RESUMO
Mormyroidea is a superfamily of weakly electric African fishes with great potential as a model in a variety of biomedical research areas including systems neuroscience, muscle cell and craniofacial development, ion channel biophysics, and flagellar/ciliary biology. However, they are currently difficult to breed in the laboratory setting, which is essential for any tractable model organism. As such, there is a need to better understand the reproductive biology of mormyroids to breed them more reliably in the laboratory to effectively use them as a biomedical research model. This review seeks to (1) briefly highlight the biomedically relevant phenotypes of mormyroids and (2) compile information about mormyroid reproduction including sex differences, breeding season, sexual maturity, gonads, gametes, and courtship/spawning behaviors. We also highlight areas of mormyroid reproductive biology that are currently unexplored and/or have the potential for further investigation that may provide insights into more successful mormyroid laboratory breeding methods.
Assuntos
Reprodução , Animais , Reprodução/fisiologia , Peixe Elétrico/fisiologia , Pesquisa Biomédica , Masculino , Feminino , Comportamento Sexual Animal/fisiologiaRESUMO
Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.