Scientific Communication and Education

The U.S. faculty job market survives the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic

1. Ariangela J Kozik
2. Ada Hagan
3. Nafisa M Jadavji
4. Christopher T Smith
5. Amanda Haage

Reviewed by ScreenIT

Correction of the scientific production: publisher performance evaluation using a dataset of 4844 PubMed retractions

1. Catalin Toma
2. Liliana Padureanu
3. Bogdan Toma

Reviewed by PeerRef

Myth-busting the provider-user relationship for digital sequence information

1. Amber Hartman Scholz
2. Matthias Lange
3. Pia Habekost
4. Paul Oldham
5. Ibon Cancio
6. Guy Cochrane
7. Jens Freitag

Reviewed by GigaScience

Second Climate Survey of Biomedical PhD Students in the Time of Covid

1. Deepti Ramadoss
2. John P. Horn

Reviewed by ScreenIT

An exploratory analysis of 4844 withdrawn articles and their retraction notes

1. Catalin Toma
2. Liliana Padureanu

Reviewed by PeerRef

Climate Surveys of Biomedical PhD Students and Training Faculty Members in the Time of Covid

1. Deepti Ramadoss
2. Meghan McCord
3. John P. Horn

Reviewed by ScreenIT

COVID-19: Salient Aspects of Coronavirus Infection, Vaccines and Vaccination Testing and their Implications

1. Pradeep K. Pasricha
2. Arun K. Upadhayaya

Reviewed by ScreenIT

Sentimental Tweets Classification of Symptomatic COVID-19

1. P Tharun

Reviewed by ScreenIT

Planning and Conducting an Online Conference at the time of COVID-19: Lessons Learned from EGREPA 2021

1. Ellen Bentlage
2. Luca Roekens
3. Lennart Bußmann
4. Michael Brach

Reviewed by ScreenIT

Reporting and misreporting of sex differences in the biological sciences

1. Yesenia Garcia-Sifuentes
2. Donna L Maney

• Curated by eLife

  Evaluation Summary:

  This manuscript presents a descriptive audit on statistically treatment, reporting and interpretation of the effects of sex as a biological variable (SABV) on the studied outcomes in articles published across nine scholarly disciplines. The manuscript highlights and provides data on prevalence of several inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the literature regarding treatment of SABV as an important moderator of the effects of an intervention on a considered outcome and how such inconsistencies could lead to biased conclusions regarding the effects of SABV. As such, the manuscript may inform not only funding agencies and grant reviewers, but also researchers in most scientific disciplines regarding the importance of adhering to rigorous methodological standards when examining the effects of SABV.

  (This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #3 agreed to share their names with the authors.)

Reviewed by eLife