#pre-publication peer review

[floral-ashes]

With the Alberta government announcing a ban on gender-affirming care until 16 years old, let’s take a minute to correct some misinformation using peer-reviewed publications. A thread.🧵

“High quality evidence doesn’t support gender-affirming care.”

‘High quality evidence’ is a technical term that essentially just means ’no randomized controlled trials.’ RCTs are not scientifically feasible for trans youth care and would be unethical (link).

The evidence-base for gender-affirming care is quite robust and is at least as good at the evidence base for comparable interventions like abortion and birth control. For an overview of available studies, albeit already few years outdated, see page 144 onwards (link).

“Over 80% of kids grow out of being trans.”

That’s just not true. The claim is based on old, poor-quality studies that included tons of kids who never claimed to be trans (link).

But even if we took the percentage at face value, it would be irrelevant since it’s based on pre-pubertal data and virtually all the so-called ‘desistance’ occurred before puberty, when gender-affirming care becomes available (link).

More recent, better studies suggest that only around 2.5% have ‘grown out of it’ after 5 years (link).

“Kids falsely believe that they are trans because of social contagion.”

There is no evidence for that claim. It’s based on the reports of transphobic parents who were surprised that their kid came out ‘out of the blue’ and happened to have trans friends, as trans kids tend to do. For a careful explanation of why the claim is completely unsupported by evidence, see this (link).

Studies of trans youth that used clinical data to look into the claim have also failed to find any evidence of epidemic or large-scale social contagion (link).

“We need a years-long diagnostic process to make sure kids are ‘truly’ trans before they transition.”

There is no evidence that gender assessments fare any better than self-report at predicting future outcomes, as we explain in our recent review (link).

“Gender-exploratory therapy can help identify the trauma that made these kids gender dysphoric.”

Gender-exploratory therapy is extremely difficult to distinguish from classic conversion therapy, which also starts from the premise that ‘trauma’ makes people LGBTQ2S+ (link).

Since conversion therapy is known to be harmful, we have reasons to believe that gender-exploratory therapy would be as well.

Self-directed exploration is good. Forced exploration rooted in suspicion towards trans identities isn’t. If you’re starting from the belief that trans identities are inherently suspicious, you’re not doing therapy, you’re doing transphobia.

Any more myths about gender-affirming care you’d like me to bust, Tumblr?

[sophieinwonderland]

The trusted medical articles about DID are confidential and aren’t on google, only doctors have access to them. You shouldn’t trust in the info you’re actually believing such as tulpas and some DID symptoms.

"You can't trust anything you see on Google because all the real information is super top secret and confidential."

How do sysmeds keep coming up with these increasingly absurd takes?

So yes, some trustworthy peer reviewed works are locked tightly behind paywalls. And this makes finding a lot of information a pain sometimes. But there are workarounds to this. I downloaded a PDF copy of Transgender Mental Health, the book published by the American Psychiatric Association that references how you can be plural without trauma or a disorder, from a dropbox link.

Other paywalled papers can be access through Sci-Hub, although various governments are trying to get that shutdown.

But a lot of trustworthy peer reviewed information from professionals is also available on the internet for free, such as Varieties of Tulpa Experiences, which was peer reviewed and published in a book by Oxford University Press. (Which yes, is a very reputable source.)

And its author is a psychiatry professor at McGill University. The idea that this isn't a valid source because you can find it on Google is stupid.

Moreover, if this was true that all the information on DID and plurality was confidential and only available to doctors, it would create a situation in science akin to the Christian Church pre-reformation, where knowledge of the Bible was essentially restricted to priests, and lay people could only learn through the priests.

Thank the gods that a lot of science doesn't work that way, and even if some is locked behind paywalls, there is a lot that is free and open to the public!

I've been researching and learning more about plurality for three years, and Google Scholar has been an incredible resource on this journey, as has Sci-Hub for when I have ran across an article I just couldn't otherwise access.

There is plenty of trustworthy research out here on the internet that you can access for free if you know how!

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

By Jim Wappes

A new survey study reveals that people who had two COVID-19 infections were more than twice as likely—and those who had three or more COVID-19 infections were almost four times more likely—to report long COVID as those with one infection.

The study involved 3,382 global survey respondents and was conducted by researchers with the Patient-Led Research Collaborative on long COVID. It was published this week on Research Square, which is the preprint service of the Nature Portfolio. It has not yet undergone peer review.

Among the survey respondents, who were polled from March 30 to September 1, 2023, 22% had never had COVID-19, 42% had it once, 25% twice, and 10% three times or more. They said their acute SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred from February 2020 through August 2023, with 24% of first infections and 27% of re-infections in 2020. They reported that 52% of first infections and 43% reinfections were in 2022, while 7% of first infections and 15% of reinfections were in 2023.

Reinfection raised risk of severe fatigue, functional limitations The researchers found that, compared with people who had COVID only once, those who had two COVID infections were 2.14 times more likely to report long COVID, and those who had three or more COVID infections were 3.75 times more likely to have the long-term condition. They also noted that the odds of both severe fatigue and post-exertional malaise, both of which can be quite debilitating, increased with reinfections.

Fatigue severity also increased with re-infections. As did the odds of functional limitations, such as bathing and dressing difficulty and limits on moderate activity.

The researchers also noted that the number of pre-infection vaccines and boosters cut the risk of long COVID, but their efficacy was diminished by reinfections.

The authors conclude, "These findings underscore the need for robust public health measures for COVID-19 infection prevention and the importance of considering reinfections in Long COVID research and clinical practice." The team summarized its findings on X.

Study Link: www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4909082/v1

[theside-b]

Spoilers for the novel (and my review for the Live Action) ahead :

The boys do get together, but that act ends with their break up when people find out that Tian and Wang are romantically involved, unlike in Unknown where everyone was ok with Qian and Yuan getting together in A Certain Someone the fact that they are 'brothers' plays a huge role at that stage of their relationship and the eventual demise of their first attempt at a romance. Their break up lasts 6/7 years, don't remember exactly, but its a long time...

A lot more happens, but the show made some fundamental changes to both characters. It takes A LONG time for Tian to come to terms with his own feelings, that scene where he sees his father with another man in bed tints his whole worldview from a very young age — he develops quite the internalized homophobia; he is fine with other's queerness but it's his own that he cannot accept since he sees his father sexual orientation as the reason for the destruction of his family.

There is a tense moment between Tian and his father, where his dad says "we are more alike than you care to admit" hinting that he knows of what its happening between the boys and mind you Tian is still trying to sort out what he feels for Wang. The show sugarcoats quite a lot, novel's Tian would never initiate a kiss with Wang or even play along like he did in the show, at least not at that stage of their relationship.

Speaking of which, Wang is also different in the books. In the show he reads as pretty open minded, curious about anything and everything. In the novel he's pretty straight (at first), the journey really begins as a bromance until the feelings start to change. There is a lot of push and shove between the two of them, and is veeery slow.

The show pretty much burns bright the part where Wang tears Tian's emotional walls. Which I don't mind, otherwise it would take 50 episodes to wrap the first act. I honestly thought they were going to draw an original route for the show, but they are slowly adapting elements they left behind so they can follow the book.

Now for the review:

All in all, I think the show did a good job all things considered: production began in mainland China where Liu Dong was cast, but censorship hinders lgbtqia+ productions there so pre-production moved to Taiwan and there the rest of the casting was done. It's hard to tell how much of that interfered in the script but I assume Tian's father core plot was removed in the first draft and got re-integrated once production moved to Taiwan (Chris Lee's casting was one of the last to be announced which probably means he was also one of the last to join filming). Considering that productions like The Spirealm got pulled for much less is understandable that they would avoid the more thorny subjects under China's homophobic gaze.

(Educated guess here: considering all the publicity push, I imagine either Andy Cheng or Stan Huang were the choices for Wang, but since Liu's casting was an order from one of the financial backers they got smaller roles — it's a common move in taiwanese productions — by the way, there is a 'love triangle' later, is a sad thing since there is no-way you can split the main couple, but the show made me wonder who is going to be playing the third party in the live action).

