<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">
<channel rdf:about="https://biorxiv.org">
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:biorxiv@cshlpress.edu"/>
<title>bioRxiv Subject Collection: Scientific Communication And Education</title>
<link>https://biorxiv.org</link>
<description>
This feed contains articles for bioRxiv Subject Collection "Scientific Communication And Education"
</description>

<items>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.21.753112v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.21.753122v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.17.752282v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.19.752913v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.750878v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.04.746981v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.02.748827v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.25.747173v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.18.745652v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.20.746086v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.11.743320v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.18.745559v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.14.744880v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.07.743443v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.04.741794v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.01.742186v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.28.741134v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.29.741583v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.29.741400v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.03.736421v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.738993v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.739248v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.15.738584v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.739022v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.15.738744v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.14.736897v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.13.737239v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.06.736808v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.06.736686v1?rss=1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.05.736636v1?rss=1"/>
</rdf:Seq>
</items>
<prism:eIssn/>
<prism:publicationName>bioRxiv</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn/>

<image rdf:resource=""/>
</channel>
<image rdf:about="">
<title>bioRxiv</title>
<url>https://www.biorxiv.org/sites/default/files/bioRxiv_article.jpg</url>
<link>https://www.biorxiv.org</link>
</image>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.21.753112v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Multi-Lab Testing of Early Preclinical Discoveries Identifies Promising Treatments 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.21.753112v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
A fundamental challenge in drug development is the frequent failure of early laboratory research to translate into clinical benefit. One promising solution is to confirm findings from exploratory single-laboratory studies across multiple laboratories before clinical testing. We investigated this approach following the conduct of preclinical multi-laboratory studies across different fields of medicine. For this, we evaluated effect sizes, experimental rigor, and a set of criteria to identify determinants of confirmation success. When tested under increased rigor, only a fraction of multi-laboratory studies confirmed the initial results. The underlying effect size reduction was associated with outcome-relevant experimental differences between exploratory and confirmatory stages. In summary, multi-laboratory studies proved highly informative and served as an effective filter for promising treatments.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Pellegrini, P., Rotter, S. C., Arroyo-Araujo, M., Carneiro, C. F. D., Drude, N. I., Martinez Gamboa, L., Banito, A., Bernhardt, N., Boulesteix, A.-L., Buttgereit, F., Dempfle, A., Duran-Hernandez, N., Gaber, T., Groettrup, M., Habelt, B., Haller, B., Hamza, H., Hettmer, S., Kliesow Remes, A., Kobold, S., Kochan, M., Konietschke, F., Lehmann, L. H., Löhning, M., Matzen, A., Meinhardt, M. W., Morrison, H., Müller, O. J., Planz, O., Richter, G. H. S., Riecken, L. B., Rosahl, S. K., Rubarth, K., Schmidt-Bleek, K., Schuler, L., Sharma, A., Skorodumov, I., Spanagel, R., Teichert-von Lüttichau, I. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-09-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.09.21.753112</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Multi-Lab Testing of Early Preclinical Discoveries Identifies Promising Treatments]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-09-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.21.753122v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Technology-enhanced learning in undergraduate neuroscience education: tractography-based virtual dissection in psychology 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.21.753122v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Background: Neuroanatomy poses a significant challenge for Psychology students due to its spatial and conceptual complexity. Educational approaches that enhance the relevance and visualization of neuroanatomical content may improve students learning experiences. This study implemented a tractography-based activity focused on the virtual dissection of the arcuate fasciculus, a major white matter pathway, in undergraduate Psychology students and examined the relationships between perceived learning and students perceptions of utility, difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects of the activity. Methods: First-year undergraduate Psychology students participated in a two-session tractography-based activity combining instruction on white matter anatomy and diffusion tractography with a hands-on virtual dissection of the arcuate fasciculus using research-grade software routinely employed in neuroscience research. Following the activity, students completed an anonymous questionnaire assessing perceived learning, utility, difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects of the activity. Pearson correlations, multiple regression analyses, and relative importance analyses were performed. Results: Sixty-eight students completed the questionnaire. Students reported generally positive perceptions of the activity across the evaluated dimensions, with perceived learning receiving the highest mean score (M = 3.44, SD = .85). Perceived utility showed the strongest association with perceived learning (r = .64, p < .001). The regression model explained 41% of the variance in perceived learning (R2 = .41, adjusted R2 = .38, p < .001). Perceived utility was the only significant predictor in the model ({beta} = .59, p = .001), accounting for 67.9% of the explained variance. Conclusions: The findings support the feasibility of integrating authentic neuroimaging tools into undergraduate neuroanatomy teaching. Students who perceived the activity as more useful also reported higher perceived learning outcomes, with perceived utility emerging as the strongest predictor of perceived learning. In contrast, perceived difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects did not make significant independent contributions. These results suggest that students perceptions of educational relevance may play an important role in technology-enhanced STEM learning experiences.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Lopez-Barroso, D., Torres-Prioris, M. J. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-09-23</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.09.21.753122</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Technology-enhanced learning in undergraduate neuroscience education: tractography-based virtual dissection in psychology]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-09-23</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.17.752282v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Qualitative interviews revealing key elements of intervention efficacy 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.17.752282v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Background Training in grant proposal writing is an essential component of professional development for academic scientists in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Despite the expansion of inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups as an approach to honing these skills, specific features that enhance or limit coaching group effectiveness have not been rigorously studied. Methods Qualitative inerviews were conducted with a subset of early-career investigators (n=204 and coaches (n=36) engaged in a national, U.S. based, group-randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups to test the effects of two variables on submission and funding of national-level proposals: (1) coaching duration (regular/extended dose) and (2) mode of engaging a scientific advisor (someone with content-aligned expertise) in the coaching process. This report focuses on interviews conducted upon completion of the regular coaching dose - 5 months of biweekly, group-based coaching sessions to support active proposal writing. Interviews were designed to identify which coaching group elements were perceived to be the most critical. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using deductive (participants) or open (coaches) coding to identify themes. Results Triangulation of results from participant and coach interviews showed strong concordance that coaches, peers, and scientific advisors all played key roles in supporting intervention efficacy. Sufficient alignment of scientific fields and/or methodologies among group members was important, although breadth of perspectives was also valued. Other critical group features were skilled and well-organized coaches, detailed feedback, peer-to-peer support (technical and psychosocial), and clear expectations for group functioning. Factors attenuating impact included variation in participants' engagement and "readiness to write," within-group mismatches of expertise or grant mechanisms, and limited research support at some participants' home institutions. Conclusion This study identified key elements of successful grant writing coaching groups and potential barriers to their effectiveness, while yielding insights about tailoring this approach for individuals at different stages of proposal development.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Mendes, J., Wood, C., Jones, R., Engler, J., Weber-Main, A. M., Jones, H., Steiner, M., Okuyemi, K., McGee, R. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-09-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.09.17.752282</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Qualitative interviews revealing key elements of intervention efficacy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-09-22</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.19.752913v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Advancing the Conceptualization and Measurement of Mentorship: The Mentoring Experiences in Research & Graduate Education (MERGE) Scale 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.19.752913v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Interest in mentoring remains widespread within the scientific community, as mentorship is considered crucial to developing the scientific workforce. A longstanding focus on the positive aspects of mentorship obscures the reality that some mentoring relationships may be ineffective, counterproductive, or harmful. Progress has been limited by the absence of a scale capable of measuring both the positive and negative mentoring experiences of doctoral students. We addressed this need by developing a new scale: the Mentoring Experiences in Research and Graduate Education (MERGE). Results of three sequential multi-method studies (total N = 1,308) provide evidence for: (a) the content and response process validity of the MERGE; (b) a six-factor structure capturing the range of mentoring experiences; (c) negative mentoring experiences as empirically distinct from the absence of positive mentoring; (d) convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity of the MERGE, with each factor demonstrating unique patterns of association with outcomes; and (e) the incremental validity of the MERGE in predicting outcomes beyond an existing measure of mentoring competence. We conclude by discussing implications for the use of the scale in doctoral education, including both theory advancement and applied practice.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Tuma, T., Robertson, M. E., Dolan, E. L. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-09-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.09.19.752913</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Advancing the Conceptualization and Measurement of Mentorship: The Mentoring Experiences in Research & Graduate Education (MERGE) Scale]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-09-22</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.750878v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Gelato streamlines reproducible and auditable assembly of Western blot figures 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.750878v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Western blotting has been widely used for decades, yet figure preparation remains unstandardized, error-prone and difficult to audit. Gelato is a free Fiji/ImageJ plugin that streamlines intuitive figure preparation, logs processing coordinates, provides a straightforward audit platform andenables reproduction from raw images. By making these capabilities simple and accessible, Gelato facilitates robust Western blot reporting, reducing a substantial burden on authors and reviewers while strengthening scientific rigor.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Pirozhkova, M. A., Babitz, E., Benhalevy, D. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.09.11.750878</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Gelato streamlines reproducible and auditable assembly of Western blot figures]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-09-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.04.746981v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Perceived Risk and Barriers to Open and Responsible Research Across Fifteen UK Universities 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.04.746981v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Open research practices are increasingly promoted to improve research transparency, reproducibility, accessibility, and societal impact. Despite growing support from research funders, institutions, and policy initiatives, adoption remains uneven across disciplines and research communities. This study examined perceived risks and barriers associated with 14 FORRT Guideline areas using qualitative responses from the UK Reproducibility Network Open and Transparent Research Practices Survey (N = 2,567), conducted across 15 UK higher education institutions. Free-text responses describing risks and barriers were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. A total of 3,951 relevant comments generated 3,433 coded references to barriers and risks. Three interconnected clusters emerged. Individual concerns included lack of motivation, fear of losing intellectual credit, and concerns about exposing mistakes and criticism. Systemic and institutional barriers included lack of time and resources, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient training and support, lack of incentives and recognition, unclear guidance, disciplinary and methodological challenges, and tensions between open practices and intellectual property requirements. Ethical and quality-related concerns included risks to participant confidentiality and privacy, challenges associated with sensitive data, concerns about inappropriate application of open research practices across different research traditions, perceived impacts on research quality and innovation, and potential effects on public trust in research. Lack of time and resources was the most frequently reported barrier. Across responses, barriers were commonly described as interdependent, with shortcomings in funding, infrastructure, institutional support, incentives, and training reinforcing one another. Respondents largely supported the principles underpinning open research but highlighted substantial practical, professional, and ethical challenges to implementation. These findings suggest that increasing open research adoption requires more than policy mandates or awareness-raising activities. Sustainable uptake will depend on aligned incentives, adequate infrastructure and support, recognition of methodological diversity, and approaches that enable openness to be implemented responsibly across different research contexts.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Aubert Bonn, N., Stewart, A. J., Hughes-Noehrer, L. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-09-07</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.09.04.746981</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Perceived Risk and Barriers to Open and Responsible Research Across Fifteen UK Universities]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-09-07</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.02.748827v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.02.748827v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Mourelatou, E., Katakis, I. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-09-03</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.09.02.748827</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-09-03</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.25.747173v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Undergraduate Biophysical Chemistry Series: Teaching through a Combination of a Purpose-built Textbook, Research-derived Biomolecular Samples and Computer Labs 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.25.747173v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Biophysics is a rapidly advancing field with an incredible breadth of topics. Thus, undergraduate biophysics instructors have to strategize and decide what topics they will cover in their courses. Educational institutions utilize a variety of biophysics textbooks. A common deficiency of each of the existing texts is that it serves well a given set of topics (theory, illustrations, practice problems) and leaves out other areas. A typical example includes good theory and problems for thermodynamics and kinetics while presenting molecular dynamics and various spectroscopic methods in a lacking or outdated way. The authors of this manuscript teach a capstone Biophysical Chemistry three-quarter series (Western Washington University/WWU, Bellingham, WA) which ideally should resonate with the general and major-specific courses the students take within their major at WWU. To achieve this goal and to enrich the traditional lecture-based delivery, the instructors have developed and brought together key pedagogical elements: purpose-built online textbook with a uniform structure of the academic content and practice problems, a study sample (oligopeptide) of biophysical significance with a growing set of experimental and computational data and student-centric in-class activities including computer labs. Our Biophysical series emphasizes concepts and methods of computational structural biology (Molecular Dynamics) and spectroscopic approaches (IR, UV and NMR). Here we describe the details of our integrative approach, summarize key outcomes and chart ways to advance the biophysical chemistry series further. Our textbook can be found through LibreText.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Smirnov, S. L., Vugmeyster, L., Stephenson, N., McCarty, J. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-26</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.25.747173</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Undergraduate Biophysical Chemistry Series: Teaching through a Combination of a Purpose-built Textbook, Research-derived Biomolecular Samples and Computer Labs]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.18.745652v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Perceptions of Equity, Challenges, and Identity-Based Differences Among U.S. Entomologists 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.18.745652v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
