Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Alleviation of chronic venous leg ulcers with a hand-held dielectric barrier discharge plasma generator (PlasmaDerm(®) VU-2010): results of a monocentric, two-armed, open, prospective, randomized and controlled trial (NCT01415622).

BACKGROUND Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP, i.e. ionized air) is an innovating promising tool in reducing bacteria. OBJECTIVE We conducted the first clinical trial with the novel PlasmaDerm(®) VU-2010 device to assess safety and, as secondary endpoints, efficacy and applicability of 45 s/cm(2) cold atmospheric plasma as add-on therapy against chronic venous leg ulcers. METHODS From April 2011 to April 2012, 14 patients were randomized to receive standardized modern wound care (n = 7) or plasma in addition to standard care (n = 7) 3× per week for 8 weeks. The ulcer size was determined weekly (Visitrak(®) , photodocumentation). Bacterial load (bacterial swabs, contact agar plates) and pain during and between treatments (visual analogue scales) were assessed. Patients and doctors rated the applicability of plasma (questionnaires). RESULTS The plasma treatment was safe with 2 SAEs and 77 AEs approximately equally distributed among both groups (P = 0.77 and P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). Two AEs probably related to plasma. Plasma treatment resulted in a significant reduction in lesional bacterial load (P = 0.04, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). A more than 50% ulcer size reduction was noted in 5/7 and 4/7 patients in the standard and plasma groups, respectively, and a greater size reduction occurred in the plasma group (plasma -5.3 cm(2) , standard: -3.4 cm(2) ) (non-significant, P = 0.42, log-rank test). The only ulcer that closed after 7 weeks received plasma. Patients in the plasma group quoted less pain compared to the control group. The plasma applicability was not rated inferior to standard wound care (P = 0.94, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test). Physicians would recommend (P = 0.06, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test) or repeat (P = 0.08, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test) plasma treatment by trend. CONCLUSION Cold atmospheric plasma displays favourable antibacterial effects. We demonstrated that plasma treatment with the PlasmaDerm(®) VU-2010 device is safe and effective in patients with chronic venous leg ulcers. Thus, larger controlled trials and the development of devices with larger application surfaces are warranted.

Evidence for an Ancestral Association of Human Coronavirus 229E with Bats.

UNLABELLED We previously showed that close relatives of human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E) exist in African bats. The small sample and limited genomic characterizations have prevented further analyses so far. Here, we tested 2,087 fecal specimens from 11 bat species sampled in Ghana for HCoV-229E-related viruses by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Only hipposiderid bats tested positive. To compare the genetic diversity of bat viruses and HCoV-229E, we tested historical isolates and diagnostic specimens sampled globally over 10 years. Bat viruses were 5- and 6-fold more diversified than HCoV-229E in the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and spike genes. In phylogenetic analyses, HCoV-229E strains were monophyletic and not intermixed with animal viruses. Bat viruses formed three large clades in close and more distant sister relationships. A recently described 229E-related alpaca virus occupied an intermediate phylogenetic position between bat and human viruses. According to taxonomic criteria, human, alpaca, and bat viruses form a single CoV species showing evidence for multiple recombination events. HCoV-229E and the alpaca virus showed a major deletion in the spike S1 region compared to all bat viruses. Analyses of four full genomes from 229E-related bat CoVs revealed an eighth open reading frame (ORF8) located at the genomic 3' end. ORF8 also existed in the 229E-related alpaca virus. Reanalysis of HCoV-229E sequences showed a conserved transcription regulatory sequence preceding remnants of this ORF, suggesting its loss after acquisition of a 229E-related CoV by humans. These data suggested an evolutionary origin of 229E-related CoVs in hipposiderid bats, hypothetically with camelids as intermediate hosts preceding the establishment of HCoV-229E. IMPORTANCE The ancestral origins of major human coronaviruses (HCoVs) likely involve bat hosts. Here, we provide conclusive genetic evidence for an evolutionary origin of the common cold virus HCoV-229E in hipposiderid bats by analyzing a large sample of African bats and characterizing several bat viruses on a full-genome level. Our evolutionary analyses show that animal and human viruses are genetically closely related, can exchange genetic material, and form a single viral species. We show that the putative host switches leading to the formation of HCoV-229E were accompanied by major genomic changes, including deletions in the viral spike glycoprotein gene and loss of an open reading frame. We reanalyze a previously described genetically related alpaca virus and discuss the role of camelids as potential intermediate hosts between bat and human viruses. The evolutionary history of HCoV-229E likely shares important characteristics with that of the recently emerged highly pathogenic Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus.