Go for Green® Nutrition Program: Translating Evidence Into Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Go for Green® (G4G) is an evidence-based, multi-component nutrition program for military dining facilities (DFAC) to improve nutritional fitness among Service Members. The program evolved from supporting "fueling" during initial Army training into a robust intervention across all U.S. Military branches. The current G4G program consists of eight program requirements to optimize the nutrition environment, including traffic light labeling, nutritious menus, choice architecture, food promotion, marketing, and staff training. The evolution of the G4G program, development of standardized program requirements, and lessons learned are described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The latest scientific evidence, best practices in health promotion and nutrition education, results and data from G4G implementation in the military community support the current version of G4G. Feedback and observations from program developers, military branch foodservice headquarters, installation leadership, and local G4G DFAC teams provided insight into implementation challenges, successes, facilitators, and barriers. RESULTS: The G4G program has evolved and expanded from its initial inception over 10 years ago to its current version. Research studies, nutrition science, and feedback from military community stakeholders have informed programmatic changes and improvements. CONCLUSIONS: G4G 2.0 is a robust, innovative, multi-component, performance nutrition program with clear program element requirements. Value was added to elevate the G4G program by setting program requirements, expanding program components, and establishing a centralized resource hub. Performance nutrition initiatives in local military DFAC for dining facilities, such as G4G 2.0, has great potential to impact the health and well-being of Service Members.

Nutrition Program Fidelity Assessment tool: a framework for optimising implementation in military dining facilities.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop, refine and assess the usefulness of the Go for Green® (G4G) 2.0 Program Fidelity Assessment (PFA) tool. G4G 2.0 is a Department of Defense programme designed to optimise access, availability and knowledge of high-performance nutritious foods in military dining facilities (DFAC). DESIGN: During a multi-site study to evaluate G4G 2.0 on meal quality and diner satisfaction, subject matter experts developed and refined a PFA tool based on eight programme requirements (PR). They identified tasks critical to programme success and corresponding benchmarks, then proposed expansion of several PR and developed a scoring system to assess adherence. Three PFA were conducted (Site 1, Site 2A and Site B). SETTING: Two DFAC in the USA implementing the G4G 2.0 programme. PARTICIPANTS: Military DFAC participating in a G4G 2.0 evaluation study. RESULTS: After G4G 2.0 implementation, Site 1 conducted a PFA and met benchmarks for eight of fifteen sections. At Site 2, a PFA was conducted after G4G 2.0 implementation (Site 2A) and one 3 months later (Site 2B) with twelve of fifteen and ten of fifteen sections meeting benchmarks, respectively. CONCLUSION: Research highlights the need to maximise implementation quality to ensure interventions are effective, achievable and efficient. Using a PFA tool to objectively assess nutrition interventions can inform programme fidelity, successes and opportunities for improvement. Results identify key areas that require additional training and resources to optimise access to nutrient-dense foods that support nutritional fitness. This feedback is critical for assessing potential programme impact on Service Members.

Ten considerations for open peer review.

Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.

Research Integrity and Peer Review-past highlights and future directions.

In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review, an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions.

Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central.

OBJECTIVES: To assess why articles are retracted from BioMed Central journals, whether retraction notices adhered to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and are becoming more frequent as a proportion of published articles. DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 134 retractions from January 2000 to December 2015. RESULTS: 134 retraction notices were published during this timeframe. Although they account for 0.07% of all articles published (190 514 excluding supplements, corrections, retractions and commissioned content), the rate of retraction is rising. COPE guidelines on retraction were adhered to in that an explicit reason for each retraction was given. However, some notices did not document who retracted the article (eight articles, 6%) and others were unclear whether the underlying cause was honest error or misconduct (15 articles, 11%). The largest proportion of notices was issued by the authors (47 articles, 35%). The majority of retractions were due to some form of misconduct (102 articles, 76%), that is, compromised peer review (44 articles, 33%), plagiarism (22 articles, 16%) and data falsification/fabrication (10 articles, 7%). Honest error accounted for 17 retractions (13%) of which 10 articles (7%) were published in error. The median number of days from publication to retraction was 337.5 days. CONCLUSIONS: The most common reason to retract was compromised peer review. However, the majority of these cases date to March 2015 and appear to be the result of a systematic attempt to manipulate peer review across several publishers. Retractions due to plagiarism account for the second largest category and may be reduced by screening manuscripts before publication although this is not guaranteed. Retractions due to problems with the data may be reduced by appropriate data sharing and deposition before publication. Adopting a checklist (linked to COPE guidelines) and templates for various classes of retraction notices would increase transparency of retraction notices in future.

Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys. SETTING: BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. SAMPLE: Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation. RESULTS: For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.

Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology was created from the merger of two journals within the BMC series published by BioMed Central: BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology. BMC Pharmacology operated anonymous peer review whereas BMC Clinical Pharmacology operated a fully open peer review policy where the identity of the reviewers was known to the editors, authors and readers. The merged journal also adopted a fully open peer review policy. Two years on we discuss the views and experiences of our Editorial Board Members towards open peer review on this biomedical journal.

Expression of concern: Subfunctionalization reduces the fitness cost of gene duplication in humans by buffering dosage imbalances.

After publication of this article (Fernandez et al., BMC Genomics 2011, 12:604) it was brought to the Editors' attention that the data generated by the first author, Ariel Fernandez, seemed anomalous. One of the author's institutions found that the data were not reproducible from the described methods, but an investigation by the author's other institution did not find the data or their interpretation suspicious. Given the conflicting conclusions of these investigations, the Editors advise the readers to interpret the data with due caution. We apologize to all affected parties.

A new era in sports science: the launch of BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.

This Editorial celebrates the launch of BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation within the BMC series of journals published by BioMed Central. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation incorporates the recently closed Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology (SMARTT) with an expanded scope and Editorial Board. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation will fill its own niche in the BMC series alongside other companion journals including BMC Physiology, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders and BMC Surgery.

Only connect: the merger of BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology.

This editorial celebrates the launch of BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology within the BMC series of journals published by BioMed Central. The scope of the journal is interdisciplinary encompassing toxicology, experimental and clinical pharmacology including clinical trials. In this editorial we discuss the origins of this new journal and the ethos and policies under which it will operate.

Electronic revolution in plant taxonomy.

This Editorial highlights recent changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the implications these changes have for electronic journals.

New horizons in Biophysics.

This editorial celebrates the re-launch of PMC Biophysics previously published by PhysMath Central, in its new format as BMC Biophysics published by BioMed Central with an expanded scope and Editorial Board. BMC Biophysics will fill its own niche in the BMC series alongside complementary companion journals including BMC Bioinformatics, BMC Medical Physics, BMC Structural Biology and BMC Systems Biology.

A 3-year randomized therapeutic trial of nitisinone in alkaptonuria.

Alkaptonuria is a rare, autosomal recessive disorder of tyrosine degradation due to deficiency of the third enzyme in the catabolic pathway. As a result, homogentisic acid (HGA) accumulates and is excreted in gram quantities in the urine, which turns dark upon alkalization. The first symptoms, occurring in early adulthood, involve a painful, progressively debilitating arthritis of the spine and large joints. Cardiac valvular disease and renal and prostate stones occur later. Previously suggested therapies have failed to show benefit, and management remains symptomatic. Nitisinone, a potent inhibitor of the second enzyme in the tyrosine catabolic pathway, is considered a potential therapy; proof-of-principle studies showed 95% reduction in urinary HGA. Based on those findings, a prospective, randomized clinical trial was initiated in 2005 to evaluate 40 patients over a 36-month period. The primary outcome parameter was hip total range of motion with measures of musculoskeletal function serving as secondary parameters. Biochemically, this study consistently demonstrated 95% reduction of HGA in urine and plasma over the course of 3 years. Clinically, primary and secondary parameters did not prove benefit from the medication. Side effects were infrequent. This trial illustrates the remarkable tolerability of nitisinone, its biochemical efficacy, and the need to investigate its use in younger individuals prior to development of debilitating arthritis.

GLK transcription factors regulate chloroplast development in a cell-autonomous manner.