This study aimed to examine entomologists' perceptions of equity, inclusion, and exclusion within the discipline, identifying perceived challenges and proposed solutions for advancing equity in the field. The present study surveyed 47 self-identified entomologists living in the United States in 2023. Using a mixed-methods design, the study examined entomologists' perceptions of inclusion and exclusion within the discipline through qualitative and quantitative measures. Respondents highlighted needs for race-conscious funding opportunities, comprehensive inclusion efforts through geographically diverse outreach, and access to role models and mentors with similar identities to future entomologists. Findings are discussed in relation to a smaller 2013 study on recruitment and retention of entomologists of color, which offers preliminary historical context. The 2013 respondents emphasized intrinsic and age-based barriers to recruitment (e.g., lack of interest, limited K-12 outreach), the 2023 findings point toward structural inequities and retention needs (e.g., systemic exclusion). The 2013 comparison is interpreted as exploratory given differences in sample size and scope between the two studies. The 2023 study highlights evolving perceptions of persistent inequities in entomology and identifies opportunities to build a more inclusive and representative discipline.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Barros Bustos, S. H., Chicas-Mosier, A., Abramson, C. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.18.745652</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Perceptions of Equity, Challenges, and Identity-Based Differences Among U.S. Entomologists]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-24</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.20.746086v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
AFIDs-Validator: An Open-Access AI-Guided Platform for Learning Anatomical Landmark Placement 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.20.746086v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Accurate localization of anatomical landmarks is a foundational skill in anatomy and imaging that is often taught informally through expert mentorship, requiring access to data and desktop software. There is no openly accessible, interactive resource that teaches neuroanatomy with quantitative feedback. We present the AFIDs-Validator (validator.afids.io), an open-access, browser-based platform that pairs guided instruction with quantitative assessment. The platform combines (1) a learning mode in which a language-model neuroanatomy tutor operates inside an MRI viewer, giving anatomy-first instruction that responds to the learner's current image slice, orientation, and cursor position; and (2) a validation engine that accepts a learner's landmark file and returns per-landmark Euclidean error against expert-annotated references spanning 21 brain templates. To make the feedback interpretable, we analyzed 15,000 landmark annotations across 132 human subjects and found that landmark difficulty varies fourfold (median error ranged from 0.37 mm at the anterior commissure to 1.50 mm at the temporal horns) with heavy-tailed distributions at every landmark. These distributions are compiled into per-landmark reliability priors, so learners are scored against the empirical spread of trained raters rather than an arbitrary threshold, and difficult landmarks are not mistaken for poor performance. The AFIDs-Validator requires no installation, licensed software, or local data, and all code, reference data, and tutor design are openly released.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Taha, A., Bansal, D., Kai, J., Kuehn, T., Stanley, O. W., Park, P., Thurairajah, A., Snyder, M., Gilmore, G., Abbass, M., Mahmoudian, B., Liu, V. M., Thrower, J., Khan, A. R., Lau, J. C. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.20.746086</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[AFIDs-Validator: An Open-Access AI-Guided Platform for Learning Anatomical Landmark Placement]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-24</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.11.743320v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
How Mentoring Networks Shape Early-Career Grant Success: Evidence from NIH K-awardees 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.11.743320v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Effective mentorship is essential for strengthening the STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine) workforce, yet empirical evidence on how mentorship networks are structured and linked to career success remains limited. Here, we analyze mentorship networks among recipients of NIH career development (K) awards to characterize network size, mentor roles, and their associations with mentee-reported outcomes, including potential variation by sociodemographic characteristics. We found that K-awardees rely on mentors beyond their primary advisor, who play varying roles beyond being a Research mentor. Different mentor roles led to different types of mentoring outcomes; while Research mentors were associated with research-related outcomes such as Publications and Grants, career- and psychosocial-related mentoring outcomes were more likely to come from other types of mentors, such as Coaches, Connectors, and Sponsors. Larger networks, as well as having Peer and Identity mentors are additively beneficial for researchers who identify as underrepresented in science more than their counterparts. This study provides large-scale evidence on how mentorship network configurations relate to early-career grant success.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Setiono, F. J., Ho, E., Lambert, W. M. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.11.743320</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[How Mentoring Networks Shape Early-Career Grant Success: Evidence from NIH K-awardees]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.18.745559v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Semantic networks as a tool for analyzing conceptual organization in active teaching methodologies in Microbiology 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.18.745559v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Active teaching methodologies have been widely used to promote meaningful learning and student autonomy. In this context, quantitative approaches can help assess how students organize and integrate knowledge throughout the learning process. Among these approaches, semantic co-occurrence networks stand out, as they are capable of identifying relationships between words and revealing the conceptual structure of textual productions. The objective of this study was to investigate whether semantic network analyses can characterize differences in students conceptual organization in Microbiology during their participation in the active teaching methodology "Adopt a Bacterium." To this end, a case study was conducted in the Bacteriology course at the Institute of Biomedical Sciences of the University of Sao Paulo, analyzing the textual productions of two groups of students in the years 2024 and 2025 during their study of the bacterial genus Bacillus. The texts were evaluated using semantic co-occurrence networks, taking into account metrics of structure and conceptual integration. The results showed that both groups covered the microbiological content outlined in the course, though with different thematic focuses and approaches to integrating the concepts. Although both years featured modular structures (a statistical mode of 9 subgraphs), in 2025 the network exhibited greater discursive robustness (2 to 4 times more words with high Betweenness centrality) than in 2024. It is concluded that semantic network analysis allows for the characterization of differences in conceptual organization among students using active learning methodologies, serving as a complementary tool for assessing meaningful learning in Microbiology.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Nastaro, C. D., Correa, B. R., Tarantini, G., Marana, S. R., Cafe Ferreira, R. d. C. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.18.745559</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Semantic networks as a tool for analyzing conceptual organization in active teaching methodologies in Microbiology]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.14.744880v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
When are Biomedical Postdocs Ready for the Faculty Job Market? A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Metrics and Resilience Among Faculty Job Seekers 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.14.744880v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
PurposeDiscussions surrounding the biomedical faculty job market often focus on applicant competitiveness and external metrics such as number of publications and funding records. Consequently, there is typically less discussion about applicant readiness, the point at which applicants perceive themselves as prepared to enter the market. Since 2018 our group, the Faculty Job Market Collaboration (FJMC), has conducted annual end-of-cycle surveys of biomedical faculty job applicants, producing the largest longitudinal dataset on this process to date.

