Pathogen vs. predator: ranavirus exposure dampens tadpole responses to perceived predation risk.

There is increasing interest in how animals respond to multiple stressors, including potential synergistic or antagonistic interaction between pathogens and perceived predation risk (PPR). For prey that exhibit phenotypic plasticity, it is unclear whether infection and PPR affect behaviour and morphology independently, or in an antagonistic or synergistic manner. Using a 2 × 2 factorial experiment involving green frog (Lithobates clamitans) tadpoles exposed to ranavirus (FV3) and larval dragonflies (Anax spp.), we assessed whether anti-predator responses were affected by infection. We found that activity and feeding were reduced additively by both stressors. Body mass of tadpoles from FV3-exposed tanks was lighter relative to control and PPR-only tanks, while metabolism was comparable across treatments. We found that FV3 exposure compromised morphometric responses to PPR in an antagonistic manner: tadpoles exposed to both treatments had restricted changes in tail depth compared to those receiving singular treatment. We conclude that multiple stressors can have complex and substantive effects on organisms, and that interactions between stressors may yield a range of responses depending on the level of exposure and sensitivity of the organism. Additional work should more fully determine mechanisms underlying the complex interplay between infection and predation risk, across a range of environmental conditions.

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for.