Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Concept Videos

Improving Translational Accuracy02:07

Improving Translational Accuracy

Base complementarity between the three base pairs of mRNA codon and the tRNA anticodon is not a failsafe mechanism. Inaccuracies can range from a single mismatch to no correct base pairing at all. The free energy difference between the correct and nearly correct base pairs can be as small as 3 kcal/ mol. With complementarity being the only proofreading step, the estimated error frequency would be one wrong amino acid in every 100 amino acids incorporated. However, error frequencies observed in...
Improving Translational Accuracy02:07

Improving Translational Accuracy

Base complementarity between the three base pairs of mRNA codon and the tRNA anticodon is not a failsafe mechanism. Inaccuracies can range from a single mismatch to no correct base pairing at all. The free energy difference between the correct and nearly correct base pairs can be as small as 3 kcal/ mol. With complementarity being the only proofreading step, the estimated error frequency would be one wrong amino acid in every 100 amino acids incorporated. However, error frequencies observed in...
Proofreading01:43

Proofreading

Overview
Feedback Inhibition00:46

Feedback Inhibition

Biochemical reactions are occurring constantly in cells, converting starting substances to different products, usually with the help of enzymes that speed the reactions. Without enzymes, it would take far too long for most reactions to occur to be useful to the cell!
Altruism01:03

Altruism

Altruistic behaviors are “unselfish” behaviors—those that help another individual at the expense of the individual carrying out the behavior. Despite the negative consequences for the altruistic animal, these behaviors are thought to have evolved for several reasons.
Competition02:34

Competition

When organisms require the same limited resources within an environment, they may have to compete for them. Competition is a net-negative interaction. Even if two competing individuals or populations do not interact directly, the overall fitness of both competitors is lowered as a result of not having full access to the limited resource.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A genome-wide meta-analysis identifies a sex-specific genetic effect for platelet aggregation in response to agonists.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2026
Same author

Unearthing soil biodiversity through collaborative genomic research and education.

Nature genetics·2025
Same author

Mediation of Polygenic Asthma Risk Through Gene Expression.

Allergy·2025
Same author

Insights into the Datasets, Tools, and Training Needs of the AnVIL Community: 2024.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2025
Same author

Prediction and characterization of genetically regulated expression of asthma tissues from African-ancestry populations.

The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology·2025
Same author

Open Case Studies: Statistics and Data Science Education through Real-World Applications.

Journal of statistics and data science education : an official journal of the of the American Statistical Association·2025
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 27, 2026

Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research Using Biological Standards: The Example of Platelet Agonist Collagen-Related Peptide
04:50

Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research Using Biological Standards: The Example of Platelet Agonist Collagen-Related Peptide

Published on: August 4, 2023

Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.

Jeffrey T Leek1, Margaret A Taub, Fernando J Pineda

  • 1Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America. jleek@jhsph.edu

Plos One
|November 19, 2011
PubMed
Summary

Open peer review encourages scientists to cooperate, leading to more accurate scientific assessments. This cooperative approach in peer review can reduce the likelihood of errors in scientific evaluations.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 27, 2026

Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research Using Biological Standards: The Example of Platelet Agonist Collagen-Related Peptide
04:50

Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research Using Biological Standards: The Example of Platelet Agonist Collagen-Related Peptide

Published on: August 4, 2023

Area of Science:

  • Scientific communication
  • Research integrity
  • Scholarly publishing

Background:

  • Peer review is essential for scientific publication, grant funding, and academic advancement.
  • It relies on unbiased cooperation among scientists within a community.
  • Current peer review systems face challenges in maintaining optimal cooperation and accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of open versus closed peer review on cooperation and accuracy.
  • To determine if transparency in peer review influences reviewer behavior and outcomes.
  • To assess the relationship between cooperation and reviewing accuracy.

Main Methods:

  • A laboratory study using an online game simulating peer review processes.
  • Comparison of reviewer behavior and outcomes under open and closed review conditions.
  • Quantification of cooperation levels and reviewing accuracy rates.

Main Results:

  • Open peer review, where reviewer behavior is public, significantly increased cooperative interactions by 13% (P = 0.018).
  • Cooperative interactions between referees and authors were associated with an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016).
  • Transparency in the peer review process was linked to enhanced collaboration and precision.

Conclusions:

  • Increasing cooperation within the peer review system can be achieved through transparent practices.
  • Open peer review models may foster greater collaboration among scientists.
  • Enhanced cooperation in peer review can mitigate the risk of errors in scientific evaluations.