MethodsWe employed a mixed-methods design examining faculty applicants in biological science fields in North America. Regression analyses were conducted on a longitudinal dataset of 729 respondents across multiple hiring cycles. To determine how applicants evaluated their own preparation, qualitative interviews were conducted with a separate cohort of biomedical postdoctoral applicants during the 2024-2026 job cycles.

ResultsOur findings demonstrate that rather than depending on a single quantitative threshold, readiness is a multifaceted construct shaped by actionable and interpersonal drivers. Key factors influencing an applicants perceived readiness include taking agency to submit applications, receiving explicit support from a mentor, incorporating strategic use of artificial intelligence tools into application preparation, and their career stage.

ConclusionBy distinguishing individual readiness from systemic assumptions of market competitiveness, this study highlights a blind spot in academic workforce development. Our results suggest that applicants can achieve readiness and successful outcomes through different combinations of support, strategy, and timing rather than a uniform metric profile. By integrating quantitative and qualitative data, our study provides an evidence-based framework for understanding applicant readiness and offers practical guidance to help trainees navigate the increasingly competitive academic job market.

Teaser TextOur mixed-model analysis of the biomedical faculty job market is designed to help prospective faculty candidates assess their readiness to enter the job market. By integrating multiple indicators of academic productivity, funding success, and professional experience, our study provides evidence-based benchmarks that can guide applicants in evaluating their competitiveness and identifying areas for further development before pursuing faculty positions.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Haage, A., Cheng, Y., Smith, C. T., Kozik, A. J., Hagan, A. K., Jadavji, N. M. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-21</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.14.744880</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[When are Biomedical Postdocs Ready for the Faculty Job Market? A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Metrics and Resilience Among Faculty Job Seekers]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-21</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.07.743443v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Aesthetic Appreciation and Environmental Values: A Cross-Cultural Study of Teachers in 34 Countries 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.07.743443v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
BackgroundThe relationship between aesthetic appreciation and environmental values remains a critical yet under-researched area in environmental psychology. Although the Two-Major Environmental Values (2-MEV) model--encompassing preservation and utilization dimensions--serves as a standard framework for assessing environmental attitudes, the integration of aesthetic perception within this structure has largely remained unexplored. This study investigates the conceptual linkages across a diverse international sample to determine whether aesthetic appreciation functions independently of a traditional environmental value framework.

Methods and FindingsWe conducted a large-scale, cross-sectional survey involving 11,800 pre- and in-service teachers across 34 countries. Participants environmental values were evaluated using the 2-MEV scale, while their aesthetic appreciation of nature and the built environment was assessed using Osgoods semantic differential technique. Employing principal component analysis, hierarchical exploratory factor analysis (EFA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), and within-class analysis (WCA), we accounted for cross-national variations and evaluated response consistency.

The results demonstrate that aesthetic appreciation comprises two distinct dimensions-- focusing separately on nature and the built environment--that operate independently of traditional preservation and utilization values, showing only weak correlations. Furthermore, while the overarching psychological structure remains consistent globally, our findings reveal significant cross-national variations in respondent scores, particularly concerning utilization-related values.

ConclusionsThese findings establish that aesthetic appreciation constitutes a distinct psychological construct separate from conventional environmental value frameworks. The observed cross-cultural variability underscores the necessity of accounting for national and cultural contexts when designing environmental education programs. By leveraging a robust, comprehensive global dataset, this study provides a vital empirical foundation for integrating aesthetic and value-based dimensions into future environmental research and educational policy.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Munoz, F., Castera, J., Bogner, F., Clement, P. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.07.743443</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Aesthetic Appreciation and Environmental Values: A Cross-Cultural Study of Teachers in 34 Countries]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-12</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.04.741794v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Variation in CURE instruction and limitations of CURE studies undermine what can be concluded about CURE effects on student outcomes 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.04.741794v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Research suggests that students realize a range of cognitive, affective, and motivation-related outcomes by participating in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). However, the overall effects of CUREs on student outcomes are unclear. We sought to address this knowledge gap by embarking on a meta-analysis of CURE studies using the Population, Intervention, Comparison/Control group, and Outcomes framework. We conducted a literature search to produce an analytic sample of 353 studies of the effects of CUREs instruction on undergraduates. We characterized the CUREs being studied in this sample, including their dose, duration, and design. We also examined each study to determine if outcomes were measured before and after the CURE and with a comparison or control group so that effects could be attributed to CURE. We found substantial limitations in studies of CUREs, which precluded meta-analysis. CUREs varied widely and were unevenly described, making it difficult to determine what could or should constitute CURE instruction as an intervention. Many outcomes were studied, often without a comparison or control group and with inconsistent measurement and reporting. Our results indicate that advancements are needed in the design and reporting of research on CUREs to gauge their effects on student outcomes.

Highlight SummaryMany studies of CURE instruction aim to show effects on student outcomes. Yet, systematic review of these studies reveals limitations in study design, methods, and reporting that preclude meta-analysis and limit any cross-study conclusions.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Lantz, W. N., Dolan, E. L., Barvalia, S., Apraku, S., Kandru, H., Senthamizh Selvan, M., Majewska, A. A. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-05</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.04.741794</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Variation in CURE instruction and limitations of CURE studies undermine what can be concluded about CURE effects on student outcomes]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-05</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.01.742186v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of Cat Owners Towards Flea Infestation and Flea-Borne Diseases (FBDs) in Selected Regions of Bangladesh 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.01.742186v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Background: Flea infestation is an important companion-animal health problem and a prime source of zoonotic exposure. However, information on cat owners awareness and preventive behavior regarding fleas and flea-borne diseases (FBDs) in Bangladesh is limited. This study assessed the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of cat owners regarding flea infestation and flea-borne diseases in selected areas of central Bangladesh. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from November 2025 to July 2026 among 238 cat owners attending veterinary clinics in Savar, Dhamrai and Manikganj Upazila. Data were collected using a pretested structured questionnaire covering respondent characteristics, flea biology and transmission, perceived risks, and flea-prevention and control practices. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings, and respondents were classified according to their overall KAP scores. Results: Of the respondents, 47.1% owned cats with outdoor access and 77.7% reported that their pets had previously experienced flea infestation. Although 65.5% used flea-control treatments, awareness of zoonotic and disease-transmission risks was limited. Only 14.7% recognized that fleas can parasitize humans, while 17.6% knew that fleas can transmit infectious agents. Overall, 83.2% of respondents had poor knowledge, whereas 69.7% demonstrated moderate attitudes and 63.9% showed moderate practices. Good knowledge and good practice were uncommon, accounting for only 3.8% and 4.6% of respondents, respectively. Veterinary recommendation was the most frequently reported motivation for using flea-control products. Conclusions: Cat owners attending in the surveyed areas frequently reported flea exposure and treatment use, but substantial gaps remained in their understanding of flea biology, zoonotic potential and comprehensive control. Targeted veterinary education emphasizing routine prevention, treatment of all susceptible household animals and environmental management is needed. These findings provide regional baseline evidence and should not be interpreted as nationally representative. Keywords: Bangladesh; cat owners; ectoparasites; flea-borne diseases; flea control; knowledge, attitudes and practices; One Health.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Rabbi, M. R. R., Miti, A. A., Safowan, M., Mukti, Z. F., Hossain, M. S., Riad, M., Azad, M. A. K., Tonmoy, M. J. R., Pramanik, N., Al-Noman, K. M. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-08-04</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.08.01.742186</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of Cat Owners Towards Flea Infestation and Flea-Borne Diseases (FBDs) in Selected Regions of Bangladesh]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-08-04</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.28.741134v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Evolutionary Dynamics of AI, Politicization, Contestation, and Trust in Science Funding 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.28.741134v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Economic stability and progress in modern technological societies depend on vigorous and independent public funding of science and engineering research. When peer review or funding decisions are perceived as politically directed, scientists, funding agencies, and the public react in coupled and conflicting ways. We describe an evolutionary game-theoretic model to analyze how perceived political interference in science funding affects the interrelated behaviors of scientists, funding agencies, and the public. The model simulates scientists choosing to refuse peer reviews and retaliate, agencies responding by adopting AI-assisted review and altering reviewer pay, and the public accepting or rejecting these AI systems. Through numerical simulations, five principal findings are identified: (1) Operational capacity and institutional legitimacy are governed by separate conditions and can fail independently. (2) Legitimacy of the process is bistable, meaning final states are determined by the publics acceptance of AI. (3) Since the career cost for researchers refusing to review is generally low, resistance/retaliation cascades can readily ignite, leading identical institutions to entirely opposite fates. (4) Increasing reviewer pay only stabilizes participation within a strict budget-solvency frontier, and emergency pay can paradoxically erode the legitimacy it aims to protect. (5) Finally, finite-population simulations reveal that baseline scenarios partition into either legitimacy recovery without capacity or joint failure, confirming that the fundamental separation of capacity and legitimacy outcomes is a dominant structural feature driven primarily by initial scientific resistance and politicization levels. This theoretical work quantifies issues for future work in science policy.