As I always say about taiwanese shows: you have to watch the live play. The On1y One is much like it's local peers, it works wonders in small doses, but as soon as you see the whole picture you start to see the cracks. It reminded me a lot of Kiseki: Dear to Me in the sense that the main couple story is the emotional backbone, with a somber approach with brief moments of humor but everything surrounding it is slightly unhinged.

Everything that happened at that school was insane. The amount of crimes committed in the school grounds was ridiculous, the fact that Qi Jia Hao didn't ended up behind bars after ordering thugs to attack Wang and assault the english teacher is crazy. The whole side-plot involving the teachers was head-scraching by the way, much like everyone else I assumed that Zhao Xi and Benny were married when they were introduced.

Imagine my surprise finding out that not only they were not married but at one point Zhao Xi thought Benny could be interested in the english teacher (speaking of her, why the hell did she sounded dubbed? Is that not her real voice?). This whole story felt so disjointed from everything else, and it came at the tail end of the season(?), so not only it took some much suspension of disbelief for me to buy that these 40-year old gays were that emotionally impaired but also demanded patience since they spent very valuable screen time which could've benefited the main couple.

That is all to say that while I was having a blast while watching, the more I stop and think about it critically the more problems I see in this show. And again, that usually happens with taiwanese productions, experienced the same with Kiseki and Unknown, two shows that I adore, flaws and all, and now the same happens with The On1y One.

[didanawisgi]

Here are the studies that you simply never hear about:

Paul Thomas (2020) had 0 autism cases in 561 unvaxxed patients total. For patients who followed the CDC vaccination schedule, there were 15 autism cases in 894 patients. The Fisher exact test p-value is 0.0008 which is stunning. The OR was infinity, with a 95% lower confidence limit of 2.3. See also this excellent article about the study which points out that “unvaccinated children are healthier in several metrics and enjoy 25 times fewer pediatric visits.” The bad guys were able to get the paper retracted by claiming the higher rates of autism among the vaccinated were due to more office visits. The problem with that criticism is that the reason for retraction was later disproven in a subsequent paper!

Hooker (2021): 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

Mawson (2017): 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)

Geier (2013): 2.1 to 3.4 odds ratio in the VSD database depending on age at injection. Higher odds ratio when older. That study, published in the peer-reviewed literature, was done using a two-phase methodology used by the CDC. It showed that the HepB vaccine was strongly associated with autism. They looked at each of the 3 injection times and in all cases the OR was high and the p-value was low! The study has never been retracted. After Brian Hooker found this signal in VSD, his access was immediately revoked by the CDC with no explanation. Nothing like being open to data transparency is there?

Garner / Control group (2022): 82 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. “For those with zero exposures to post-birth vaccines, pre-birth vaccines, or the K shot, the total rate of autism in the entire CGS is 0% (0 of 1,024)” Doing an OR calculation relative to my survey of 10,000 children: OR=82 CI:5.1197 to 1315 z statistic: 3.114 Significance level. P = 0.0018. See also the Control Group website.

Lyons-Weiler (2022): The study was too small to assess autism risk, but showed better health outcomes among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated in other conditions. See this article which notes that the unvaccinated had better compliance to their wellness checks than the vaccinated which eliminates a common argument that anti-anti-vaxxers use. It says, “the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.”

Liz Mumper study: She reduced the incidence of autism in her practice by 6X limiting the vaccines given to kids. How does the medical community explain this? A 6X reduction is huge. She also replicated Paul Thomas’s work.

A new study of 50,000 kids (submitted by Tony Mawson for publication but not yet published) shows the same odds ratios for chronic diseases as the Hooker and Mawson studies. The dataset is very large.

The Generation Rescue (GR) study that was done on June 26, 2007 showed that vaccinated kids were significantly worse off in every category they looked at. “For less than $200,000, we were able to complete a study that the CDC, with an $8 billion a year budget, has been unable or unwilling to do.” Where is the CDC survey? Nowhere to be found! They simply don’t want to do it. Read the survey and see this article for more information. GR couldn’t tamper with the study or manipulate the results because it was done by a third party survey firm with no conflicts of interest. If the drug companies didn’t like the result, they could have easily commissioned a different polling company. But they didn’t!!! Or maybe they did and simply chose not to publish the results because they were so bad. In any event, the lack of a poll showing the opposite of the GR poll is very very problematic for the “safe and effective” narrative.

There is a failure on behalf of the other side to cite a single study that shows the opposite of what these studies show, e.g., that the fully vaccinated are either as healthy or healthier than the fully unvaccinated.

[thegodthief]

What do you find most exhausting about your practice? Conversely, what is the most fulfilling to you?

Earlier, I had quipped that the short answer to both questions was the same: "Solitude." If you will grant me the indulgence of explaining why I answered thus.

It is exhausting working alone for damn near everything. The pandemic made matters worse, but this has been a problem for me from the moment I began stubbing my toe on the rocks along this path. Trial and Error™ is the hallmark of the practitioner, but when you don't have the ability to have your work peer reviewed, then the errors stick around longer and the trials have a heavier cost. I'm always hiding a part of me from other magic users while I wait to see which one of their DNI categories I'm going to fall into, this time.

What I noticed pre-pandemic is that eclectic magic users were very welcome, as long as you were eclectic in the right (read: popular and/or mainstream) way. There is a reason one of my first posts here so long ago was a rejection of sisterhood with other witches who were trying to claim some sort of connection for no other reason that I was considering if I was even a witch in the first place.

Here and now, in the long tail of the pandemic, I haven't tried to attend any in-person events or ceremonies. They all seem to fall on a weekday and are prohibitively far from me such that I'll lose more than just the earnings of the day. Not to mention, that I don't know the people putting these things together, nor the people presenting at the shindig, nor the area that the event is happening in.

Online, it is not much better. The groups I see in the few servers I lurk in are well established and have mutual chains linking within and without the online spaces. It feels like watching a group of kids playing double-jump and they have been playing so long together that they have their own rhythm for jumping in and out of the rope because everything about the game has been shaped into a pattern that suits them best. And here I am, clunky, uncoordinated, not presenting as expected, and the group leader is telling me to jump in anytime but the moment I do, I snag the rope and the game (read: conversation) just stops.

I don't question if that online space was meant for me. If it was, I wouldn't be fucking up the game. I question if I'm meant for online spaces, and have quietly taken my leave from most servers. (waves hand) I am not the content creator you are looking for.

This leaves me with very few people that I can be weird with. That I can ask a "deep question" to. That I have been trying very hard not to abuse with my single-minded focus, because one of the hardest things I have had to realize lately is that I am considerably Not Normal™ when it comes to wooish shit, because I don't think that even the Big Name Practitioners™ think about or try wooish shit as much as I do. Very often, their social media feeds (public and/or quasi-public) are 90% Everyday Life™ that you see for anyone else in that general area or demographic and an occasional Now This Is What I Call Magic!™.

There isn't anyone else like me, which is probably very good for everyone else, but is really fucking shit for me.

But, that same solitude is also very fulfilling for me. Because I do try the Weird Shit, and I do poke at the thing that most folks on my dash are concerned about poking at, and I get to work the ritual that takes advantage of my single-minded focus, and on occasion, I get shit done. It means that I don't have someone annoyed that I'm staying up late to do the thing for the tenth night in a row, or that when I put a jar in the fridge labeled "Not For Human Consumption" that it will remain where I put it no matter how many months days I go back to finish the rite I started.

It means I don't have to ask permission (or forgiveness) for deviating from the plan, because the plan was always going to be uncovered as I went anyway. It means that when I plan the purchases for the rite, that I don't have to add a "pinch" tax for when someone else decided to help themselves to the ingredients before the rite and takes just a "pinch" for themselves.

It means that I progress according to the work I'm putting in, and if something takes me a few years months to understand, then that's okay, and if someone takes me a few hours days to master, then that's also okay, and I'm not trying to force myself to work through my shit on someone else's timing, and that's hella okay.

