If you have additional questions, please contact us by e-mail, phone, or in person:

phdcareers@uab.edu

205-975-7020

Office of Postdoctoral Education
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Shelby Building 171
Birmingham, AL 35294


Jami Armbrester

Associate Director Career & Professional Development
Office of Postdoctoral Education
Shelby Building 171A   205.934.6809
936 Building   205.934.4324
JamiA@uab.edu


 

 

UAB Research News

  • Hallucinogens use could protect against intimate partner violence
    Hallucinogen research gains traction, suggests class of substance could be therapeutic for problem behaviors, including intimate partner violence.

    Evidence in a study led by researchers at the University of British Columbia along with University of Alabama at BirminghamSchool of Public Health Associate Professor Peter S. Hendricks, Ph.D., suggests hallucinogens such as psilocybin or LSD may have therapeutic potential for reducing intimate partner violence, or IPV.

    Hendricks says the identification of risk and protective factors for IPV is an important goal for public health research.

    “A body of evidence suggests that substances such as psilocybin may have a range of clinical indications,” he said. “Although we’re attempting to better understand how or why these substances may be beneficial, one explanation is that they can transform people’s lives by providing profoundly meaningful spiritual experiences that highlight what matters most. Often, people are struck by the realization that behaving with compassion and kindness toward others is high on the list of what matters.”

    The study looked at 302 men ages 17-40 in the criminal justice system. Of the 56 percent of participants who reported using hallucinogens, only 27 percent were arrested for later IPV as opposed to 42 percent of the group who reported no hallucinogen use being arrested for IPV within seven years.

    From the 1950s through the early 1970s, thousands of studies reported on the medical use of hallucinogens, mostly LSD. Due to the classification of the most prominent hallucinogens as Schedule I controlled substances in 1970, research on health benefits was suspended, causing many of these studies to be forgotten. However, research with hallucinogens has experienced a rebirth.

    “Recent studies have shown that psilocybin and related compounds could revolutionize the mental health field,” Hendricks said. “However, additional research is needed. This study suggests that hallucinogens could be a useful avenue for reducing IPV, meaning this topic deserves further attention.”

  • Fixing published research mistakes not easy; fixing the publishing system may be harder
    Articles in peer-reviewed research journals sometimes have mistakes, and a UAB study shows the process to correct such mistakes is flawed.

    A commentary published today in Nature suggests that the process for fixing mistakes in peer-reviewed research articles is flawed. The article, written by scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, points out that journals are slow to respond and even slower to take action when questions regarding the accuracy of a published research paper are raised.

    The authors say that, in the course of assembling weekly lists of articles on obesity and nutrition, they began to notice more peer-reviewed articles containing what they refer to as ‘substantial or invalidating errors.’ “What was striking was how severe some of these errors were, involving mathematically impossible values, probabilities greater than one, weight loss results that, if true, would have required that adults had grown over 6 centimeters in height in two months, to name just a few,” said David B. Allison, Ph.D., leader of the research team and associate dean for Science in the UAB School of Public Health.

    “These errors involved factual mistakes or practices which veered substantially from clearly accepted procedures in ways that, if corrected, might alter a paper’s conclusions,” said Andrew Brown, Ph.D., a scientist in the UAB School of Public Health and co-author of the commentary. “In several cases, our noting these errors led to retractions of the papers containing them.”

    Brown says the team attempted to address more than 25 of these errors with letters to authors or journals. Their efforts revealed invalidating practices that occur repeatedly and showed how journals and authors react when faced with mistakes that need correction.

    “We learned that post-publication peer review is not consistent, smooth or rapid,” Allison said. “Many journal editors and staff seemed unprepared to investigate, take action or even respond. Too often, the process spiraled through layers of ineffective emails among authors, editors and unidentified journal representatives, often without any public statement’s being added to the original article.”

    During the informal 18-month review of literature, the authors found a number of recurring problems:

    • Editors are often unprepared or reluctant to take speedy and appropriate action
    • Where to send expressions of concern is unclear
    • Journal staff who acknowledged invalidating errors were reluctant to issue retractions or even timely expressions of concern
    • Some journals may charge fees to authors who report the issues to correct others’ mistakes (more than $1,000)
    • No standard mechanism exists to request raw data for review to confirm the errors
    • Concerns expressed through online forums are easily overlooked and are not connected in a way to be found by readers of the article in question
    The authors observed that there is little formal guidance for post-publication corrections. They recommend that journals should standardize their submission and peer-review processes, establish clear protocols to address expressions of concern, and waive publication fees associated with those expressions of concern.

    The authors observed that there is little formal guidance for post-publication corrections. They recommend that journals should standardize their submission and peer-review processes, establish clear protocols to address expressions of concern, and waive publication fees associated with those expressions of concern.

    Further suggestions include creating an environment to address readers’ concerns rapidly and provide clear information on how and to whom such concerns should be addressed.

    “We also think it is very important to create an understanding that such expressions of concern are not a condemnation of the work, but should be viewed as an alert that the work is undergoing further scrutiny,” said co-author Kathryn A. Kaiser, Ph.D.

    Additional recommendations suggest journals and statistical experts should work together to identify common statistical mistakes and that authors and journals should be prepared to share data and analysis code quickly when questions arise.

    The authors noted common statistical errors in many of the studies, including mistaken design or analysis of cluster randomized trials, miscalculation in meta-analyses, and inappropriate baseline comparisons.

    The authors acknowledge that their work did not constitute a formal survey and suggest that a more formal, systematic survey is needed to establish whether their experiences are representative of science in general.

    “Ideally, anyone who detects a potential problem with a study will engage, whether by writing to authors and editors or by commenting online, and will do so in a collegial way,” Brown said. “Scientists who engage in post-publication review often do so out of a sense of duty to their community, but this important work does not come with the same prestige as other scientific endeavors.”

    “Robust science needs robust corrections,” Allison added. “It is time to make the process less onerous.”

    Co-authors of the commentary are Brown, Allison, Kaiser and Brandon J. George, Ph.D., of the UAB School of Public Health.

More Items

Scientific America: Doing Good Science