Hipparchus’ Didactic Journey: Poetry, Prose, and Catalogue Form in the Commentary on Aratus and Eudoxus

Purpose – A considerable body of literature has evolved on the topic of appropriate research methodology for cross-national data collection. Additionally, prior commentaries on cross-national research in the marketing have cited significant deficiencies in this body of research in terms of the theoretical foundations, methods, and analytical techniques used. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize guidelines for conducting cross-national research in marketing and assess the degree to which these rules are being followed. Design/methodology/approach – The literature on cross-national research methods in marketing studies is first reviewed to identify key issues and methodological guidelines. A content analysis of cross-national studies appearing in 10 major journals in the marketing and advertising field for the period from 2005 to 2010 is conducted to assess whether the guidelines for researchers are being followed. The chapter also explores whether recent research is addressing key deficiencies identified by prior commentaries on this body of research. Findings –Results are indicative of some promising trends. A wider range of theory bases, methodological techniques, and analytical techniques are being used in cross-national marketing studies. Additionally, methodological guidelines for conceptualizing studies, including following appropriate procedures to ensure equivalence and verifying the existence of cultural differences, are being followed at a higher rate than in the past. Still, some studies do not follow accepted guidelines, and there is a need for a wider range of theory bases and methods to be used. Research limitations/implications – The study examines only cross-national studies published in 10 journals over a recent six years (2005–2010). As a result, no direct comparison to earlier periods is made. Originality/value of paper – This chapter outlines key guidelines for conducting cross-national studies in marketing. It also calls attention to the need to follow these guidelines based on the trend toward a majority of studies complying with them. Finally, the chapter calls attention to the need for certain theory bases and methods to be used more frequently.

This response to the seven further engagement commentaries on my original article, ‘Beyond the Decolonial: Critical Muslim Geographies’ (Sidaway, 2023a) builds on ‘A Manifesto for Critical Muslim Geographies’ (Sidaway, 2023b) that responded to six prior commentaries. The manifesto advocated for four intellectual vectors: (1) drawing on the vast corpus of critical geography; (2) being informed by the rich field of Critical Muslim Studies; (3) minding and thinking with traditions of ilm (knowledge and learning) and; (4) giving voice to a committed and visible community of Muslim scholars in Geography. Reflecting here on the seven further engagements enables me to reaffirm and clarify positions and sources. My response begins, however, by revisiting the 1909 student strike at Al Azhar University (founded 970-972 CE/359-361 AH) in Cairo.

The degree to which organised crime groups extend their activities and influence into new geographic areas is a major concern for law enforcement officials and policymakers worldwide. Over the past decade, a number of researchers have conducted specialised studies and reviews of this phenomenon, and have offered a number of explanations of its underlying drivers. Recently, Morselli, Turcotte, and Tenti were commissioned by Public Safety Canada to prepare a report on this topic, The Mobility of Criminal Groups, which reviewed several case studies and prior commentaries and, based on an inductive (evidence-based) process, offered a conceptual framework for understanding how organised crime groups come to establish themselves (successfully or unsuccessfully) in places outside their area of origin. The current discussion article consists of a written response to Morselli et al.’s report, reflecting on their position in light of recent research on Vietnamese organised crime in the United Kingdom.

Open innovation is defined as an approach to innovation that encourages a broad range of participants to engage in the process of identifying, creating, and deploying novel products or services. It is open in the sense that there is little to no restriction on who can participate in the innovation process. Open innovation has attracted a substantial amount of research and widespread adoption by individuals and commercial, nonprofit, and government organizations. This is attributable to three main factors. First, open innovation does not restrict who can participate in the innovation process, which broadens the access to participants and expertise. Second, to realize participants’ ideas, open innovation harnesses the power of crowds who are normally users of the product or service, which enhances the quality of innovative output. Third, open innovation often leverages digital platforms as a supporting technology, which helps entities scale up their business. Recent years have witnessed a rise in the emergence of a number of digital platforms to support various open innovation activities. Some platforms achieve notable success in continuously generating innovations (e.g., InnoCentive.com, GitHub), while others fail or experience a mass exodus of participants (e.g., MyStarbucksIdea.com, Sidecar). Prior commentaries have conducted postmortems to diagnose the failures, identifying possible reasons, such as overcharging one side of the market, failing to develop trust with users, and inappropriate timing of market entry. At the root of these and other challenges that digital platforms face in open innovation is the issue of governance. In the article, governance is conceptualized as the structures determining how rigidly authority is exerted and who has authority to make decisions and craft rules for orchestrating key activities. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive framework for understanding governance as applied to open innovation that takes place on digital platforms. A governance perspective can lend insight on the structure of how open innovation activities on digital platforms are governed in creating and capturing value from these activities, attracting and matching participants with problems or solutions, and monitoring and controlling the innovation process. To unpack the mystery of open innovation governance, we propose a framework by synthesizing and integrating accreted knowledge from the platform governance literature that has been published in prominent journals over the past 10 years. Our framework is built around four key considerations for governance in open innovation: platform model (firm-owned, market, or community), innovation output ownership (platform-owned, pass-through, or shared), innovation engagement model (transactional, collaborative, or embedded), and nature of innovation output (idea or artifact). Further, we reveal promising research avenues on the governance of digital open innovation platforms.

This article continues from a prior commentary on evaluating the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials addressing nutritional interventions. Having provided a synopsis of the risk of bias issues,...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving rapidly from research into specialty clinical care. Otolaryngology (ENT), deeply reliant on imaging, endoscopy, and complex multimodal diagnostics, is positioned to benefit substantially, but faces unique barriers to real-world AI adoption. While prior commentaries have highlighted general obstacles such as data diversity, workflow integration, and explainability, this manuscript examines how these challenges manifest specifically in ENT subspecialties. Focusing on cochlear implant (CI) mapping, vestibular diagnostics, and voice/speech rehabilitation, we detail the distinctive workflow, regulatory, and medico-legal issues of AI in ENT. We provide a roadmap for closing the implementation gap, emphasizing the need for subspecialty-driven validation, tailored reporting standards, and collaborative governance. Ultimately, the responsible integration of AI in otolaryngology can serve as a model for translating advanced technologies into procedural, multidisciplinary fields.

With our prior Commentary we discussed the rivalry between ideation (humans) and mutations (viruses), (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8439168/), and more specifically, we described and compared two means of adaptability: collective and focused ideation for humans and self-serving mutation for viruses. The amazingly fast development of new effective and safe vaccines and drugs requires the humankind's most sophisticated form of ideation ability to respond to threatening stressors such as a dangerous virus like SARS-CoV-2. The essence of what makes us human is that human ideation requires a society of people working towards the same goal and is interdependent on socialization for the sustainability of humankind. In contrast, viruses mutate alone and "selfishly". The best fit virus for a particular environment, for a particular host, eliminates the competition through successive mutations. The Omicron variant of concern (VoC) is a great example for how higher transmissibility and perhaps, stochasticity, can drive the transmissive success of a virus across an entire host species like humans. With this review, we describe how Omicron has impacted the COVID-19 pandemic in an unanticipated way that could bring an end to it.