But then, like the ouroboros, I wind up back where I started. I have this neat trick, this personal understanding, this alternative way of working this jar I picked up, and I want to talk about it with someone because that's one of the better ways for me to truly understand what I'm doing and what I've learned, but because this little thing I have doesn't have an accepted lineage, source, book reference, BNP recommendation, then I'm no different from amulet-chasers.

You'd think that having a personal blog of my own would make this easier. After all, having a space independent of advertisers and/or corporate interference means I can say what I want. But who is reading? Who was reading? With all that has happened (and continues to happen), my posts have dwindled to nigh nothing, and Tumblr remains the only space where I am active.

I don't know how to break the cycle.

This was very likely not the answer you were expecting. But it is the only one I have to give. My apologies.

[himluv]

DA Review Series: Magekiller

<<< Previous review: The Masked Empire

Title: Magekiller Author/Illustrator: Greg Rucka/Carmen Carnero Publication Year: 2016 In-World Year: 9:40-9:42 Dragon Verdict: Fun, but doesn’t feel quite as vital as the pre-Inquisition novels. We see some new and familiar faces, get to peer into the more tertiary actions of the Inquisition and its agents, but it really does feel “extra”. 

Magekiller introduces us to Marius, a former Tevinter slave trained to assassinate mages, and his traveling companion Tessa Forsythia. For all his stern demeanor, Marius can’t turn down a job that supposedly would save endangered children – even though both he and Tessa suspect a trap. And their instincts were right. There are no threatened children, only Archon Radonis, the leader of the Tevinter Imperium. And he has a job for them. 

Which is how Marius and Tessa find themselves in the business of killing Venatori mages (before the Inquisitor made it cool). And while they are a darn good team, they both know that if the Venatori don’t kill them, the Archon will once he’s done with them. So, they hatch a plan with help from Calpernia (yes, THAT Calpernia – turns out she and Marius had a bit of a thing) and escape the Imperium. That doesn’t stop Radonis from hunting them, however. 

It’s after one such attack from the Archon’s forces that a giant tear in the sky changes everything. It doesn’t take long for word of Marius and Tessa to reach the Inquisition, and Charter approaches them with an offer to join the cause. Tessa isn’t big on the idea but Marius jumps at the chance to be part of something bigger, to make a difference and have a purpose.

And so the duo become the Inquisition’s de facto Venatori hunters. We see glimpses of their various jaunts throughout the timeline of Inquisition, including missions with Dorian, Sutherland’s crew, and Harding, but none of the missions felt particularly important to the plot or the world. Their major motivation was surviving the Archon’s attempts to kill them, but that threat is eradicated by the Breach. The story then pivots to being a more interpersonal one, with the crux of the tension depending on Tessa’s doubt that Marius sees her as anything more than a convenient partner (not in a romantic sense, Tessa and Charter are together!). But I didn’t really understand why Tessa would doubt him.  

We’re shown early on that he is a good person who cares more for others than himself, even if he is beyond stoic and taciturn. Tessa has traveled with him for years, knows him better than anyone, and yet doubts that he would die to save her? After all they’ve been through? I don’t buy it.  Anyway, this is a fun little glimpse into some of the in-between time in Inquisition but it ultimately suffers from trying to do too much with too little plot and doesn’t contribute much to lore or character development. 

[fans4wga]

To any newcomer joining the industry after they graduated college or just getting into the field, what is your advice on what they should do? Like if they are in LA/NYC or not in LA/NYC, what can they do?

Sorry if this is left field!

That's a huge question with a lot of variables, but fortunately our mods are also newcomers in the industry and have been through this ourselves so hopefully this is helpful :)

A couple things you can do to prepare yourself:

Unpaid internships, though clearly and obviously exploitative of vulnerable populations, are sometimes (UGH) the only or best way to get in the door and have something legit on your resume. (The paid internships are unfortunately so much more competitive, but definitely apply if you can!) A lot of internships and jobs are posted regularly on LinkedIn. This is a good Linkedin group to see job postings for young people working in entertainment.

How do you even make a resume for Hollywood internship/entry-level positions? Great question. Highlight any media experience (yearbook, newspaper, journalism, graphic design) and leadership experience. (Unless it's like, from middle school. That's too far back.) If you have the chance to submit a cover letter, focus less on trying desperately to prove yourself and more on who you are as a person: someone who is determined, yes, but would also be a good, solid coworker; any stories that reveal your talent for narrative and showcase your skills.

If unpaid internships aren't possible for you, consider checking out adjacent jobs in podcasts or journalism or other media, which would still be good on your resume before you make the switch to film/TV.

Get a nice, recent headshot (doesn't have to be a professional shoot, you just want to look professional in your social media and email profile pics.)

Join the picket lines in LA/NY if possible (WGA has the locations here). Everyone out on the picket line is supporting the future of the entire industry. It's not only the current workers on strike, but you and your peers too, who depend on the outcome of these negotiations. Also, if you consider yourself "pre-WGA" (interested in being a writer/WGA member in the future), there are a handful of groups organizing strike support for pre-WGA folks! Get plugged in with them.

Read the trade publications daily, or at least a couple times a week, to stay on top of what's going on in Hollywood. The typical places are Deadline Hollywood, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and I also like IndieWire and the NYT movies section personally for their profiles and reviews. Basically you just want to be someone who knows what's going on in your own industry and can talk intelligently about the state of things.

Likewise, podcasts. If you're going into TV writing, I can't recommend Children of Tendu enough. If that's not your specific field, search around for what other people in your field are listening to!

I hate having to say this, but... Twitter. Lots of WGA members, directors, actors, and industry people are active on Twitter, despite the, er, problems with the platform. Look for both pre-WGA and WGA people, connect with them, start building a community, maybe join a writing feedback group. (Again, since I'm a writer, that kinda applies to just writers, but I'm sure you can find other departments there too!)

On a similar note: You've probably heard a lot about the importance of networking—getting to know people in the industry who might be your coworkers in the future. That's important advice, but even better advice than that is to network horizontally, not vertically. Translation: Don't always seek out people who are in more advanced stages of their career than you: they're probably very busy and their lack of interest in lower-level people could be discouraging, even if it's just a reflection on their lack of time and not on you. Instead, network with people at the same stage as you—people who are new in LA/NY/the industry, people who are coming up and have similar passions and goals as you, people who are your coworkers and peers. I'm coming up with a lot of really cool people and it's very likely we'll all be in a position to help or hire each other 10, 20 years from now.

That said, you could also try to find a mentor who knows more than you do, but that's tricky territory because again... Hollywood. People are busy. But if you do get the chance to apply for a formal mentorship program, or if someone you know shows interest, having a mentor to go to for questions/advice is super valuable!

Acquire skills. Microsoft Excel skills. Standard screenplay formatting skills. Final Draft skills. Graphic design skills. Website building skills. A lot of people start in the industry at the assistant level, and these things are invaluable on your resume.

For writers specifically, I've heard the advice that you need to get 5+ shitty scripts out of your system before writing something decent. And from personal experience, that adage holds true. You need to write a significant amount of crap before you find your voice and get a handle on script formatting. Online classes and writing groups can help a lot with this.

Also for writers: You should not be trying to start your career as a professional writer without 3+ SOLID, GOOD SCRIPTS in your portfolio that match your voice as a writer, fit your (ugh) writer "brand", and have been revised based on feedback from writers you trust. If you have any doubt about the state of your sample scripts, go back to the drawing board and write a new pilot script.

If you want to be a creator, watch stuff extensively! Old stuff, new stuff, award-winning stuff, stuff that you'd want to write/direct/act in someday. Pick a director and watch everything they've made (or the same for writer/actor/costume designer/cinematographer.) You need to be decently fluent in what has come before you. This industry is only 100 years old, so it's very possible with time to become someone who knows the art form inside and out. Don't watch shallowly, either; watch deeply for analysis and critical thought.

Some final words from someone who cares deeply about the overall wellness of young people in the industry. This industry terrorizes people, and there are a lot of stories of abuse and breakdowns. (Oh, another recommendation, though pace yourself because it's a difficult book with a lot of potential triggers: Burn it Down by Maureen Ryan talks about industry abuse, written by a journalist who's tackled a lot of breaking news about abuse in Hollywood. Essential reading for people going into the industry.)