SignificanceModern industrial nations rely on public funding of science, certified through expert peer reviews whose authority rest as much on perceived institutional independence as on processing capacity. We model what happens when review or funding decisions are seen as politically directed, and artificial intelligence (AI) substitutes for resistant human reviewers. Treating scientists, the public, and an adaptive funding agency as interacting populations, the model shows that operational capacity and institutional legitimacy obey separate dynamics and can fail independently: automation can sustain a review pipeline while its authority collapses, or legitimacy can recover while backlogs persist. Under finite populations, identical institutions can reach markedly different fates by chance alone, and how often chance favors survival depends on the noise process assumed, not on a fixed institutional probability. This framework identifies which conditions govern whether resistance ignites or whether legitimacy, once threatened, is repaired, as explicit future priorities for empirical calibration and policy design.

Lay AbstractModern societies depend on public funding for scientific research, a system that only functions if the public believes the process is fair. Using evolutionary game theory, this mathematical work explores what happens when scientific peer review is viewed as politically compromised, and funding agencies turn to artificial intelligence (AI) to replace human experts who protest the system.

The mathematical model reveals several critical warnings for policymakers:

O_LIAutomation Does Not Equal Trust: Keeping grant money flowing and maintaining public trust are two separate problems. An agency can successfully use AI to process grants while the public completely loses faith in its decisions, creating a "zombie" institution.
C_LIO_LIThe Threat of "Proposal Flooding": When scientists protest, in principle they refuse to undertake peer review, and can overwhelm the funding agency by submitting many proposals. This retaliatory flooding and refusal to review, within a limited budget, can outpace any AI systems ability to keep up, causing the entire pipeline to collapse.
C_LIO_LIEmergency Pay Can Backfire: Trying to secure scientists cooperation by raising reviewer pay during a highly politicized crisis can make things worse, as the public may view this emergency pay as a "bribe," which rapidly destroys whatever institutional trust remains.
C_LIO_LIEarly Action is Critical: Human behavior is unpredictable, small early differences in how people react can push identical institutions toward completely different fates. This model tracks individual scientists and members of the public to capture their behavior, which appears to be model-dependent, thus producing sensitivity to early demographic fluctuations and chance factors. Under the standard assumption, every simulated agency ended up with an unmanageable backlog; the only thing chance decided was whether public trust recovered. Under a coarser and more commonly used shortcut, roughly half the agencies appeared to recover fully, and a "zombie" agency that kept processing grants while trust collapsed appeared in about one in six. Policymakers therefore must urgently focus on building trust through transparent, explainable AI rollouts before public rejection becomes permanent.
C_LI
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Ray, A. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-31</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.28.741134</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evolutionary Dynamics of AI, Politicization, Contestation, and Trust in Science Funding]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-31</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.29.741583v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Teaching adipose tissue as an organ system: addressing weight bias and enhancing anatomical understanding through AdipoAtlas 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.29.741583v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Adipose tissue (body fat) is increasingly recognized as a dynamic organ system essential to human health, with distinct depots that serve specialized biological functions. However, this understanding is not reflected in traditional human anatomy curricula, where adipose tissue is typically introduced only as connective tissue and treated in dissection as an obstacle to be removed rather than a structure worthy of study. Anatomy dissection courses have been identified as a source of negative weight bias in medical students, with students reporting disgust toward adipose tissue and frustration with its removal to visualize course-required anatomical structures. Here, we hypothesize that reframing adipose tissue as a functional organ system within anatomy curricula may improve students understanding of human anatomy and mitigate these negative perceptions. To test this, we created a human adipose atlas (AdipoAtlas) by identifying and photographing macroscopic adipose depots in an anatomical donor and organizing these images into an anatomical reference with evidence-based functional descriptions. The atlas was integrated into a human anatomy dissection course, followed by a survey assessing students perceptions of adipose tissue and attitudes related to weight bias, with a concurrent non-dissection anatomy course serving as a control. Students in the adipose-inclusive course reported more positive perceptions and improved understanding of adipose tissue as a multifunctional organ system, while responses related to weight-based discrimination and broader attitudes toward body size were similar between groups. These results support our hypothesis that integrating adipose tissue into anatomy education improves anatomical understanding and may reduce negative weight-related perceptions.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Hermsmeyer, I. D. K., Sonneville, K. R., Patterson, A. M. S., Sherwood, R. M., Orlikoff, E. R., MacDougald, O. A., Orczykowski, M. E. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.29.741583</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Teaching adipose tissue as an organ system: addressing weight bias and enhancing anatomical understanding through AdipoAtlas]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.29.741400v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Grant writing coaching groups: A randomized trial to discern the influences of coaching duration and engagement of scientific mentors on participants proposal submission and success rates 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.29.741400v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
IntroductionThe acquisition of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants is an increasingly competitive undertaking. Many early-career biomedical investigators lack sufficient grant writing skills. This pragmatic, 2x2 factorial, group-randomized trial tested the effects of coaching duration and mode of engagement of participants scientific mentors in a grant writing coaching group intervention on grant application outcomes.