Commentary The article by Newton et al. addresses a timely and important question. It is important in that it compares a relatively new and relatively untested procedure, anterior vertebral tethering, with a long-established one, posterior fusion and instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis. It is timely in that many centers are very interested in this newer surgical procedure. It is also especially important in that it reports on outcomes at least 2 years postoperatively. The data, which are honestly reported in detail, are not favorable to vertebral tethering. Indeed, some of the data contradict portions of the authors’ earlier reports. The discussion of the results presents a more favorable interpretation than is deserved, an opinion noted by each reviewer prior to publication. Although the initial patient selection for tethering is not presented, the study group and the control group are well-matched as to severity and maturity. The tethering group achieved significantly less reduction of deformity and had more complications and revisions. The proposed advantages of tethering, progressive postoperative correction and maintenance of spinal motion, were not demonstrated. The lack of progressive correction with growth is unexpected and worthy of note. In a 2014 article, Samdani et al. reported significant gradual correction from 44° preoperatively to 20° immediately postoperatively and 13.5° at 2 years after vertebral tethering1. The frequency of breakage of the tethers, 52%, is alarming. It is alarming because it represents failure of the construct and especially because we do not know what will happen to the spine in the future. Will the untethered segment(s) allow continued progression, and will the patient have pain? It is also concerning because, in this study, with longer follow-up, the incidence of breakage of tethers has increased. I noted in a prior commentary that we simply do not have enough follow-up of this surgical procedure to promote wider usage, and this article by Newton et al. reinforces my conclusion2. For certain, we need development of a more durable, fatigue-resistant cable prior to generalized use. It is interesting that, although we should congratulate the authors for openly publishing these unfavorable results, we also have to be critical of some of their statements. Newton et al. state that they were able to prevent or delay posterior spinal fusion in a majority of patients. They note that 52% of patients were successful in having curves of <35° and 74% were successful in having curves of <50°. This is not good enough. We have to ask what did the patients gain in that transaction? They had more subsequent surgical procedures, more than half with broken tethers, and no demonstrated advantage in mobility. They paid a price in terms of greater residual spinal rotation and coronal deformity. Nine of 23 patients had a revision surgical procedure, with 3 patients who underwent spinal fusion and 3 patients who were scheduled to undergo spinal fusion. In their earlier work, Newton et al. and others showed proof of the concept that anterior tethering of vertebrae can alter spinal growth to correct deformity with continued growth. This an important finding and will certainly be of use in the future. To get a real benefit from the technology, we must perform studies that identify the circumstances of deformity and maturity in which the advantages of gradual correction and lack of fusion can be appreciated. Can we achieve gradual correction without overcorrection? Should this technique replace brace management of smaller curves in younger patients? Surely, we can come up with more fatigue-resistant cable materials, and continuing to use current models with >50% failure is not wise.

Tsong khapa (14th-century) is arguably the most important and influential philosopher in Tibetan history. An Ocean of Reasoning is the most extensive and perhaps the deepest extant commentary on Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way), and it can be argued that it is impossible to discuss Nagarjuna’s work in an informed way without consulting it. It discusses alternative readings of the text and prior commentaries and provides a detailed exegesis, constituting a systematic presentation of Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy. Despite its central importance, however, of Tsong khapa’s three most important texts, only An Ocean of Reasoning remains untranslated, perhaps because it is both philosophically and linguistically challenging, demanding a rare combination of abilities on the part of a translator. Jay Garfield and Ngawang Samten bring the requisite skills to this difficult task, combining between them expertise in Western and Indian philosophy, and fluency in Tibetan, Sanskrit, and English. The resulting translation of this important text will not only be a landmark contribution to the scholarship of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, but will serve as a valuable companion volume to Jay Garfield’s highly successful translation of The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.

Elaborating Montesquieu's concept of honor illuminates a dimension of his liberalism that has been neglected by prior commentary, and calls attention to a form of political motivation that has been overlooked in contemporary political theory. While honor avoids the anti-liberal tendencies of civic virtue, it can motivate, better than self-interest does, the extraordinary acts of courage and sacrifice sometimes needed to sustain individual liberties. Following a brief account of how it fits into Montesquieu's typology of regimes, three features of honor are elaborated: its high ambitions; its mix of reverence and reflexivity; and its partiality. The final section addresses the relationship between honor and liberal democracy, arguing that despite the tensions between them, liberal democracy needs honor in some form if it is to sustain itself over time.

In a recent commentary, Shapiro and colleagues1 provided their perspective on the strength of the evidence relating the time-dependent decrease in combined menopausal hormone therapy use to a decrease in...