So prioritize taking care of yourself, and not just in the uwu self-care way, but the bone-deep "know thyself", "if you don't take care of yourself, you will literally cease to function" way. Love yourself enough to know when to step back and take time off. Love yourself to gain good time management skills so you can live a less stressful life. Love yourself enough to build a community of people who will look out for each other.

Wishing you the best of luck. If any pre-WGA/early career folks in the industry want to continue this conversation, this mod's main is @captaincrais.

[professorcupcake89]

I am Tim, I operate BDSM101.ICU. I am a Dom, and have been so for over a decade and a half. I won't even try to pretend that I know everything, but I know enough that educating people newly on their BDSM journey is well within my capabilities. Educating would make me an educator, and as such, I have adapted and adopted a Kink educator code of conduct listed below.

INTRODUCTION

The Kink Education Code of Conduct (KECC) establishes a code of conduct for kink educators and producers. It provides practical guidance for navigating many of the ethical dilemmas we face and creates a framework for clear communication between educators and producers.

The KECC is a roadmap for reasonable human beings, not a precise legal code. You should interpret it using good judgment and good faith, seeking always to adhere to the spirit of the code.

This is the educator version of the KECC. This code has been altered to reflect my personal work, such as removing student portions as I do not currently work with classes and students.

MODELING CONSENT

I consistently practice excellent consent in private and in public. Excellent consent is:

Verbal or written when I am teaching or playing in public. Verbal, written, or covered by a pre-existing relationship or negotiation when in private.

Fully informed, where all parties understand what is agreed to.

Expressed with explicit or enthusiastic agreement.

Consistent and continuous.

Not coerced, not forced, and free of manipulation.

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

I teach within my area of expertise:

I only teach material I thoroughly understand and am capable of teaching correctly.

If I teach techniques that are contrary to commonly accepted best practices, I clearly communicate that and explain my reasons for doing so.

When teaching any topic in the domain of a particular profession—for example physical fitness, stretching and warmup, anatomy, nerves, blood play, breath play, hypnosis, trauma response, mental health, legal issues, or any kind of medical play—I explicitly explain whether:

I have relevant professional qualifications, or

I have reviewed the material I am teaching with a qualified professional, or

I am teaching my own opinion.

I respect each person’s right to choose their own risk profile:

I do not pressure anyone to perform techniques outside their risk profile.

I make it clear that students are welcome to audit any techniques they are not comfortable performing.

If I teach high-risk techniques or activities, I clearly communicate the risks involved and I encourage my students to negotiate in class before engaging in any hands-on practice.

I respect each venue’s policies about high-risk activities.

INCLUSION

I treat everyone in a respectful manner and make them feel welcome:

In both my personal and professional lives, I do not discriminate against someone because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, sexuality, and pregnancy status), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. I also do not retaliate against anyone because they have submitted a complaint about discrimination.

I do not intentionally do anything that creates a hostile environment for any group of people.

I apologize when something I do creates a hostile environment for any group of people.

I use correct pronouns for each person. I ask people what pronouns they use when I am not sure.

Except when teaching gender-specific topics, I present material in a gender-neutral fashion rather than assuming specific gender roles.

Whenever possible, I teach techniques that are applicable to all genders, body types, and physical abilities.

ACCOUNTABILITY

I hold myself accountable for my actions and enable the community to help hold me accountable:

I acknowledge that I am flawed and will not always succeed at applying this code of conduct to my behaviors and actions.

I respectfully and proactively seek feedback from the people I play with, the people I teach, my peers, community leaders, and others.

I acknowledge my inevitable mistakes and am receptive to others telling me when I have fallen short.

When I make a mistake I do my best to apologize, make things right, learn from the experience, and make changes to ensure the same mistakes don’t happen again.

I engage openly and honestly when addressing any reported consent issues, including participating in an accountability process with anyone who reports that I violated their consent or injured them.

I follow this code of conduct and the accountability processes of producers and organizations I work with.

I post this Code of Conduct wherever I have an online presence and explicitly state that I have voluntarily committed to following it.

I have at least one accountability contact and make their contact information available wherever I have an online presence, as well as in my class handouts. *

I do not use any kind of non-disclosure agreement or threat of legal action to prevent my partners from discussing their experiences with me.

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

I am a professional:

I represent myself honestly, giving complete answers to all questions during the booking process.

I provide complete and accurate information about my experience and qualifications.

I am clear and up-front about my expectations regarding logistics and compensation.

I show up on time and prepared.

I understand my conduct reflects on the venues that hire me and behave in a professional and responsible fashion while working.

DISCLOSURE AND PRIVACY

I proactively provide producers with complete and accurate information about:

Any consent incidents I have caused or been accused of

Any injuries I have caused or been accused of

Any accountability processes I have been the focus of When disclosing information to producers or in public, I am careful to protect the privacy of anyone I may have harmed.

I respect other people’s right to freely discuss their experiences with me:

I never pressure anyone to keep quiet about their experience with me, nor do I ask my partners to refrain from discussing their experiences with me or others.

I do not retaliate against anyone for sharing their concerns about me with others, either directly or via third parties.

I respect everyone’s right to hold private discussions about educators and venues:

I do not ask anyone to share private information with me, nor will I look at information that should not have been shared with me.

I do not harass, challenge, or question anyone who shares information about me in a private forum.

* I am working on fulfilling this one, and will be actively shared once I do have someone I feel is capable of fulfilling the accountability point of contact for me.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Gregory Brown

Published: Sep 1, 2023

About the Author

Dr. Greg Brown is a professor of Exercise Science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney where he also serves as the Director of the LOPERs General Studies program. His primary teaching responsibilities are undergraduate and graduate courses in Exercise Physiology, but he has also taught courses in Introductory Anatomy & Physiology, Sports Nutrition, Research Methods, and Professional Development in Exercise Science. His research has evaluated the effects of nutritional supplements on the physiological response to exercise, the physiological responses to various types of exercise, effective teaching in the exercise science program, and sex-based differences in sports performance. He has authored or co-authored over 50 peer reviewed publications and serves as a peer-reviewer for over two dozen academic journals. He is a member of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), and the Association of American Educators (AAE). 

He and his wife (Amber) have two adult sons and one daughter-in-law. Sadly, both their cat and dog passed away in the past year. His hobbies include running, hunting, fishing, studying history, and watching movies. 

--

In the current battle over women’s and girls’ rights to female-only sports, a commonly heard mantra is that there are no sex-based differences in sports performance before puberty. Those who make this claim often contend that if a male is put on puberty blockers before age 12 (or Tanner development stage 2; whichever comes first), he can compete fairly in the female category. But is this really true?Are there really no differences in athletic performance between boys and girls before the onset of puberty? Do puberty blockers administered to children really erase male sex-based athletic advantages? Below, I’ll try to provide answers to these questions.

Like many things currently being put forth in public discourse as settled science, the presence or absence of sex-based athletic differences before puberty is not an open and shut case. There are few databases of records for children’s competitive sports performance and there has been limited scholarly research evaluating sex-based differences in competitive sports performance before puberty. Currently, there are no consensus statements from professional organizations such as the North American Society for Pediatric Exercise Medicine (NASPEM), the National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA), the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), or the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) stating that there are, or are not, sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty.

Below, I will cover the main reasons our data on pre-pubertal sex differences in athletic performance is relatively poor, and draw some preliminary conclusions based on the data we do have that indicates such differences are actually quite significant.

Lack of Records

One challenge that arises when trying to determine whether there are sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty is the limited availability of records documenting competitive athletic performance in children. For adults participating at the Olympic and collegiate levels, meticulous record-keeping is the norm, and these records are readily accessible online. A simple internet search yields numerous listings of Olympic and collegiate records spanning various sports such as swimming, track and field, cross country, bicycling, and more.

