Project description:Tailings facility failures represent a significant risk to the environment and communities globally, but until now little data was available on the global distribution of risks and characteristics of facilities to ensure proper governance. We conducted a survey and compiled a database with information on tailings facilities disclosed by extractive companies at the request of institutional investors. Despite limitations in the data, this information disclosure request represents the most comprehensive survey of tailings facilities ever undertaken. The compiled dataset includes 1743 tailings facilities and provides insights into a range of topics including construction method, stability, consequence of failure, stored volume, and the rate of uptake of alternative technologies to dewater tailings and reduce geotechnical risk. Our analysis reveals that 10 per cent of tailings facilities reported notable stability concerns or failure to be confirmed or certified as stable at some point in their history, with distinct trends according to construction method, governance, age, height, volume and seismic hazard. Controversy has surrounded the safety of tailings facilities, most notably upstream facilities, for many years but in the absence of definitive empirical data differentiating the risks of different facility types, upstream facilities have continued to be used widely by the industry and a consensus has emerged that upstream facilities can theoretically be built safely under the right circumstances. Our findings reveal that in practice active upstream facilities report a higher incidence of stability issues (18.3%) than other facility types, and that this elevated risk persists even when these facilities are built in high governance settings. In-pit/natural landform and dry-stack facilities report lower incidence of stability issues, though the rate of stability issues is significant by engineering standards (> 2 per cent) across all construction methods, highlighting the universal importance of careful facility management and governance. The insights reported here can assist the global governance of tailings facility stability risks.
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether editorial policies designed to eliminate gratuitous authorship (globally referred to as authorship limitation policies), including author contribution disclosures and/or numeric restrictions, have significantly affected authorship trends during a 20-year period.MethodsWe used a custom PERL-based algorithm to extract data, including number of authors, publication date, and article subtype, from articles published from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 2006, in 16 medical journals (8 with explicit authorship guidelines restricting authorship and 8 without formal authorship policies), comprising 307,190 articles. Trends in the mean number of authors per article, sorted by journal type, article subtype, and presence of authorship limitations, were determined using Sen's slope analysis and compared using analysis of variance and matched-pair analysis. Trend data were compared among the journals that had implemented 1 or both of these formal restrictive authorship policies and those that had not in order to determine their effect on authorship over time.ResultsThe number of authors per article has been increasing among all journals at a mean ± SD rate of 0.076±0.057 authors per article per year. No significant differences in authorship rate were observed between journals with and without authorship limits before enforcement (F=1.097; P=.30). After enforcement, no significant change in authorship rates was observed (matched pair: F=0.425; P=.79).ConclusionImplementation of authorship limitation policies does not slow the trend of increasing numbers of authors per article over time.
Project description:This Article contains errors in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 7, for which we apologize. In Fig. 3, panel 'b', the 0.5 hour time point after Ku55933 treatment images were inadvertently replaced with duplicates of the 3 hour time point after Ku55933 treatment images in Fig. 3b. Additionally, in panel 'b', the 0.5 hour time point after Nu7026 treatment images were inadvertently replaced with duplicates of the 180 min time point after siMDC1 treatment images in Fig. 3d. In Fig. 4, panel 'g', RNF168 foci in U2OS cell images were inadvertently replaced with duplicates of RNF168 foci in HeLa cell images in Fig. 4f. In Fig. 7, panel 'b', the DAPI images 0.5 hours after IR under siID3 treatment were inadvertently replaced with DAPI images of a different field of view from the same experiment. Additionally, in panel 'i', the shID3 mock-treated GFP-ID3 cells image was inadvertently replace with duplications of the shID3 mock-treated GFP-ID3 cells image in Fig. 7g.