MethodsA national US sample of 367 faculty and postdoctoral fellows, organized into 76 coaching groups across 6 cohorts (2020-2022), was randomized to 1 of 4 arms that differed by coaching duration (5 months vs 5 months plus 18 months of access to 1:1 coaching) and mode of scientific mentor engagement (structured vs unstructured). Primary outcomes were national-level grant application submissions and awards, and success rate among submitters, assessed via surveys and verified through award databases 30 months after study initiation.

ResultsAmong 271 faculty and 96 postdoctoral fellows, 69% submitted at least 1 national application and 32% were awarded at least 1 grant. Submission rates did not differ by experimental arm. Among faculty, the structured engagement of a mentor in coaching was associated with significantly higher odds of any award (adjusted OR = 1.87) and any NIH mentored career development (K) award (adjusted OR = 3.32), and with higher success rates for these proposal types. Extended coaching duration showed a positive but not statistically significant association with faculty awards after adjustment. Neither factor significantly affected outcomes for postdoctoral fellows. Faculty success rates exceeded national NIH-reported success rates for research project grants equivalent to the R01 mechanism (43% vs 17.6%) and K awards (51% vs 36.5%).

ConclusionParticipation in a national, cross-institutional, group coaching model yielded high grant submission outcomes, and award rates were higher relative to NIH benchmarks. Structured integration of scientific mentors with the coaching intervention had a greater effect than extended coaching duration on faculty outcomes.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Okuyemi, K., Weber Main, A. M., Steiner, M., Engler, J., Jones, H., Zhou, W., Monahan, P., Langi, A., McGee, R. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.29.741400</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Grant writing coaching groups: A randomized trial to discern the influences of coaching duration and engagement of scientific mentors on participants proposal submission and success rates]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.03.736421v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Landscape-mediated spread dynamics and anticipatory surveillance of African swine fever in wild boar: insights from the 2025-2026 Catalonia utbreak in Spain 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.03.736421v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
African swine fever (ASF) in wild boar poses major surveillance and control challenges, particularly in periurban and human-modified landscapes where ecological complexity, delayed detection, and heterogeneous host movements complicate out-break interpretation. In late 2025, ASF was detected in wild boar in Catalonia, Spain, creating a high-priority epidemiological scenario at the wildlife-urban interface. In this study, we analysed the 2025-2026 Catalonia outbreak using scenario-based spatial modelling with the WIMBOARD (Wild Integrated Movement Boar Outbreak and Risk Dynamics) framework. Simulations under baseline control conditions were used to interpret spread dynamics and support anticipatory surveillance. The results indicate that outbreak expansion was structured and directional rather than isotropic. Temporal outputs suggested delayed detectability between infection prevalence and mortality signals, whereas cumulative spatial risk maps, time-to-infection surfaces, and monthly infection-risk dynamics identified directional asymmetries and differentiated phases of spread. An early southward dispersal signal was consistent with initial field observations, while the north-northwest sector emerged as the most consequential expansion scenario because of its stronger functional connectivity and higher potential for regional amplification and persistence, while a later northeast-ward phase remained comparatively less influential within the 500-day simulation horizon. Monthly risk surfaces further showed that ASF spread behaved as a moving eco-epidemiological wavefront, allowing identification of shifting surveillance windows before mortality became apparent. These findings support the interpretation of the Catalonia outbreak as a landscape-mediated epidemiological process shaped by functional connectivity, wildlife behavioural adaptation, peri-urban ecological structure, and delayed detection. This study shows how spatially explicit eco-epidemiological modelling can support outbreak interpretation, surveillance prioritisation, and proactive wildlife disease management under complex field conditions.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Bosch, J., Ivorra, B., Aguilar-Vega, C., Ito, S., Sanchez Vizcaino, J. M., Ramos, A. M. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.03.736421</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Landscape-mediated spread dynamics and anticipatory surveillance of African swine fever in wild boar: insights from the 2025-2026 Catalonia utbreak in Spain]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-27</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.738993v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Caffeinated Coli: Inspiring the Next Generation of Scientists through Synthetic Biology 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.738993v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
The Caffeinated Coli Educational Module brings inquiry-driven learning to high schools, introducing students to scientific research, synthetic biology, and genetic engineering. The module focuses on the exploration of a genetically engineered strain of E. coli modified to grow exclusively on caffeine and, as such, can be used as a measurement device to determine the amount of caffeine in a liquid or beverage. Students conduct two bioassay experiments using these bacteria. During this process, they learn to create cultures and then measure bacterial growth followed by calculating the caffeine concentrations of unknown samples using their own data. This flexible module contains five weeks of original lectures and student learning materials that follow Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), allowing the content to be adapted for basic, intermediate, or advanced biology courses. Upon completion of the module, students and teachers expressed that the most memorable aspects of the module include collaboration with peers, hands-on learning of content, and the opportunity to interact with the professor/mentors through office hours. Already implemented in 8 Texas high schools over the past two academic years, our module inspires STEM learning while bringing 21st century biology research to new audiences.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Tian, N. Y., Reddy, R., Zhang, C. Y., Williams, B., Mishler, D. M. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-21</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.17.738993</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Caffeinated Coli: Inspiring the Next Generation of Scientists through Synthetic Biology]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-21</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.739248v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Career incentives make Registered Reports unattractive under realistic academic conditions 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.739248v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Registered Reports are a publication format designed to reduce publication bias by guaranteeing publication before results are known. This guarantee is considered attractive in the prevailing  publish or perish culture. But would researchers always prefer such a low-risk option? When strong results allow publication in prestigious journals, the results-dependent nature of standard publications can actually be an advantage for authors. Given this trade-off, the choice between publication formats represents decision making under risk, and researchers may not always be risk-averse. To better understand under which circumstances Registered Reports are likely to be popular, we draw on risk-sensitivity theory from behavioural ecology and develop an agent-based model that explores how four factors shape publication strategies: whether additional publications yield diminishing or increasing career returns, the pace at which studies are completed, publication targets, and competition. We find that many realistic configurations lead researchers to avoid Registered Reports, even when Registered Reports are nearly as valuable as the best possible standard publication. Intense competition and low empirical pace can make the format unviable, while high empirical pace attenuates most other effects. Given prevailing career incentives in many fields, these results suggest that the market share of Registered Reports may remain trivially low without additional incentives or interventions.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Lakens, D. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.17.739248</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Career incentives make Registered Reports unattractive under realistic academic conditions]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.15.738584v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Uptake and Implementation of Multiverse-style Analyses Across 613 Studies 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.15.738584v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Empirical conclusions can depend on the many individual choices researchers make when analyzing data. Multiverse-style analyses address this by computing results across a set of specifications rather than a single one, but it is unclear how widely they are being used and how they are being implemented. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection (May 2026) for articles citing six foundational papers on different variants of multiverse-style methods and classified each of the citing articles as implementing such methods or only discussing them. For implementations, we recorded the framework used, the number of specifications, which of four decision nodes (measurement, data processing, modeling, and estimation) were varied, and other aspects such as how results were visualized and interpreted. Of the 1545 classifiable articles, 613 (39.7%) implemented a multiverse-style analysis (primarily multiverse n = 336, specification curve n = 175, vibration of effects n = 20, multimodel n = 59, and multi-analyst/many-analyst n = 23). Uptake spanned many disciplines, most often psychology (39.8%), the social sciences (20.7%), and medicine (19.2%). The number of specifications ranged from fewer than ten to more than ten thousand (median = 144, IQR 24-1248). Modeling (75%) and data-processing (62%) choices were included most often. Interpretation was predominantly descriptive, whereas formal inference (10.5%), preregistration (8.6%), and explicit attention to the defensibility of specifications (3.9%) were uncommon. Multiverse-style analyses are increasingly becoming established across the quantitative sciences, but some implementation practices can be strengthened so that these analyses become more fully transparent and more genuinely informative about the robustness of research findings.