Similarly, records for sports in secondary schools are also carefully maintained. In the United States, it is fairly easy to obtain the results of the most recent state high school track championship from news sources and on the state scholastic athletic association websites. Most secondary schools additionally showcase records for track and field, cross country, and other sports. The abundant availability of records in the Olympic, college, and secondary school arena makes it very easy to compare male and female athletes competing in the same events at the same level of competition. Such comparisons vividly illustrate that once puberty sets in, males outperform females by 10-30 percent (depending on the sport and event).

However, most sports involving pre-pubertal children operate outside the jurisdiction of state scholastic athletic association or even the local primary school. Instead, these activities are typically organized by local clubs or community recreation departments. Children’s sports often prioritize recreation and skill development over competitiveness. As a result, records pertaining to race times, throwing distances, weightlifting achievements, or other athletic benchmarks for children are not as meticulously maintained or as readily accessible as records for high school, college, or Olympic sports. Some have interpreted the lack of records for children’s sport as an indication that any sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty are negligible or insignificant.

Lack of Scholarly Attention

Adding to the challenge of limited records detailing competitive athletic performance before puberty is the constrained number of available scientific evaluations. For example, Handelsman [1] analyzed publicly accessible data on swimming, running, and jumping in children and adolescents. Although his data clearly illustrate that boys aged 10 and under run faster, swim faster, and jump farther than girls of comparable age, he published these findings in 2017 in a paper titled “Sex differences in athletic performance emerge coinciding with the onset of male puberty.”

In 2019 Senefeld et al. [2] drew upon data from USA Swimming and found that, before age 10, the top 5 girls swam faster than the top 5 boys. However, no disparities in swimming performance were observed between the 10th-50th ranked girls and boys. Additionally, in 2020, Huebner and Perperoglou [3] reported that there were no sex-based differences in competitive weightlifting performance before age 10. To my knowledge, these studies represent the only scholarly examinations of competitive performance in children before puberty.

Taken together, the scarcity of sports records for pre-pubertal children and the limited scholarly output on children’s competitive performance has led some to conclude that there are no differences in athletic performance between boys and girls before puberty. Some have even gone so far as to erroneously asserting that a broad consensus exists regarding the absence of sex-based differences in athletic performance before this developmental stage. However, this does not appear to be true, and in the sections below I will present information that demonstrates the existence of sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty.

School Based Fitness Testing

In contrast to the limited records available for sports performance and the scarcity of scholarly evaluations regarding children’s competitive sports performance, there exists a plethora of scholarly evaluations focused on school-based physical fitness testing in children as young as six years old. Various tests, such as the Presidential Fitness Test, FitnessGram, Eurofit Fitness Test Battery, and other school-based physical fitness assessments, consistently show that boys tend to outperform girls of the same age in tests measuring muscular strength, muscular endurance, running speed, aerobic fitness, ball throwing, and kicking distance. On the other hand, girls tend to perform better than boys in tests assessing flexibility.

A small sampling of publications evaluating school-based physical fitness testing includes a longitudinal evaluation of 240 German boys and girls aged 9-12 years [4], an analysis of 85,347 fitness test results among Australian boys and girls aged 9-17 years [5], an evaluation of 424,328 Greek boys and girls aged 6-18 years [6], a study examining 1,142,026 performances in a 20-meter shuttle run among boys and girls aged 9-17 year from 50 countries [7], and an assessment of 2,779,165 Eurofit performances among boys and girls aged 9-17 year from 30 countries [8]. 

Collectively, these studies (along with many others not listed here) indicate a consistent pattern: before puberty, boys tend to outperform girls of the same age in tests measuring muscular strength, muscular endurance, running speed, aerobic fitness, ball throwing, and kicking distance. Conversely, girls typically exhibit better performance in tests focused on flexibility. While physical fitness tests do not always accurately predict success in competitive sports, physical fitness is often a prerequisite for success in sports.

Sports Records

USA Track and Field (USATF) sanctions youth track and field meets in most states, including regional and national championship events. The youngest age categories in USATF are the 8-and-under and the 9-10-year-old age groups, both of which can reasonably be assumed to represent pre-pubertal athletes. Upon evaluating the performances at the USATF state-level Junior Olympics, it becomes apparent that boys frequently jump and throw farther, and run faster than comparably aged girls.

For instance, if we examine the race times for the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m races, along with the distances achieved in shot put, javelin, and long jump events in the 2023 USATF Nebraska Association Junior Olympics [9], for both boys and girls in the 8-and-under age group, we find that no girl would have outperformed a boy to secure the gold, silver, or bronze medals in any of these events. For the same events in the 9-10-year-old age group, only one girl would have secured a gold medal (out of a possible 8), while two girls would have clinched silver medals (out of 8), and another two girls would have won bronze medals (out of 8). Of course, one could reasonably argue that data from a single youth track meet in Nebraska may not be representative data for pre-pubertal athletic performance as a whole.

So, if we make the same comparison in the same events (100m, 200m, 400m, 800m and 1500m races, and the distances for shot put, javelin, and long jump) in the 2023 USATF Arizona Association Junior Olympics [10], we observe that girls in the 8-and-under age group would have secured zero gold medals, one silver medal, and two bronze medals. In the 9-10-year-old category, a girl would have tied with a boy for a single gold medal, and three girls would have taken home bronze medals. Yet, once again, one could reasonably argue that the combined data from track meets in Nebraska and Arizona may not accurately represent the broader spectrum of pre-pubertal athletic performance.

So, if we make the same comparison for the same events (100m, 200m, 400m, 800m and 1500m races, and the distances for shot put, javelin, and long jump) at the 2023 USATF National Youth Outdoor Championships [11]—an event that includes athletes from many different states—we discover that girls in the 8-and-under age group would have won two gold medals (out of 8), three silver medals (out of 8), and no bronze medals. Girls in the 9-10-year-old age group would have won a single gold medal, two silver medals, and two bronze medals. Collectively, looking at these three track meets, placing side by side the race times for the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m races, as well as the distances for shot put, javelin, and long jump for boys and girls in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups, it’s clear that if girls were to compete against boys, they would have secured only 23 out of 144 medals. Within this tally, girls would have received only five out of 48 gold medals.

Of course, one could reasonably argue that the examples above represent only a single year and only three specific track meets. However, if we evaluate the overall youth records for the best performances in running, throwing, and jumping from USATF [12], the USATF National Junior Olympics [13], and the School Sport Australia Track & Field Championships [14], they collectively indicate that boys aged 10 and under outperform girls of the same age across all recorded events. On average, boys outperform girls by 3 percent in running, 9 percent in jumping, and 16 percent in throwing events. Similarly, records for boys aged 10 and under in USA Swimming show faster times than girls' records in 18 out of 22 events [15].

While examining medal counts at specific track meets offers valuable, albeit somewhat anecdotal, insights into performance differences between boys and girls before puberty, these counts do not qualify as a rigorous scientific evaluation. Though scholars often use evaluations of overall records for best performances to showcase sex-based differences in adult athletic performance, disparities in pre-pubertal children’s performance are frequently dismissed as being too small to be meaningful. Moreover, the overall youth records from USATF have not been updated since 2018, the records from the USATF National Junior Olympics have not been updated since 2019, and the School Sport Australia Track & Field Championship records have not seen updates since 2016. It’s unclear why these records have not been updated, but it does raise some questions about the accuracy of these records.

Nonetheless, by considering scholarly assessments of school-based fitness test data, several youth track meets, track and field best performance records, and swimming best performance records, it certainly seems like there is an emerging pattern of pre-pubertal male sex-based athletic advantages.

Scholarly Evidence for Sex-Based Sports Differences Before Puberty

Some colleagues and I have recently presented an assessment of sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty at the 2023 Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine [16]. Drawing upon a national database of track and field performance (athletic.net) and evaluating the top 10 performances for boys and girls in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups over a 5-year period, we observed consistent trends. Boys consistently (and statistically) ran almost 5 percent faster, long jumped 6 percent farther, threw the shot put 20 percent farther, and threw the javelin 40 percent farther than girls of the same age. At the 2023 Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, a separate team of researchers from a different university used the same database, albeit with slightly different evaluation methods, and came to similar conclusions regarding the pre-pubertal advantages of male athletes [17].

