and Pharma on Twitter.com Blue=Media RED=Follower @pharma_BI

I @BRCForum British Research Council Twitter forum 245 Founded in 2009, the BioPharma Research Council believes that scientific discourse and debate is central to the research and development process. 245
I @Science2_0 open science forum well followed 4,662 The official site of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Science 2.0® network – science for the next 2,000 years. 300 million readers and growing.
I @UC3CDL Univ. California Data Curation Center 1,111 University of California Curation Center (UC3) is the digital curation & research data mgmt program at California Digital Library (CDL) @CalDigLib
I @MozOpenLeaders Mozilla Open Science Leaders Forum 2,234 A cohort of Open Leaders fueling the #internethealth movement through training, mentorship & working open best practices. Work Open, Lead Open #WOLO
I @BiotechWkBoston Biotech Week Boston 1,341 #BiotechWeekBoston Where the heart, technology and business of science converge. Join us Sep 4-7, 2018 at Hynes Convention Center.
I @CR_UK Cancer Research UK 327,000 Cancer Research UK pioneers life-saving research to bring forward the day when all cancers are cured.
I @nature Journal Nature 1,900,000 Science news & opinion from the news team at Nature, the international journal of #science. Get our daily newsletter: http://go.nature.com/naturebriefing
I @FierceBiotech fiercebiotech.com 74,800 Tweets by the Fierce Life Sciences editorial team. Subscribe to our daily email newsletter at http://www.fiercebiotech.com/offer/signup  74,800
I @ScienceMagazine @sciencemagazine 1,260,000 The world’s leading outlet for cutting-edge research in all areas of science. Follow @NewsfromScience for stories from our news team.
I @JCNI_NOW Twitter feed of the Journal of the National Cancer Inst.
I @Sagebio SAGE Bionetworks; organization of biocurated networks 4,754 Open Science
I @NCIGlobalHealth NCI reporting Twitter feed 6,058 Global Health news and updates from the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Global Health. Privacy Policy: http://1.usa.gov/oW1EVW  6,058
I @techreview MIT technology report 930,000 Our mission is to make technology a greater force for good by bringing about better-informed, more conscious technology decisions through our journalism.
I @openscience forum for the discussion of open science and open access 60,600 The Open Science Federation is a nonprofit alliance working to improve the conduct and communication of science. We are scientists and citizen scientists, writers, journalists, and educators, and makers of and advocates for Open Data, Open Access, Open Source and Standards, and for diversity, equity, and inclusion in science. Our mission is to open science.
I @WIREDScience WIRED Science blog 2,010,000 Bringing the radiothermally generated heat. The team: @sandraupson, @JetJocko, @rtg0nzalez, @MeganMolteni, and @MrMattSimon. 2,010,000
I @Biotech365 biotech news from over the globe 20,500 Biotech 365 : Biotech and Biopharma news ! #biotech #biotechnology #biopharma#science #pharma #research #pharmaceutical Followers of @pharma_BI 20,500
I @PMWCintl Precision Medicine World Conference 3,720 Leading precision medicine forum hosting the latest initiatives in #healthcare & #biotech, est. 2009 Register for #PMWC20: https://www.pmwcintl.com/registration
P @DrMaurieMarkman Dr. Maurie Markman 2,954 oncologist with wide following due to weekly Twitter discussion on trends in cancer care
P @BLLPHD 1,964 Gene & #CellTherapy Inventor, #Kymriah, CAR #TCell Maker, #Tmunity CoFounder, President-Elect @ISCTGlobal, Eats tweeters for breakfast.
P @weldiery well followed cancer expert on Twitter
P @LifeSciVC 24,300 twitter handle of biotech entrepreneur and VC funder Bruce Booth
Total 6,636,243 2,111,603
I Total 6,607,025 2,111,603
P Total 29,218 0

Read Full Post »


“If the whole world switches to open access since the scholarly community wants this, it would be a world without subscriptions”

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, UC, Berkeley, PhD’83, Editor-in-Chief, PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com – Open Access since 4/2012, 1,585,184 e-Readers, 5,503 articles. @AVIVA1950 is followed by 360 who’s Followers are 2.5 Millions

 

Why did UC decide to end negotiations today?

Elsevier made a new, quite complex, but novel proposal to us at the end of January. On Monday, our negotiating team gave them a written response outlining our appreciation for Elsevier’s effort, but saying that conditions had to be met for us to sign a contract, and that we thought we were pretty far apart. We knew if they couldn’t accommodate us, there was not much point in continuing to negotiate at this time.

Elsevier wanted to keep meeting with us, and we have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Friday), but yesterday they approached our faculty directly — faculty who are editors of Elsevier journals, who they have working relationships with — and also the media, and presented a rosy view of the offer they’d made to us. Their characterization of the offer left things out, and they didn’t mention what we’d proposed as conditions. They went public with it. So, we announced the end.

We knew all along it was going to be difficult for Elsevier to change its ways to our satisfaction. We had hoped they’d see the light, that the publishing industry is changing, and that they could help lead the way.

What did each side want the most, and why?

From the very beginning, we had two goals: a reduction in costs — we pay about $11 million a year to Elsevier in subscription fees, which is 25 percent of UC system-wide journal costs — and default open access publication for UC authors: that is, that Elsevier would publish an author’s work open access unless the author didn’t want to. This is consistent with the UC faculty senate’s goal of all work being published open access.

We also wanted a contract that integrated a paid subscription with open access publishing fees. It would have been a transformative agreement, one that would shift payments for reading journal articles into payments for publishing them, and publishing them open access.

Elsevier eventually offered to do something like what we wanted, for open access, but they wanted to charge us a lot more. Our current calculations are that they would have increased the amount of our payments by 80 percent — an additional $30 million over a three-year contract.

Open access would eventually mean fewer subscriptions for Elsevier. But we don’t think they would lose, in the long run, by charging for publishing rather than by charging for reading. The transition the industry is making to open access is a feasible path forward, so that more universities don’t cancel their licenses for the same reasons we did.

If the whole world switches to open access, which we think it will at some point since the scholarly community wants this, it would be a world without subscriptions. But it would be a world where people would still want and need to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals, and there’s always a cost for that.

Doe Library

Berkeley’s University Library was a key player in negotiations with Elsevier. (Photo by J. Pierre Carrillo for the University Library)

Have other universities made the same decision?

In the U.S., we’re the first university system to do this with open access as the main issue.

But all of the universities in Germany canceled two years ago for the same reason. The Max Planck Society (the leading research organization in Germany) also did. The university alliance in Sweden canceled last spring, and the university alliance in Hungary canceled in December. Several other national alliances in Europe are trying to negotiate a similar contract with Elsevier.

Is this a goal of UC, to be a model institution for open access?

SOURCE

https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/02/28/why-uc-split-with-publishing-giant-elsevier/

 

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

University of California accounts for nearly 10% of all published research in the United States. It’s also a significant partner of Elsevier, which publishes about 18% of all UC output and collects more than 25% of the university’s $40-million overall subscription budget.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/12/09/university-of-california-accounts-for-nearly-10-of-all-published-research-in-the-united-states-its-also-a-significant-partner-of-elsevier-which-publishes-about-18-of-all-uc-o/

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »