Coincident with the global rise in concern about the spread of misinformation on social media, there has been influx of behavioral research on so-called “fake news” (fabricated or false news headlines that are presented as if legitimate) and other forms of misinformation. These studies often present participants with news content that varies on relevant dimensions (e.g., true v. false, politically consistent v. inconsistent, etc.) and ask participants to make judgments (e.g., accuracy) or choices (e.g., whether they would share it on social media). This guide is intended to help researchers navigate the unique challenges that come with this type of research. Principle among these issues is that the nature of news content that is being spread on social media (whether it is false, misleading, or true) is a moving target that reflects current affairs in the context of interest. Steps are required if one wishes to present stimuli that allow generalization from the study to the real-world phenomenon of online misinformation. Furthermore, the selection of content to include can be highly consequential for the study’s outcome, and researcher biases can easily result in biases in a stimulus set. As such, we advocate for pretesting materials and, to this end, report our own pretest of 224 recent true and false news headlines, both relating to U.S. political issues and the COVID-19 pandemic. These headlines may be of use in the short term, but, more importantly, the pretest is intended to serve as an example of best practices in a quickly evolving area of research.

A common claim is that people vary not just in what they think, but how they think. In fact, there are a large number of scales that have been developed to ostensibly measure thinking styles. These measures share a lot of conceptual overlap and, in particular, most purport to index some aspect of the disposition to think more analytically and effortfully rather than relying more on intuitions and gut feelings. To address this issue, we gave a sample of 774 participants a subset of 90 items from 15 scales and narrowed the list of items down to 50 by isolating items that were meaningfully correlated with the Cognitive Reflection Test, a behavioral measure of individual differences in analytic thinking. Then, across six studies with 1149 participants, we systematically narrowed down the items and tested the underlying factor structure. This revealed that a four-factor correlated structure was best: Actively Open-minded Thinking, Close-Minded Thinking, Preference for Intuitive Thinking, and Preference for Effortful Thinking. Predictive validity for the resulting 24-item (6 items per sub-scale) Comprehensive Thinking Style Questionnaire (CTSQ) was established using a set of cognitive ability measures as well as several outcome measures (e.g., epistemically suspect beliefs, bullshit receptivity, empathy, moral judgments, among others), with some subscales having stronger predictive validity for some outcomes but not others. The CTSQ helps alleviate the jangle fallacy in thinking styles research and allows for the assessment of separate aspects thinking styles in a single comprehensive measure.

The genes corresponding to the L11, L1, L10, and L12 equivalent ribosomal proteins (L11e, L1e, L10e, and L12e) of Escherichia coli have been cloned and sequenced from two widely divergent species of archaebacteria, Halobacterium cutirubrum and Sulfolobus solfataricus, and the L10 and four different L12 genes have been cloned and sequenced from the eucaryote Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Alignments between the deduced amino acid sequences of these proteins and to other available homologous proteins of eubacteria and eucaryotes have been made. The data suggest that the archaebacteria are a distinct coherent phylogenetic group. Alignment of the proline-rich L11e proteins reveals that the N-terminal region, believed to be responsible for interaction with release factor 1, is the most highly conserved region and that there is specific conservation of most of the proline residues, which may be important in maintaining the highly elongated structure of the molecule. Although L11 is the most highly methylated protein in the E. coli ribosome, the sites of methylation are not conserved in the archaebacterial L11e proteins. The L1e proteins of eubacteria and archaebacteria show two regions of very high similarity near the center and the carboxy termini of the proteins. The L10e proteins of all kingdoms are colinear and contain approximately three fourths of an L12e protein fused to their carboxy terminus, although much of this fusion has been lost in the truncated eubacterial protein. The archaebacterial and eucaryotic L12e proteins are colinear, whereas the eubacterial protein has suffered a rearrangement through what appear to be gene fusion events. Within the L12e derived region of the L10e proteins there exists a repeated module of 26 amino acids, present in two copies in eucaryotes, three in archaebacteria, and one in eubacteria. This modular sequence is apparently also present in the L12e proteins of all kingdoms and may play a role in L12e dimerization, L10e-L12e complex formation, and the function of the L10e-L12e complex in translation.

The budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae contains a family of genes that encodes four different but related small acidic ribosomal proteins designated L12eIA, L12eIB, L12eIIA, and L12eIIB and a single larger protein designated LlOe. These proteins are equivalent (e) to the L12 and L10 proteins of Escherichia coli that assemble as a 4:1 complex onto the large ribosomal subunit. The five yeast genes (or their cDNAs) have been cloned and sequenced (M. Remacha, M. T. Saenz-Robles, M. D. Vilella, and J. P. G. Ballesta, J. Biol. Chem. 263:9044-9101, 1988; K. Mitsui and K. Tsurugi, Nucleic Acids Res. 16:3573, 3574, and 3575, 1988; this work). Here, the transcripts of these genes were characterized and quantitated and the proteins they encode were compared and aligned. Four of the genes, L12eIA, -IB, -11A, and L10e, are uninterrupted, whereas the L12eIIB gene contains a 301-nucleotide-long intron between codons 38 and 39. The transcripts derived from each of these genes were analyzed by Northern (RNA) hybridization, primer extension, and Si nuclease protection. All five genes are expressed, albeit at different levels. The transcript levels are coordinate and exhibit growth rate-dependent regulation in rich (glucose) and poor (ethanol) media. The five yeast proteins each contain a highly conserved acidic carboxy terminus of about 20 residues in length. This domain of unknown function is also present in archaebacterial but absent from eubacterial LlOe and L12e proteins. Comparisons of the factor-binding domains in the yeast and other eucaryotic and archaebacterial L12e proteins indicate that the original duplication to produce the type I and II genes was a very ancient event. The evolutionary relationships between the eucaryotic, archaebacterial, and eubacterial LlOe and L12e genes (and proteins) are discussed.Ribosomes are subcellular particles that are responsible for translation of nucleotide sequence information carried on the mRNA into the amino acid sequence of protein. The large ribosome subunit contains a distinct and universally conserved stalk structure that is involved in factor binding and associated GTPase activities during the protein synthesis cycle (10). In the eubacterium Escherichia coli, the stalk consists of a 4:1 complex of proteins L12 and L10, respectively, in loose association with a 23S rRNA-binding protein, Lii. The multicopy L12 protein is an alanine-rich acidic protein with a molecular weight of 12,178; a portion of the L12 protein found in the ribosome is acetylated at the amino-terminal serine residue.Proteins functionally equivalent to the E. coli L12 and L10 proteins (here designated L12e and LlOe) have been characterized from a variety of archaebacterial and eucaryotic sources, and a number of complete amino acid sequences are available (1-3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 31, 33; reviewed in references 21 and 28). These archaebacterial and eucaryotic L12e sequences can be easily aligned over their entire length. In contrast, the eubacterial L12e sequence is noticeably differe...

THE HEALTH CARE TEAM CHALLENGE TM : DEVELOPING AN INTERNATIONAL INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH COLLABORATIONInterprofessional education (IPE) to improve and increase interprofessional collaborative practice (IPC) has been documented for over 50 years in Canada, but it is within the last 15 years that it has gained attention in research, education and practice contexts. IPE is defined as two or more professions that learn with from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care (Caipe 2002). Early drivers for a renewed interest in IPE and IPC derive from an emerging interest in new health service delivery models such as integrated care clinics and primary health care and IPE and IPC have taken centre stage nationally and globally. Research evidence is emerging (Baker, 2010) which demonstrates the value of IPC in areas such as harm reduction, reduced length of stay, sustainable health outcomes, and staff recruitment and retention. Most education programs are starting to embed IPE in their entry-level curricula and increasing attention to continuing professional develop is emerging.The barriers and curricular challenges remain. Entry-level curricula are crammed and lack the flexibility and nimbleness required to identify common learning times; student clinical placements across the professions are not aligned and make it difficult to locate interprofessional groups of students in any given practice setting; faculty and preceptor development for interprofessional teaching is rarely highlighted; student value of IPE is weakened when IPE is not mainstreamed in curricula; human, financial and space resources are stretched and IPE often falls to the lower priority levels. A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3Other documented barriers include professional regulatory requirements, non-existent institutional policies that allow sharing of course credits across programs or universities, lack of senior management/ administrative commitment, poor understanding of other professions and separate professional languages (Moran et al, 2007).In reality we have a conundrum. In response to the emerging evidence that collaborative practice among health care providers does improve quality of care and patient outcomes, IPE is viewed as an essential educational process aimed at developing interprofessional collaborative practice capabilities (Barr and Ross, 2006;Baker, 2010). Government agencies, academic accrediting councils, health professions organizations and the literature stress the need for IPE (Baker, 2010), yet evidencedbased suggestions as to how this should be accomplished are only slowly emerging.Innovative interprofessional learning opportunities are needed to ensure that students actively participate (Moran et al, 2007). Yet currently the literature lacks strategies that foster collaborative learning among professions that are versatile and easy to implement locally and internationally. implementing IPE programs will occur that encourages students to engage in collaborative p...