National Nutrition Week

National Nutrition Week

(14-20 October #NNW2018)

Nutrition Australia - Try for 5. pictures of broccoli, tomato, yellow capsicum, carrot and eggplant

Over two decades ago Nutrition Australia initiated healthy eating week with the aim of promoting greater vegetable intake in Australian homes and diets. National Nutrition Week’s theme for 2018 is Tryfor5. That is, try to eat 5 serves of vegetables a day! Eating vegetables has many health benefits and coming into exam period, you want your mind and body to be at their peak so why not try out a new flavour sensation?

On their website, they have lots of recipes for you to try – Australian favourites, Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner recipes to inspire your mind and tantalise your tastebuds. http://www.tryfor5.org.au/australia-s-favourite-recipes 😋

The Library has recipe books to inspire you to be the next Masterchef or the master of your own menu. There are cook books for those who are intolerant of certain ingredients and those who want to try something new or a new take on an old favourite. Take a look in Quick Find today.

 

 

October is for Mental Health

There is a lot going on in October!

  • Queensland Mental Health Week 6-14 October  
  • World Mental Health Day 10th of October
  • Mental Health Month

Did you know?

1 in 5 Australians are affected by mental illness, yet many don’t seek help because of stigma.

We can all do something to help shed a more positive light on mental health.

Here are some links to the various events that have loads of helpful practical information for you or someone you know.

Queensland Mental Health Week

World Mental Health Day

Mental Health Month

 

 

Perils & pitfalls for early career researchers

Predatory publishing continues to be a trap for young players with more and more early  career researchers falling victim.  When this happens, not only do they effectively lose ownership and copyright of their hard work (with that the ability to publish it elsewhere), they often lose confidence, they can lose standing in their field, and they most certainly lose the potential for their research to be cited and shared with other researchers and future collaborators.

Looking for a publisher for your research should be a more of an experience like buying a new laptop or a car.  Hopefully you don’t buy the first shiny thing you see.  Hopefully you rely on people whose opinion you respect.  Hopefully you check out the product reviews and comparison websites to see what your options are.   Hopefully you don’t send a cash deposit after receiving a spam email from a car dealer.

Your diligence when looking for a potential publisher should likewise be seen as an investment in your future.  Look to the journals the experts in your field are publishing in.  Look to the journals your peers are publishing in.  As an early career researcher, reputable journals will not send you email invitations to publish with them so don’t be tempted by vanity publishers.  Don’t let your desperation for publication override your common sense.

Follow the Think Check Submit protocols.  If you are still not certain, ask your faculty or liaison librarian to help you.

Predatory conferences, like predatory journals can also be difficult to spot, and without due diligence you can end up at a dodgy hotel, in a scary part of town, signing your authorship rights away and delivering a paper to six people, who will likely be the only people who ever hear about your research.  You can check the Pivot database on the QUT Library’s databases page for legitimate calls for submissions for conference papers.

Think Check Submit

 

Love Data Week Guest blogger: Barriers to open data sharing

The 2014 Ebola outbreak mobilized groups of researchers across the world to sequence viral genomes and share data providing information crucial to “designing effective diagnostics, vaccines and antibody-based therapies” [1].  However uncertainties around ownership of data, intellectual property rights, patient consent and poor management of data all make access to the source of truth very difficult and often essential data is not available to research community working on epidemics.    QUT PhD candidate Anisa Rowhani-Farid, from the School of Public Health and Social Work, discusses some of these barriers to open data sharing in her guest blog today. 

[1]    Yozwiak, N. L., Schaffner, S. F., Sabeti, P. C.: Data sharing: Make outbreak research open access. Nature, 2015, 518:477–479, doi:10.1038/518477a

My desire to pursue research in this field began when I was a junior bench scientist some 10 years ago, conducting anti-malarial drug research. I was confronted with the commercial aspect of scientific research.  I learned about the institutional arrangements between industry, academia, the community, or “consumers”.  I also learned about how intellectual property, patents, and funding arrangements play a critical yet limiting role in contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Anisa Rowhani-Farid

PhD Candidate Anisa Rowhani-Farid

It became clear to me that scientific research is driven and, more often than not, pressured by the funding available from government and industry, and that these relationships are primarily based on the conception that scientific knowledge is generated through research that views knowledge as a commodity, distributed at a cost to other researchers and most importantly, populations that might need open access to that knowledge.

As I read more, I wondered what happened to all the public money that was spent on health and medical research. I read Chalmers and Glasziou’s (2009) paper on research waste, as well as the series that was published in the Lancet in 2014 called ‘Research: increasing value, reducing waste’.  I learned that around 85% of the world’s spending on health and medical research is wasted per year, and a contributing factor was that the findings of medical studies cannot be reproduced by other researchers and so seemingly successful medical breakthroughs are thus unverifiable [1, 2]. This reproducibility crisis in health and medical research made me think of the way in which scientific knowledge progresses.  I was fascinated by the paper written by John Ioannidis in 2005 where he concluded through simulations that most published findings in the scientific discourse are false and misleading [3, 4].

If most of what is claimed in the scientific literature is false, and if scientists are adopting malpractices because of the pressure to commercialise so-called ‘medical breakthroughs’, then how deep will the cultural change have to be for scientists to conduct high-quality research with integrity, and share all their findings, positive or negative? This question has motivated my doctorate of philosophy.

  1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P: Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet 2009, 374(9683):86-89.
  2. Chalmers I, Bracken M, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu M, Howells D, Ioannidis J, Oliver S: How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. The Lancet 2014, 383(9912):156-165.
  3. Ioannidis J: How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS Med 2014, 11(10):e1001747.
  4. Ioannidis JPA: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine 2005, 2(8):e124.

Watch this video (YouTube 2m8s) from Anisa Rowhani-Farid and follow her @AnisaFarid on Twitter.

Anisa Rowhani-Farid (YouTube video, 2m8s)If you’re a researcher, we’d love to hear from you.  Leave a comment below on your data story.

Visit the Love Data Week blog each day for stories, resources and activities and if you would like to join the conversation via Twitter #lovedata18 #qutlibrary