In light of these findings, it is reasonable to conclude that male athletes indeed possess advantages in sports performance before reaching puberty. This conclusion is founded on extensive scholarly evaluations of fitness tests in schools, data gleaned from youth track meets and records, as well as youth swimming records for best performances. My personal analysis of the top 10 national track and field performances for boys and girls within the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups across a 5-year period supports this, further corroborated by similar outcomes from another team of researchers. Admittedly, the sex-based disparities before puberty are less pronounced than after puberty, but they exhibit a consistent pattern that yields a statistically significant difference favoring male athletes.

What about Puberty Blockers?

Whether there are, or are not, sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty still leaves questions about how puberty blockers affect athletic performance. The truth is, we don’t have enough information to answer questions about how puberty blockers affect athletic performance. There are no published studies evaluating the effects of puberty blockers on muscle strength, muscle endurance, running speed, aerobic fitness, as well as throwing or kicking distance in children, whether in school or laboratory settings. Similarly, there is no research on how puberty blockers might impact performance in competitive sports. Limited studies have touched upon the effects of puberty blockers on body composition and height.

Two long-term studies investigating the impact of puberty blockers on body composition and height indicate that the sex-based differences in lean body mass [18] and height [19] persist even after 2 years on puberty blockers followed by an additional 6 years of so-called “gender-affirming hormone therapy.” It is undeniable that male advantages in lean body mass and body height translate to athletic advantages as adults. It’s reasonable to assume that these advantages also extend to athletic performance among children and adolescents. The sex-based differences in performance in children may be smaller than in adults, but small differences can mean the difference between a gold medal and no medal in sports.

Conclusion

Readers of Reality’s Last Stand will be familiar with the important sex-based differences between males and females. These differences begin at conception and continue throughout one’s life. Sex-based anatomical and physiological differences confer inherent athletic advantages to males when compared to females of the same age, possessing similar talents and undergoing similar training, across all age groups, even before puberty. Having a transgender identity, with or without the use of cross-sex hormones, does not eliminate sex-based differences in anatomy and physiology, nor does it erase sex-based differences in athletic performance.

It is my opinion that, in order to maintain a level playing field for female athletic competition, transgender identified males (i.e., “transgirls” and “transwomen”) should not be allowed to participate in the female sports category before or after puberty even when puberty blockers are used.

[deweydecimalchickens]

Because this just came up in my professional life and it drives me mad when journalists don't make it clear:

Articles on preprint servers are not generally peer-reviewed

If you want something peer-reviewed, you're looking for the Version of Record (published article complete with journal formatting) or the Author's Accepted Manuscript (unformatted final version, generally found in open-access repositories*).

The whole point of a preprint server (SSRN, arXiv, etc) is to share and discuss research in its early stages with colleagues. It's not just pre-print; it's generally pre-entire-publication-process. It's not supposed to be the final version.

(Confusingly, there's also a thing called "ahead-of-print", when a research article is published on the journal website after it's passed peer review but before it's been officially assigned to an issue of the journal. That's completely different.)

*This doesn't mean SciHub. It usually means university websites. At least in the UK, the Author's Accepted Manuscript of most articles should be placed in the author's university repository. This is called Green Open Access. You can search these via core dot ac dot uk.

[nutralytics]

Welcome to the cutting-edge ed-tech platform founded by our two esteemed nutrition, pharmacology, and toxicology experts. Our team consists of doctorate and post-doctorate tutors who offer a variety of online nutrition, dietetics, and other healthcare domain courses. These professionals have experience working in academia and industry in leading institutions in India and abroad.

Our Services:

Comprehensive Nutrition Courses

Basics of Nutrition: “Basics of Nutrition” involves learning about the importance of nutrition and diet in healthy life. It also covers the overview of macronutrients, micronutrients, and how they affect our health. Advanced Functional Nutrition: Know the importance of nutrition in chronic disease management, improving gut health, and overall wellness optimization.

Specialized Functional Nutrition Courses

Disease-Specific Nutrition: Customized courses focusing on nutritional strategies for managing specific health conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and obesity. Sports Nutrition: Learn about the nutritional needs of athletes at different stages, including pre-event meal planning during competition periods, to enhance performance in their chosen sport.

Research Methodologies Courses for Students

Research Design and Analysis: Understand how to develop strong research questions; collect data and perform statistical analysis through various methods such as interviews/questionnaires; analyze gathered information statistically using software like SPSS, etc. Scientific Writing and Publication: Gain skills in writing high-quality scientific papers, successful grant proposals, and navigating the publication process, including peer review. AI involvement in the research process - Learn more about artificial intelligence tools used during different phases involved in carrying out a study, i.e., the planning stage, all through the implementation part until the evaluation phase, where findings are generated for decision-making purposes within organizations concerned with health care delivery systems worldwide.

Our website was created to meet the requirements for students and professionals seeking knowledge advancement opportunities related to nutritional sciences or any other field related to this discipline. You can join us if you want to move your career a notch higher, learn more about conducting successful research, and, most importantly, make significant contributions to improving health standards worldwide through nutrition-related interventions. https://nutralytics.org/

[write-my-thesis4u]

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN SUBMITTING YOUR MANUSCRIPT FOR ACADEMIC PUBLICATION

Submission of a research manuscript for academic publication is an exciting milestone in your academic journey, but it may also be a daunting task for first-time authors. A seasoned researcher or a graduate student just starting their academic journey, it is equally important to know what lies ahead. In an academic paper, sometimes publishing could be very rigorous, multiple step processes which would require much attention and patience for readiness to feed. Here is a step-by-step guide that should help navigate the process for the manuscript submission to academics when submitted for publication.

Pre-Submission: Most Suitable Journal Selection

The first major move in this process is always through the journal selection. Always remember, this is considered your point of no return because it defines visibility and possible success of a paper. Start by researching journals that publish work in your field and match the scope of your research. Consider the journal’s audience, impact factor, and open access policies. Before submission, carefully review the journal’s submission guidelines. Every journal has specific formatting rules, referencing styles, and submission procedures. Failure to follow these instructions can result in instant rejection, so be careful about the details of each point.

2.The Submission Process: Uploading Your Manuscript

Once you have selected the appropriate journal to which you would like to submit your article the second step is submitting an article. Most academic journals rely on an online submission mechanism. The process of depositing your manuscript is well-represented with online facilities that clearly track every process, so you might understand what eventually goes wrong. Few things you are expected to provide to the portal in this stage- End. -A cover letter explaining the reason behind your research, why this would be a good fit for this journal, and anything of relevance regarding potential conflicts of interest. -A list of proposed reviewers, sometimes optional as experts in your field. In addition to submitting your paper, meet any special demands of the journal relating to the submission of raw data, supplementary materials or document demonstrating ethical approval form, when this involves human participants.

Editorial preliminary check: First look

When your manuscript has been submitted, it then passes an editorial preliminary check. The journal editor will determine whether your paper satisfies the scope of the journal and whether the quality standards that should be met by the journal. At this stage of the process, the editor will again scan for plagiarism by making use of software tools like Turnitin or iThenticate. In the case that your paper passes the editorial review, it will be sent on for peer review. If not your paper may be rejected in whole or asked to go through revisions before resubmission.

This stage doesn't include detailed feedback. All that the editor is deciding on is whether your research fits in the journal and if it meets basic ethical and technical standards.

4.Peer Review: The Heart of the Process

If your paper meets the editorial review, it will be sent to peer reviewers-thus, usually 2 to 3 experts in your subject area. Peer review is a very important part of academic publishing. Reviewers will scrutinize the originality, the methodology used, results and overall significance of your research work. They will also comment if the paper is well presented and structured, thus, clear and coherent.

Expect some criticisms. Your peer reviewers will most probably suggest you make some big revisions, ask for some data that you may not have provided, or indicate some mistakes in your analysis. This is not an attack on your person but a call to refine the work done. Always be ready to accept comments, even those questioning your premises or inferences.

