Effects of stereotypic behaviour and chronic mild stress on judgement bias in laboratory mice

Cognitive processes are influenced by underlying affective states, and tests of cognitive bias have recently been developed to assess the valence of affective states in animals. These tests are based on the fact that individuals in a negative affective state interpret ambiguous stimuli more pessimistically than individuals in a more positive state. Using two strains of mice we explored whether unpredictable chronic mild stress (UCMS) can induce a negative judgement bias and whether variation in the expression of stereotypic behaviour is associated with variation in judgement bias. Sixteen female CD-1 and 16 female C57BL/6 mice were trained on a tactile conditional discrimination test with grade of sandpaper as a cue for differential food rewards. Once they had learned the discrimination, half of the mice were subjected to UCMS for three weeks to induce a negative affective state. Although UCMS induced a reduced preference for the higher value reward in the judgement bias test, it did not affect saccharine preference or hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) activity. However, UCMS affected responses to ambiguous (intermediate) cues in the judgement bias test. While control mice showed a graded response to ambiguous cues, UCMS mice of both strains did not discriminate between ambiguous cues and tended to show shorter latencies to the ambiguous cues and the negative reference cue. UCMS also increased bar-mouthing in CD-1, but not in C57BL/6 mice. Furthermore, mice with higher levels of stereotypic behaviour made more optimistic choices in the judgement bias test. However, no such relationship was found for stereotypic bar-mouthing, highlighting the importance of investigating different types of stereotypic behaviour separately.

Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?

Previous studies have shown medical students in Germany to have little interest in research while at the same time there is a lack of physician scientists. This study’s aim is to investigate factors influencing publication productivity of physicians during and after finishing their medical doctorate. We conducted a PubMed search for physicians having received their doctoral degree at Ludwig-Maxmilians-University Munich Faculty of Medicine between 2011 and 2013 (N = 924) and identified the appropriate impact factor (IF) for each journal the participants had published in. Gender, age, final grade of the doctorate, participation in a structured doctoral study program and joint publication activities between graduate and academic supervisor were defined as factors. For analyses we used nonparametric procedures. Men show significantly more publications than women. Before their doctoral graduation men publish 1.98 (SD ± 3.64) articles on average, women 1.15 (±2.67) (p < 0.0001, d = 0.27). After completion of the doctorate (up to 06/2015), 40 % of men still publish, while only 24.3 % of women (p < 0.0001, φ = 0.17) continue to publish. No differences were found concerning the value of IFs. Similar results were found regarding the variable ‘participation in a structured doctoral study program’. Until doctoral graduation, program participants publish 2.82 (±5.41) articles, whereas participants doing their doctorate individually only publish 1.39 (±2.87) articles (p < 0.0001, d = 0.46). These differences persist in publication activities after graduation (45.5 vs. 29.7 %, p = 0.008, φ = 0.09). A structured doctorate seems to have positive influence on IFs (4.33 ± 2.91 vs. 3.37 ± 2.82, p = 0.006, d = 0.34). Further significant results concern the variables ‘final grade’ and ‘age’: An early doctoral graduation and an excellent or very good grade for the doctoral thesis positively influence publication productivity. Finally, joint publication activities between the graduate and his/her academic supervisor result in significantly higher IFs (3.64 ± 3.03 vs. 2.84 ± 2.25, p = 0.007, d = 0.28). The study’s results support the assumption about women’s underrepresentation in science as well as the relevance of structured doctoral study programs for preparing and recruiting young academics in medicine for scientific careers. Promoting women and further development of structured doctoral study programs are highly recommended.