Drs Li and Geskey have disclosed no financial relationship relevant to this commentary. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device.Investigators from multiple pediatric rheumatology centers conducted an international double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of tocilizumab (an anti-interleukin- 6 receptor antibody) for the treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).1 Patients were evaluated for response or flare according to JIA American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, in which a JIA ACR30 response means the patient had 30% or greater improvement in at least 3 of 6 parameters (number of joints with active arthritis, number of joints with limited range of motion, physician assessment of disease activity, patient assessment of well-being, physical function, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate), no more than 1 parameter worsening by 30%, and an absence of fever.At the end of 12 weeks significantly greater improvement was found in patients treated with tocilizumab, with 85% achieving JIA ACR30, 71% achieving JIA ACR70, and 37% achieving JIA ACR90 compared to 24%, 8%, and 5%, respectively, for the placebo arm (P < .001 for all). However, there were also more adverse events associated with tocilizumab than placebo including the development of more infections, moderate-to-severe neutropenia, and a transient increase in transaminases. The authors conclude that treatment with IL-6 inhibition is effective in severe, persistent JIA but the benefits of this treatment have to be weighed against the increased risks.A prior commentary in AAP Grand Rounds2 highlighted treatment recommendations based on existing evidence and consensus expert opinion, the first such recommendations published for a pediatric rheumatic disease.2 Options for treating systemic JIA have now been expanded by published reports of both tocilizumab and canakimumab, an anti-interleukin-1β monoclonal antibody.1,3 This is a remarkable advancement for pediatric rheumatology, especially considering the impressive response achieved with both agents. In the canakimumab trial, 84% of canakimumab-treated patients achieved JIA ACR30 at 15 days compared to 10% of placebo, and there was a lower rate of flare in these patients compared to placebo (26% vs 75%).3The results for the tocilizumab study are especially impressive because the studied patients were generally sicker than those in the canakinumab study, with longer disease duration (median >5 years), more active joints (>16), and greater numbers of patients having failed prior treatment with biologic agents and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half of these patients were able to discontinue glucocorticoids and 59% achieved JIA ACR90 after 52 weeks.Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were more common in the biologic treatment arms in both studies and included thrombocytopenia and neutropenia with canakimumab and neutropenia and elevated transaminases with tocilizumab. Infections were more common in the biologic arms but all of these resolved without sequelae. Although more study is needed to better assess the risk:benefit ratio of these treatments for systemic JIA, it is exciting to report increasing therapeutic options for patients suffering from an often life-altering condition such as systemic JIA.

An investigation of Australian and New Zealand hotel ownership

Defendants often deduct for income tax purposes their litigation-related costs, such as attorney fees and payments to settle claims or satisfy judgments. The result is often a large gap between the sticker price of settlements or judgments and their after-tax cost—what defendants really pay out of pocket. The problem: For every dollar that a defendant avoids in tax liability by, for example, deducting the damage awards it pays, the civil justice system falls that much short of its corrective-justice or optimal-deterrence goals in that case. For this reason, the entire civil justice system should care about this question: How should income tax law treat litigation-related costs? This Article identifies the critical tax-design choices that must be faced but that prior commentary has largely ignored: How to attribute litigation-related costs to an income-producing activity; whether to treat liability insurer payments made on a defendant’s behalf as income to that defendant; whether to coordinate the tax treatment of a payor’s damages payments with the tax treatment of those receipts to the payee; and whether litigation-related costs should be treated as capital expenditures. Then, the Article offers a new default rule for settlement agreements: Unless a settlement agreement expressly indicates otherwise, a settling defendant promises not to seek an allowable tax deduction for litigation-related costs. In so doing, this Article reveals the issues that lawyers, judges, and scholars must no longer ignore when they argue over how an income tax system could or should treat litigation-related costs.

It is controversial whether tube feeding in people with dementia improves nutritional status or prolongs survival. Guidelines published by several professional societies cite observational studies that have shown no benefit and conclude that tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia should be avoided. However, all studies on tube feeding in dementia have major methodological flaws that invalidate their findings. The present evidence is not sufficient to justify general guidelines. Patients with advanced dementia represent a very heterogeneous group, and evidence demonstrates that some patients with dementia benefit from tube feeding. However, presently available guidelines make a single recommendation against tube feeding for all patients. Clinicians, patients, and surrogates should be aware that the guidelines and prior commentary on this topic tend both to overestimate the strength of evidence for futility and to exaggerate the burdens of tube feeding. Shared decision making requires accurate information tailored to the individual patient's particular situation, not blanket guidelines based on flawed data. Lay Summary: Many doctors believe that tube feeding does not help people with advanced dementia. Scientific studies suggest that people with dementia who have feeding tubes do not live longer or gain weight compared with those who are carefully hand fed. However, these studies are not very helpful because of flaws in design, which are discussed in this article. Guidelines from professional societies make a blanket recommendation against feeding tubes for anyone with dementia, but an individual approach that takes each person's situation into account seems more appropriate. Patients and surrogates should be aware that the guidelines on this topic tend both to underestimate the benefit and exaggerate the burdens of tube feeding.