While peer review may take a few weeks to even several months, it is worth the wait. It can be used to perfect the manuscript, and thereby reinforce your arguments.

Revisions: Engaging Feedback and Resubmission

Peer reviewing will return reviewer comments with editor's decision. Generally speaking, the outcome is divided into three types at this stage.

Minor Revisions with Acceptance: This means that the paper is generally acceptable to the journal, but some reviewers have some minor changes for correction.

Major Revisions: The paper needs major revisions, such as more experiments, clarifications, or rewriting of certain parts.

Rejection: The paper is not publishable, either because of methodological problems, lack of novelty, or poor quality.

If your paper is accepted with minor or major revisions, you’ll be asked to address each reviewer comment systematically. When resubmitting, you’ll need to submit a revision letter that outlines how you’ve addressed their concerns. This can be a time-consuming process, but it’s essential to respond to each point thoroughly and professionally.

6.Final Decision: Acceptance or Rejection

Once you have submitted your revisions, the editor and reviewers will determine whether the changes you made were sufficient. If your paper is accepted, you will be informed that it is ready for final formatting and publication. You may also be asked to review the proofs before the article is published.

However, if your paper is rejected, do not get discouraged. Rejection is a normal part of academic publishing, and many researchers face it multiple times before achieving publication. Use the feedback from reviewers as a learning tool to improve your research and manuscript. If the feedback is positive, consider submitting the paper to another journal.

7.Publication: Your Research Goes Public

Once your paper is accepted, the final steps involve proofing and formatting. You’ll receive a proof of your paper to review and confirm that no errors were made during the typesetting. Once finalized, your article will be published, either online or in a print issue, depending on the journal’s policy.

Many journals also offer the chance for open access, making your paper accessible to absolutely everyone. This can significantly maximize the reach of your paper and the impact of your research.

Conclusion

Getting your manuscript published is a long and winding path in academia that requires persistence, watchfulness, and a willingness to learn. Although the process may be long and even difficult, the satisfaction that one feels when seeing his or her work in print is very worthwhile. Knowing the stages that are involved in submission, peer review, and revisions will make one confident in navigating this process for the advancement of knowledge in the field.

For any research assistance reach out to us on our Whatsapp: https://wa.me/+918217879258

[artfella]

Every now and then I enjoy data diving and this graph is amazing!

I'm not saying it's right or wrong only that it is astounding to see such variations and it peaked my curiosity. I wanted to see if I could find more information on the subject.

I went to the original creators page, however; I couldn't find any resources or links other then "Source: Housing and Urban Development".

I went to the Housing and Urban Development government user's portal (HUDUser.gov) to see if I could find more info. The closest I could find (via a search) relating to this was this article:

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/trends_hsg_costs_85-2005.pdf

Which provides a lot of information on trends for home owners and renters. I was able to find, within the article, this:

Which compared household incomes to rental costs. According to the chart "Monthly housing costs" (which appears to combine all costs in the chart) was between ~24% (1985) and ~26% (2005) of an individuals total income.

I struggled finding any further information on the site and thought I'd see if I could find a site that performed a similar research comparison.

Real Estate Witch

The closest I could find was data taken from an article by realestatewitch.com whom did an in-depth dive on this. They are a website that emphasizes transparency in rental/real estate. Richr backs them and I could find no major glaringly negative reviews about them.

Percentage Change of Income, Rent and Inflation

They have a similar graph and populate it by the percentage change (from 1985) for "Median Rent Price", "Income" and "Inflation".

Per witch, on their data:

For a measure of historical nationwide income, we use the St. Louis FRED’s Real Median Income measure. For historical nationwide rent prices, we use the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Median Household Income measure, which dates back to 2009. For median rent values dating before 2009, we use the St. Louis FRED’s CPI Rent Index to approximate rent values back to 1985.

---

NOTE: It looks like rent values were not readily available pre 2009 so approximation data was used prior to this date (based on rent index's at the time)

This isn't exactly a comparison (to the original video) though as this merely states, for each of these three, what has their percentage increase been since 1985. It shows that the three have steadily increased since this time at a comparative rate. It does clearly show a more linear rise for rent and inflation though compared to income.

Percentage Change of Rent Vs Income

Their article also compares rent versus income to determine the percentage change between each of them during this time frame. They do come to the conclusion that rent prices, compared to income is far more stable (and has been outpacing inflation by 40% since 1985.) Income instability comes from a fluctuating economy and seems more prone to those swings:

According to this graph it looks like , for at least the last two years, rent has easily outpaced income (in percentage point changes at least).

Reliability?

Please note that while they mention their sources they too did not readily list links in their research articles (similar to the video above).

They go more into depth and also supply areas around the country for price examples. have a look:

Final note

Do keep in mind that data can always be laid out to fit a narrative.

I'm not saying either is correct; I merely wanted to see what data I could uncover. Both do point towards the whole "everything feels so G** D*** expensive." narrative as being relatively accurate.

I was really hoping to find a peer reviewed research paper on it but was not easily able to.

If you want to know why people have lost faith in capitalism, this might help

[plagiarismturnitinreport]

Check Your Plagiarism : Verify Manuscripts Pre-Pubmed Submission

Submitting a manuscript to PubMed or any reputable journal demands the highest level of originality and authenticity. Plagiarismreport.org ensures your manuscript meets these stringent standards by providing comprehensive plagiarism reports within just 20 minutes. This quick turnaround ensures you can resolve any issues before submission deadlines.

At a highly affordable price per page, this service is designed to make professional plagiarism checks accessible to researchers, students, and academicians globally. Visit www.plagiarismreport.org to explore how this service can safeguard your intellectual integrity.

Verify Originality With Plagiarism Checks

Plagiarismreport.org specializes in scanning manuscripts to identify overlaps with existing content. Whether it’s accidental duplication or unintentional similarities, their tools provide a detailed breakdown of your manuscript’s originality. The service supports researchers aiming for publication in PubMed and other elite platforms by ensuring compliance with strict anti-plagiarism standards.

Through a user-friendly interface, you can upload your manuscript and receive a quick, reliable report within 20 minutes, empowering you to address issues proactively. Say goodbye to the stress of last-minute plagiarism surprises.

Confirm Manuscript Uniqueness Before PubMed

Publishing in PubMed is a milestone in any researcher’s career. However, plagiarism issues can derail this journey. Plagiarismreport.org enables researchers to verify the uniqueness of their manuscripts before submission.

Their advanced plagiarism detection technology identifies copied or paraphrased content, offering a transparent, line-by-line comparison with existing sources. This comprehensive check ensures that your manuscript meets PubMed’s stringent originality criteria, increasing your chances of acceptance and protecting your reputation.

Check For Plagiarism To Secure Acceptance

Manuscripts submitted with even minor plagiarism issues face rejection, delaying your research’s impact. Plagiarismreport.org’s rapid and affordable service helps you secure acceptance by identifying and eliminating duplications before submission.

With results available within 20 minutes, this service is perfect for tight deadlines. Whether you are submitting a research paper, thesis, or grant proposal, Plagiarismreport.org ensures that your work stands out for its authenticity.

Don’t let plagiarism jeopardize your hard work — protect your manuscript with their reliable and fast service.

Protect Work’s Integrity Using Tools

In the age of digital information, protecting your intellectual property is more important than ever. Plagiarismreport.org provides the tools you need to ensure your manuscript’s integrity is intact. Their cutting-edge algorithms scan millions of sources, including journal databases and websites, to detect similarities.

Using their services, you’ll gain peace of mind knowing that your content’s originality is verified and protected. For researchers, professors, and students, this is an invaluable step to ensure that credit goes where it’s due.

Avoid Issues By Verifying Content

Unverified manuscripts are prone to plagiarism issues that could tarnish your academic credibility. Plagiarismreport.org offers a cost-effective way to verify content before submission. Their detailed reports not only highlight potential issues but also suggest where corrections are needed.

By addressing these concerns early, you can avoid delays and negative feedback from reviewers. Whether you’re publishing in PubMed or other journals, this proactive step ensures smooth acceptance and reflects professionalism in your research process.