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Nepomuceno, A., Ghosal, A., Sandoval Lentisco, A., Ioannidis, J. P. A. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.15.738584</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Uptake and Implementation of Multiverse-style Analyses Across 613 Studies]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.739022v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Who Funds Open Data Sharing? Analysis of data availability statements in biomedical publications 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.17.739022v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Open data sharing is increasingly mandated by research funders, journals, and institutions, yet large-scale compliance measurement remains challenging. We analyzed 951,949 open access biomedical research articles published between January 2024 and June 2025 using a dual-source pipeline: PDF-based text extraction (MinerU) where PDFs were available and PMC XML otherwise, followed by algorithmic detection of data sharing statements (oddpub v7.2.3), enriched with funder, journal, and institutional metadata from OpenAlex. The corpus included 294,172 PDF-covered articles (30.9%) and 657,777 XML-only articles (69.1%). We found an over-all open data rate of 8.7%, rising to 11.7% among funder-linked articles (those with at least one funder identified in the metadata). Rates varied more than tenfold across the research ecosystem: leading major funders reached observed open data rates of 20-24%, while top journals reached observed rates of 70-86%, with corrected estimates as high as 92.9% (Nature Genetics) after adjusting for XML-only coverage limitations. PDF-based detection identified approximately 52% more data sharing statements than XML-based methods on the same articles. These observed rates differ markedly across funders and journals, and current overall sharing remains far below universal compliance. These patterns provide an empirical baseline against which future policy changes can be measured. An interactive dashboard at https://www.opensciencemetrics.org enables stakeholders to explore and benchmark these results.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Lawrimore, J., Li, C., Moraczewski, D., Poline, J.-B., Thomas, A. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.17.739022</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Who Funds Open Data Sharing? Analysis of data availability statements in biomedical publications]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.15.738744v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Negligible participation in the scientific literature of AI unicorn startups 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.15.738744v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Artificial intelligence (AI) development is concentrated within private firms, yet their participation in scientific publishing remains poorly understood. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of all 317 AI unicorn startups (1998-2025). Only 1,389 eligible peer-reviewed publications and 688 preprints involving some leading startup contributions were identified. More than half of startups (52.4%) produced no qualifying scientific output, and only 24 firms (7.6%) produced any highly cited papers ([&ge;]200 citations). Scientific influence was highly concentrated: the top 10% of firms accounted for 96.8% of citations, while three startups accounted for 92 of 134 firm-attributed highly cited papers. Firm valuation was not associated with publication productivity or highly cited output, whereas funding raised showed weak associations. Overall, participation in formal scientific communication among AI unicorn startups is negligible, comprising only 0.1% of the overall AI literature in 2025. Most leading developers of AI technology do not engage with the scientific literature, raising concerns for the transparency, reproducibility, and accountability of this rapidly moving innovation frontier.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Loisel, Q. E. A., Sandoval Lentisco, A., Ioannidis, J. E. A. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-16</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.15.738744</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Negligible participation in the scientific literature of AI unicorn startups]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-16</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.14.736897v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
The Unlabeled Organ: Adipose tissue and normativity in anatomy and physiology texts 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.14.736897v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Adipose tissue is a dynamic and essential organ system with roles in metabolism, endocrine signaling, immune function, thermoregulation, and structural support. Despite this, it has historically been framed as inert or pathological, raising questions about how it is represented in biomedical education. We evaluated the visual and textual representation of adipose tissue across widely used anatomy, physiology, and combined anatomy-physiology textbooks. Images were coded for presence, labeling, and degree of representation, and text mentions of "adipose" and "fat" were quantified across functional contexts. In anatomy textbooks, adipose tissue was frequently present (6.6-21.7% of images) but rarely labeled (<5% of all images; <25% of adipose-containing images). Representation was often minimal or incidental, and text descriptions were predominantly non-functional, with a preference for the term "fat." In physiology textbooks, adipose tissue was more often described in functional terms and more frequently referred to as "adipose," particularly in metabolic contexts, but appeared in relatively few images (<5%) and was typically minimally depicted. Combined anatomy-physiology texts showed intermediate patterns but retained low labeling rates and limited integration of structure and function. Across all textbook types, terminology varied by context, with "fat" more common in non-functional and obesity-related descriptions and "adipose" associated with metabolic functions, suggesting context-dependent bias in terminology. Overall, adipose tissue is present but inconsistently framed across visual and textual domains. This fragmentation may limit recognition of adipose tissue as an integrated organ system and may reinforce reductive or stigmatizing interpretations. Aligning educational representations with current scientific understanding is therefore essential to support a more accurate and integrated view of adipose tissue as a dynamic organ system.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Hermsmeyer, I. D. K., MacDougald, O. A., Orczykowski, M. E. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.14.736897</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Unlabeled Organ: Adipose tissue and normativity in anatomy and physiology texts]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.13.737239v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
SpaceBio Knowledge Hub: A LiteratOmics Platform for Microgravity and Space Biology Research 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.13.737239v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Space biology literature is growing exponentially. Existing infrastructure has not kept pace with organizing, synthesizing, and disseminating this knowledge. We present SpaceBio SpaceBio Knowledge Hub (www.spacebio.space), an integrated digital ecosystem that combines artificial intelligence, real-time data integration, and open-access infrastructure to advance research, education, and collaboration in microgravity, space biology and space exploration. The platform applies AI-driven approaches including natural language processing, machine learning, and automated content generation to construct a semantic atlas of the field. The atlas reveals the hierarchical thematic organization underlying microgravity-induced biological responses, space mission infrastructure, planetary science, and astrobiology. As part of this effort, SpaceBio is moving toward the construction of a LiteratOmics framework for microgravity, and space biology a systematic, AI-enabled approach to mining, integrating, and structuring the primary literature generated by omics-driven spaceflight research, treating the scientific literature itself as a navigable data layer alongside genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic datasets. Built on a scalable, cloud-based architecture with a user-centered interface, SpaceBio supports literature exploration, data integration, and knowledge discovery for researchers, educators, students, industry partners, and citizen scientists. The platform also functions as a community-building ecosystem. It integrates hands-on research initiatives, AI-generated educational content, pilot data science projects, and social responsibility programs that broaden participation without compromising scientific rigor. AI-enabled digital environments can transform fragmented literature into a navigable knowledge landscape. SpaceBio accelerates research productivity, strengthens STEM education, and supports the global space life sciences community as human space exploration enters in the most ambitious era.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Silva, J. C. F., Vieira, A., Chue Donahey, M. S., Silva, S. M. d. C., Veloso, T., Lopes, A., Sexson, N., Barker, R., Porterfield, D. M., Silva, C. A., Dias, R. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-14</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.13.737239</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[SpaceBio Knowledge Hub: A LiteratOmics Platform for Microgravity and Space Biology Research]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-14</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.06.736808v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Instructor Perspectives on Challenging Topics in Evolution Education and Their Implications for Game-Based Learning 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.06.736808v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Evolution is a foundational framework for understanding biology, yet it remains challenging to teach and learn. Game-based learning may offer one way to support evolution instruction by helping students visualize abstract, dynamic, and difficult-to-observe processes. In this study, we interviewed undergraduate biology instructors to examine how they evaluated video games as potential tools for evolution education, including which topics they perceived as most challenging for students. We found that instructors were broadly open to using video games for evolution instruction, particularly when games could support population-level reasoning, evolutionary mechanisms, speciation and phylogeny, quantitative reasoning, and long time scales. Instructors also emphasized that games must be scientifically accurate, accessible, and aligned with course learning goals. This study contributes an instructor-centered perspective to evolution education and game-based learning research by identifying how instructors connect persistent student learning challenges with potential design priorities for educational video games.

