Understanding the Sharing Economy: The Role of Response to Negative Reviews in the Peer-To-Peer Accommodation Sharing Network?

Recognizing the potentially ruinous effect of negative reviews on the reputation of the hosts as well as a subjective nature of the travel experience judgements, peer-to-peer accommodation sharing plat-forms, like Airbnb, have readily embraced the “response” option, empowering hosts with the voice to challenge, deny or at least apologize for the subject of critique. However, the effects of different re-sponse strategies on trusting beliefs towards the host remain unclear. To fill this gap, this study focus-es on understanding the impact of different response strategies and review negativity on trusting be-liefs towards the host in peer-to-peer accommodation sharing setting utilizing experimental methods. Examination of two different contexts, varying in the controllability of the subject of complaint, re-veals that when the subject of complaint is controllable by a host, such strategies as confession / apol-ogy and denial can improve trusting beliefs towards the host. However, when the subject of criticism is beyond the control of the host, denial of the issue does not yield guest’s confidence in the host, where-as confession and excuse have positive influence on trusting beliefs.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. METHODS We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). RESULTS Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. CONCLUSION There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.

Printed Narrative: The Festival Books for Archduke Ernest of Austria from Brussels and Antwerp 1594

Workshop „The Narrative in Eastern and Western Art“, Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto, 2-5 December 2013 Abstract by Ivo Raband, University of Berne Printed Narrative: The Festival Books for Ernest of Austria from Brussels and Antwerp 1594 During the early modern period the medium of the festival book became increasingly more important as an object of ‘political narration’ throughout Europe. Focusing on Netherlandish examples from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, my talk will focus on the festival books printed for the Joyous Entries of Archduke Ernest of Austria (1553–1595). Ernest was appointed Governor General of the Netherlands by King Philipp II in 1593, being the first Habsburg Prince to reside in Brussels since 30 years. In Brussels and Antwerp, the Archduke was greeted with the traditional Blijde Imkomst, Joyous Entry, which dates back to the fourteenth century and was a necessity to actually become the sovereign of Brabant and Antwerp and to uphold the privileges of the cities. Decorated with ephemeral triumphal arches, stages, and tableaux vivants, both cities welcomed Ernest and, at the same time, demonstrated their civic self-assurance and negotiated their statuses. In honor of these events of civic power, the city magistrates commissioned festival books. These books combine a Latin text with a description of the events and the ephemeral structures, including circa 30 engravings and etchings. Being the only visual manifestation of the Joyous Entries, the books became important representational objects. The prints featured in festival books will be my point of departure for discussing the importance of narrative political prints and the concept of the early modern festival book as a ‘political object’. By comparing the prints from Ernest’s entries with others from the period between 1549 and 1635, I will show how the prints became as important as the event itself. Thus, I want to pose the question of whether it would have been possible to substitute a printed version of the event for the actual ceremony.

A Forgotten Original or an Original Copy? On MS. Douce 387 in the Bodleian Library: Collecting Early Modern Festival Books

Focusing on one manuscript, today in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, this chapter deals with the question how early modern objects became collectable items. The manuscript is categorized as MS. Douce 387 and its name indicates that it came from the collection of Francis Douce (1757–1834), who was keeper of manuscripts in the British Museum from 1799 until 1811. MS. Douce 387 is described in the catalogue of the Douce’ian collection as the “presentation copy with coloured designs by Marten de Vos and others” of the 1595 printed festival book Descriptio publicae gratulationis … in adventu … Ernesti archiducis Austriae. This festival book, printed in Antwerp’s Plantin-Moretus press, was commissioned by the magistrate of the city of Antwerp to commemorate the Joyous Entry of Archduke Ernest of Austria from June 1594; that an “archducal copy” bound in red velvet was commissioned as well and was owned by the Archduke is know as well. However, first research showed that Oxford copy cannot be this “archducal copy” or Marten de Vos’s artist’s copy even though it is the only know version with a handwritten text and hand-drawn illustrations. It rather should be examined as something totally different altogether. The main question remains why someone then commissioned a hand made version of this festival book, something unknown for other books of this genre? Why would someone between 1600 and 1800 sit down and copy texts and prints from a collectable book? Why was there such an on-going interest in early modern festival books? Could this manuscript be the only later made copy of the “archducal volume” or is it rather a forgery made for the European collectors’ market?