Authenticate Your Manuscript Before Review

Peer reviewers expect originality. To ensure your manuscript meets this expectation, use Plagiarismreport.org’s services. Their plagiarism checks provide a detailed account of duplicate content, citations, and areas needing revision.

By authenticating your manuscript before it reaches reviewers, you demonstrate your commitment to integrity and professionalism. With reports delivered in just 20 minutes, Plagiarismreport.org supports researchers in building trust with publishers and reviewers alike.

Maintain Integrity With Careful Checks

The integrity of your manuscript directly impacts your reputation as a researcher. Plagiarismreport.org offers careful and precise plagiarism checks to help you uphold these standards. Their service identifies overlaps, improper citations, and paraphrasing errors that could be flagged during the review process.

Maintaining manuscript integrity is not just about avoiding plagiarism — it’s about showcasing the originality and value of your research. Let Plagiarismreport.org’s expertise guide you toward successful submissions.

/media/77dca67fe65bacff60b0e66f8681a265

FAQs

1. What makes Plagiarismreport.org different from other plagiarism checkers?

Plagiarismreport.org stands out for its quick turnaround, delivering detailed reports within just 20 minutes. Unlike generic tools, it is tailored for researchers, focusing on academic and scientific manuscripts, particularly those destined for PubMed. With low prices per page and reliable, comprehensive checks, it’s ideal for ensuring originality in tight timelines. For more details, visit www.plagiarismreport.org and experience a seamless, researcher-friendly service that prioritizes accuracy and affordability.

2. How does the 20-minute turnaround work?

Plagiarismreport.org’s efficient system allows users to upload their manuscripts via a user-friendly portal. Once uploaded, advanced algorithms scan the content against an extensive database of journals, academic papers, and online content. Within 20 minutes, a detailed plagiarism report is delivered, highlighting potential matches, overlaps, and areas needing revision. This speed is perfect for urgent submission deadlines. Start your check today at www.plagiarismreport.org.

3. Are the plagiarism reports detailed and easy to understand?

Yes, Plagiarismreport.org provides clear and detailed reports, including percentages of unique and plagiarized content, matched sources, and highlighted sections. The reports are designed to be user-friendly, enabling authors to identify and address problematic areas quickly. For researchers preparing for PubMed submission, these reports are invaluable for ensuring compliance with originality standards. Visit www.plagiarismreport.org for affordable, high-quality reports.

4. Is the service affordable for students and researchers?

Absolutely! Plagiarismreport.org offers one of the lowest prices per page, making professional plagiarism checks accessible for students, researchers, and academicians on a budget. Despite the affordable pricing, the quality of the reports remains unmatched. Whether you’re working on a thesis, dissertation, or research article, this service delivers maximum value without breaking the bank. Learn more about pricing at www.plagiarismreport.org.

5. Can I use this service for non-scientific manuscripts?

Yes! While Plagiarismreport.org specializes in academic and scientific manuscripts, it is also effective for non-scientific content such as essays, reports, and business documents. The tool’s advanced algorithms ensure comprehensive plagiarism detection across diverse content types, helping writers, businesses, and students maintain originality. Visit www.plagiarismreport.org to explore services tailored to your needs.

Conclusion

Plagiarismreport.org is a game-changer for researchers and writers seeking fast, affordable, and reliable plagiarism checks. By delivering detailed reports within 20 minutes, it ensures your manuscript’s integrity before submission, boosting your chances of acceptance in prestigious journals like PubMed. Whether you’re a student, academic, or professional, this service offers a proactive solution to safeguard your intellectual property. Visit www.plagiarismreport.org today and protect your work’s originality. Avoid last-minute surprises and ensure success in your publishing journey.

Like, Share, and Subscribe to the Check Your Plagiarism YouTube Channel!

Stay ahead in academics and content creation with expert tips, tutorials, and insights on plagiarism detection. Discover how to maintain originality, avoid AI-generated content issues, and get accurate reports in just 20 minutes! Our channel offers valuable guidance for students, researchers, and professionals alike. Don’t miss out on essential updates and proven strategies to keep your work 100% original. For more information, visit www.plagiarismreport.org.

[alya-smith]

The Benefits of Open Source in ERC20 Token Development

The Ethereum blockchain has become the foundation for countless decentralized applications and projects, with ERC20 tokens emerging as the standard for fungible tokens. A key driver of this ecosystem's growth is the open-source nature of Ethereum’s framework. In the world of ERC20 token development, open-source technology plays a pivotal role in innovation, accessibility, and security.

This blog delves into the benefits of open-source technology in ERC20 token development and why it is crucial for developers and businesses alike.

1. Transparency and Trust

Open-source technology promotes transparency, a cornerstone of blockchain technology. The code underlying the ERC20 standard is publicly available, enabling developers, auditors, and users to review it.

Auditable Code: Developers can identify potential vulnerabilities in smart contracts, ensuring the integrity of the token.

Community Validation: The open nature of the code fosters trust among users, as they can verify its security and compliance with standards.

This level of openness builds confidence among token holders and project stakeholders, reducing skepticism and increasing adoption.

2. Cost-Effective Development

For developers and startups, building an ERC20 token from scratch can be expensive and time-consuming. Open-source resources simplify this process significantly:

Pre-Built Templates: Many open-source libraries and templates for ERC20 token development exist, such as OpenZeppelin. These provide ready-to-use smart contract frameworks, reducing development time.

No Licensing Fees: Open-source frameworks eliminate the need for expensive proprietary licenses, allowing projects to allocate resources elsewhere.

By leveraging open-source tools, even small teams can create sophisticated ERC20 tokens without excessive overhead costs.

3. Innovation through Collaboration

One of the most significant benefits of open source is the collaborative environment it fosters. Developers worldwide contribute to improving the ERC20 standard and associated tools.

Global Contributions: A diverse pool of developers continuously enhances open-source projects, fixing bugs and adding features.

Customizability: Developers can modify and adapt the code to suit specific project requirements, enabling unique token functionalities.

This collaborative ecosystem accelerates innovation, ensuring ERC20 tokens evolve to meet new demands in decentralized finance (DeFi) and beyond.

4. Enhanced Security

Security is paramount in blockchain development and open-source code significantly enhances it:

Peer Review: Since open-source codes are public, they are debugged by developers from all over the world, minimizing times attacks can exploit important vulnerabilities.

Battle-Tested Standards: The most popular and well-liked token standard to be implemented across the Ethereum blockchain is the ERC20 token standard and this token standard is already well-tested and utilized across various use cases.

This will enable developers to stand on existing and reliable foundations rather than creating new smart contracts from scratch which greatly reduces the risk of deploying untested smart contracts.

5. Interoperability and Standardization

ERC20 tokens can utilize open source frameworks since they are built with compliance to certain standards that are compatible with most products within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Seamless Integration: Wallets, decentralized exchanges and many other applications that run on the blockchain usually are designed to support ERC20 tokens as they have a well defined and structured form.

Broader Ecosystem Support: Open-source tools increase compatibility with the other blockchain protocols within the entire ecosystem.

This standardization makes development more efficient and also improves the use of ERC20 tokens in different fields.

6. Rapid Problem Resolution

If we consider blockchain as a separate industry and space, it is not without its unique challenges and potential loopholes. Open source ensures:

Quick Updates: Global developers continue to keep track and fix various threats that are being embraced by open-source projects.

Community Support: Open-source frameworks have environments, reports, and customer support, so any problems can be solved promptly.

The increased cautiousness of the market participants collectively decreases the overall ERC20 implementation failure rate and improves the dependability of both tokens and applications that rely on them.

Conclusion

Flexible and open-source development of ERC20 tokens is a brilliant announcement for the blockchain industry. We state that it decentralizes token generation, encourages innovation, makes it secure, and allows for agile solutions. Thus, both businesses and developers get a unique opportunity to save on the means of implementation while ensuring the efficiency of blockchain adoption throughout various industries.

Whether you are a developer venturing into the release of your first token, or a business, considering a solution involving blockchain, the notion of being open source is the initial key to success in the ERC20 token market.