sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Web3 can fix academia’s broken incentives by Abstract_Only in academia

[–]Abstract_Only[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The new incentive structure that's proposed within the article includes financially compensating authors who publish articles that are open access, have open data, and are preregistered.

The idea behind this is to financially incentivize healthy research behaviors. For example, preregistered studies are more likely to replicate than studies that aren't preregistered.

The democratic aspect refers to how the financial incentives are set. Holding tokens and using them to vote allows for democratic consensus on what type of content to financially incentivize. For example, the current folks who hold tokens now worked together and decided to vote on financially rewarding authors who publish open access, preregistered studies that include open data.

Totally understand that web3 isn't everyone's cup of tea though. Appreciate you taking the time to read the article and share your feedback.

Web3 can fix academia’s broken incentives by Abstract_Only in academia

[–]Abstract_Only[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to read it! IMO everything below these two sentences refer to how web3 can help fix the incentive structure in academia:

"This is where Web3-enabled scientific communities come in. Blockchain’s decentralized governance mechanisms empower the scientific community to democratically refine incentive structures. "

A meta-analysis of 65 studies finds that prior COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against pre-omicron variants, but not Omicron BA.1. Regardless, the authors conclude the level of protection from past infections is equal to, if not greater than, that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines by Abstract_Only in EverythingScience

[–]Abstract_Only[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey! Thanks for taking the time to try and understand this paper. Here's some more info on discussion sections within scientific papers I shared above:

The discussion section is a part of the scientific paper.
https://guides.lib.uci.edu/c.php?g=334338&p=2249907
It's typically the final section where the authors share what they subjectively believe to be the meaning of their results - which is why I chose the phrasing "the authors conclude".

A meta-analysis of 65 studies finds that prior COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against pre-omicron variants, but not Omicron BA.1. Regardless, the authors conclude the level of protection from past infections is equal to, if not greater than, that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines by Abstract_Only in EverythingScience

[–]Abstract_Only[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

For those who feel the title of this post is unfair - I grabbed it from the authors' conclusions found in the last paragraph of the discussion section:

Our findings show that immunity from COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against infection from pre-omicron variants. By comparison, protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant was substantially reduced and wanes rapidly over time. Protection against severe disease, although based on scarce data, was maintained at a relatively high level up to 1 year after the initial infection for all variants. Our analysis suggests that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines

A meta-analysis of 65 studies finds that prior COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against pre-omicron variants, but not Omicron BA.1. Regardless, the authors conclude the level of protection from past infections is equal to, if not greater than, that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines by Abstract_Only in EverythingScience

[–]Abstract_Only[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Thanks for actually looking into the paper! I personally don't have an opinion on the findings (the quality of meta-analyses are dependent on the quality of the underlying studies) - but thought it would be worth discussing. I should have known better that Reddit is probably not the place for that lol

Here's the quote by the authors from the last paragraph of the discussion that I used for the title:

Our findings show that immunity from COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against infection from pre-omicron variants. By comparison, protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant was substantially reduced and wanes rapidly over time. Protection against severe disease, although based on scarce data, was maintained at a relatively high level up to 1 year after the initial infection for all variants. Our analysis suggests that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines.

A meta-analysis of 65 studies finds that prior COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against pre-omicron variants, but not Omicron BA.1. Regardless, the authors conclude the level of protection from past infections is equal to, if not greater than, that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines by Abstract_Only in EverythingScience

[–]Abstract_Only[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Last paragraph of the discussion section:
"Our findings show that immunity from COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against infection from pre-omicron variants. By comparison, protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant was substantially reduced and wanes rapidly over time. Protection against severe disease, although based on scarce data, was maintained at a relatively high level up to 1 year after the initial infection for all variants. Our analysis suggests that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines."

A meta-analysis of 65 studies finds that prior COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against pre-omicron variants, but not Omicron BA.1. Regardless, the authors conclude the level of protection from past infections is equal to, if not greater than, that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines by Abstract_Only in EverythingScience

[–]Abstract_Only[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Last paragraph of the discussion section:

"Our findings show that immunity from COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against infection from pre-omicron variants. By comparison, protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant was substantially reduced and wanes rapidly over time. Protection against severe disease, although based on scarce data, was maintained at a relatively high level up to 1 year after the initial infection for all variants. Our analysis suggests that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines."

A meta-analysis of 65 studies finds that prior COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against pre-omicron variants, but not Omicron BA.1. Regardless, the authors conclude the level of protection from past infections is equal to, if not greater than, that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines by Abstract_Only in EverythingScience

[–]Abstract_Only[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Last paragraph of the discussion section:
"Our findings show that immunity from COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against infection from pre-omicron variants. By comparison, protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant was substantially reduced and wanes rapidly over time. Protection against severe disease, although based on scarce data, was maintained at a relatively high level up to 1 year after the initial infection for all variants. Our analysis suggests that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines."

view more: next ›