Ensuring people affected by initiatives (including research, education and international development) are involved in shaping how they are done is essential to ensure that what is being done (including what is being researched) is aligned with the priorities of those affected. This includes ensuring that access to knowledge generated from the initiative is universal (open access), according to the UN Convention of Human Rights. Meanwhile, ‘citizen science’ and participatory action research are blurring the lines between concepts such as ‘researcher’, ‘public’, ‘patient’ and ‘citizen’. For example, those researching global air pollution are not limited to distinct disciplines such as ‘public health’, ‘environment’ or ‘education’, with everyone affected, including researchers. The importance of involving people in initiatives by sharing power is clear, but evidence-informed methods of doing this are lacking.Creating an evidence base to inform the most effective ways of sharing power when designing, doing and evaluating initiatives is essential in order to ensure efficient, effective and equitable ways of working for the benefit of all.Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) is designed to create a standard way to share information about who was involved in an initiative (who did which tasks), what was done, what was learned and any impacts which occurred. It is designed to be flexible, so it can be easily adapted to be useful across all disciplines, including health, environment, basic science, policy and international development. STARDIT reports will be shared open access (in the public domain), using machine readable linked-data.STARDIT is being co-created in a collaborative way, with anyone in the world invited to be a part of shaping the development. All information about it will be shared for free under a Creative Commons licence. The project is currently being hosted by the WikiJournals on Wikimedia Foundation servers. The co-creation process is being supported pro-bono by the charity ‘Science for All’.

Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients and public) in jointly identifying and agreeing priority research questions. There were three stages (i) An initial online survey consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure they had not been answered by existing research. (ii) An interim stage, which involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist.. (iii) A face-to-face consensus meeting, where key stakeholder representatives agreed an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results 456 respondents yielded 2,431 answers to six open ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the steering group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting, in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The Top 10 of these is reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was “What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?” The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

An English translation of the oldest and most important early Christian non‐canonical writings. It is based on the earlier collection edited in 1924 by Montague Rhodes James. The book is divided into the conventional categories of gospels, acts, epistles, and revelatory texts. A long subsection deals with stories of Jesus’ infancy and childhood. Another section deals with fragmentary gospel texts on papyrus. The bulk of the book is given over to second‐century legends of individual apostles. Another section covers apocryphal acpocalypses. An appendix gives a selection of stories about the Virgin Mary's assumption and dormition. Each translated text is prefaced with an introduction and select bibliography. Full indexes of citations and themes are provided.

No abstract

No abstract