Graphical Abstract

O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=113 SRC="FIGDIR/small/736808v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1">
View larger version (24K):
org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@d7fcd4org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@17caeforg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@c3c0aorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@139e8dd_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP  M_FIG C_FIG
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Otto, J. L., Goulet, L., Kopack Ware, B., Lowry, H., Miller, A.-E., Botello, J. D., Pruett, J. E., Beatty, A. E. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-10</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.06.736808</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Instructor Perspectives on Challenging Topics in Evolution Education and Their Implications for Game-Based Learning]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.06.736686v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
Peer-Led Leadership, Mentoring and Promotion: Conversations Among Female Academics from South Africa, Ghana and the United Kingdom 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.06.736686v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Here, we report a one-day, cross-cultural, peer-led workshop at the University of Stellenbosch, facilitated by academics from South Africa, Ghana and the United Kingdom. The focus was on leadership, mentoring and promotion. Using short, structured activities alongside small-group discussion, the participants were encouraged to reflect on leadership, mentoring and the perceived gap between being "ready" and being "recognised" for promotion. Descriptive survey findings and free-text reflections highlight the demand for structured peer support, reciprocal mentoring opportunities, and clearer, more transparent promotion processes. Following the event, we performed a structured review of the impact. This highlighted that the workshop participants reported that the event allowed for greater self-awareness into their own leadership approaches, a stronger commitment to purposeful mentoring, and greater confidence and renewed motivation to take concrete steps towards promotion.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Elson, J. L., Venter, M., Sinxadi, P., Enos, J. Y., Atobrah, D., Mensah, G. I., Pretorius, E., Guthrie, S., Pienaar, I. S. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-10</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.06.736686</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Peer-Led Leadership, Mentoring and Promotion: Conversations Among Female Academics from South Africa, Ghana and the United Kingdom]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.05.736636v1?rss=1">
<title>
<![CDATA[
A Comparative Study of MBTI and Learning Style- Based Grouping for Enhancing Group Effectiveness and Balance in a Pedagogical Setting 
]]>
</title>
<link>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.05.736636v1?rss=1
</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Effective group work is central to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in higher education, yet the optimal strategy for forming student groups remains unclear. This study compared MBTI-based grouping, informed by personality types and Keirsey temperaments, with Learning Style-Based (LSB) grouping, grounded in Kolbs Experiential Learning Theory, to assess their impact on group functioning and role performance. Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in Cell Biology (Fall 2022 and Fall 2023) and Introduction to Biology Laboratory (Fall 2023) courses. Students completed MBTI and Kolb Learning Style assessments, and groups and roles (Leader, Communicator, Organizer) were assigned accordingly. Results indicated that LSB-based groups consistently outperformed MBTI-based groups across multiple performance metrics, including productivity, listening, sense of safety, belonging, and overall satisfaction. All metrics showed statistically significant decreases in MBTI-based groups except contribution, which did not differ significantly between grouping strategies. Role performance ratings were significantly higher for Leaders and Communicators in LSB groups, while no significant differences were observed for the Organizer role. Correlation analyses revealed that satisfaction was strongly associated with perceived productivity in MBTI-based groups, whereas in LSB-based groups, satisfaction was more strongly correlated with psychological safety. These findings suggest that learning style alignment may better support effective collaboration and group climate in PBL settings than personality-based grouping.
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ Nasik, B., Nifoussi, S. ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2026-07-09</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>doi:10.64898/2026.07.05.736636</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A Comparative Study of MBTI and Learning Style- Based Grouping for Enhancing Group Effectiveness and Balance in a Pedagogical Setting]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</dc:publisher>
<prism:publicationDate>2026-07-09</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section></prism:section>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>