In a number of land plants, Golden2-like (GLK) genes encode a pair of partially redundant nuclear transcription factors that are required for the expression of nuclear photosynthetic genes and for chloroplast development. As chloroplast biogenesis depends on close co-operation between the nuclear and plastid compartments, GLK gene function must be dependent on tight intracellular control. However, the extent to which GLK-mediated chloroplast development depends on intercellular communication is not known. Here we used sector analysis to show that GLK proteins operate cell-autonomously in leaf mesophyll cells. To establish whether GLK proteins are able to influence adjacent cell layers, we used tissue-specific promoters to restrict GLK gene expression to the epidermis and to the phloem. GLK genes driven by the Arabidopsis epidermal FIDDLEHEAD (FDH) and MERISTEM LAYER1 (AtML1) promoters failed to rescue the pale-green Atglk1 Atglk2 mutant phenotype, confirming the suggestion that GLK proteins can only influence chloroplast development intracellularly. An exception to this rule was seen in lines in which GLK genes were expressed in the phloem. However, we believe that the partial complementation of the mutant phenotype that was observed resulted from phloem unloading, as opposed to inherent properties of GLK proteins. We conclude that GLK proteins act in a cell-autonomous manner to coordinate and maintain the photosynthetic apparatus within individual cells. Significantly, this suggests that GLK proteins provide a means to fine-tune photosynthesis according to the differential requirements of cells within the leaf.

A conserved transcription factor mediates nuclear control of organelle biogenesis in anciently diverged land plants.

Land plant chloroplasts evolved from those found in the green algae. During land plant evolution, nuclear regulatory mechanisms have been modified to produce morphologically and functionally diverse chloroplasts in distinct developmental contexts. At least some of these mechanisms evolved independently in different plant lineages. In angiosperms, GOLDEN2-LIKE (GLK) transcription factors regulate the development of at least three chloroplast types. To determine whether GLK-mediated regulation of chloroplast development evolved within angiosperms or is a plesiomorphy within land plants, gene function was examined in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Gene expression patterns and loss-of-function mutant phenotypes suggested that GLK gene function is conserved between P. patens and Arabidopsis thaliana, species that diverged >400 million years ago. In support of this suggestion, moss genes partially complement Arabidopsis loss-of-function mutants. Therefore, GLK-mediated regulation of chloroplast development defines one of the most ancient conserved regulatory mechanisms identified in the plant kingdom.

Independent recruitment of a conserved developmental mechanism during leaf evolution.

Vascular plants evolved in the Middle to Late Silurian period, about 420 million years ago. The fossil record indicates that these primitive plants had branched stems with sporangia but no leaves. Leaf-like lateral outgrowths subsequently evolved on at least two independent occasions. In extant plants, these events are represented by microphyllous leaves in lycophytes (clubmosses, spikemosses and quillworts) and megaphyllous leaves in euphyllophytes (ferns, gymnosperms and angiosperms). Our current understanding of how leaves develop is restricted to processes that operate during megaphyll formation. Because microphylls and megaphylls evolved independently, different mechanisms might be required for leaf formation. Here we show that this is not so. Gene expression data from a microphyllous lycophyte, phylogenetic analyses, and a cross-species complementation experiment all show that a common developmental mechanism can underpin both microphyll and megaphyll formation. We propose that this mechanism might have operated originally in the context of primitive plant apices to facilitate bifurcation. Recruitment of this pathway to form leaves occurred independently and in parallel in different plant lineages.

Phylogenetic relationships among Strobilanthes s.l. (Acanthaceae): evidence from ITS nrDNA, trnL-F cpDNA, and morphology.

Chloroplast trnL-F sequence data, nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequence data, and morphology were used to analyze phylogenetic relationships among members of the subtribe Strobilanthinae. Parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses of trnL-F indicate that the Strobilanthinae are a monophyletic group. While parsimony analysis of ITS recovers a nonmonophyletic subtribe, maximum likelihood analysis of ITS corroborates results from trnL-F and suggests that systematic error is impacting on ITS parsimony analysis. A combined ITS and trnL-F analysis strengthens the signal and also recovers a monophyletic subtribe. All analyses indicate that Hemigraphis, Sericocalyx, and Strobilanthes are nonmonophyletic. With one exception, all morphological characters included in a combined ITS and morphological analysis are homoplastic. The prospect for a new informative generic classification of the Strobilanthinae aiming to recognize and diagnose only monophyletic groups is considered. While some groups can be diagnosed, adequate diagnosis of the majority of groups remains problematic. Consequently, a single expanded genus Strobilanthes sensu lato is proposed at the level of the well-supported and monophyletic Strobilanthinae.