Repeat victimization has been widely studied from the perspective of environmental criminology for several decades. During this period, criminologists have identified a set of repeat victimization premises that are observed for many crimes; however, it is unknown whether these premises are also valid for cybercrime. In this study we rely on more than 9 million Zone-H data records from 2010 to 2017 to test whether these premises apply for the cybercrime of website defacement. We show that the phenomenon of repeat victimization is also observed in defaced cyber places (i.e. websites). In particular, we found that repeats contributed little to crime rates, that repeats occurred even several years after the original incident, that they were committed disproportionately by prolific offenders, and that few offenders returned to victimize previous targets. The results suggest that some traditional premises of repeat victimization may also be valid for understanding cybercrime events such as website defacement, implying that environmental criminology theories also constitute a useful framework for cybercrime analysis. The implications of these results in terms of criminological theory, cybercrime prevention, and the limitations derived from the use of Zone-H data are discussed
From the article: Abstract Sub-chronic toxicity studies of 163 non-genotoxic chemicals were evaluated in order to predict the tumour outcome of 24-month rat carcinogenicity studies obtained from the EFSA and ToxRef databases. Hundred eleven of the 148 chemicals that did not induce putative preneoplastic lesions in the sub-chronic study also did not induce tumours in the carcinogenicity study (True Negatives). Cellular hypertrophy appeared to be an unreliable predictor of carcinogenicity. The negative predictivity, the measure of the compounds evaluated that did not show any putative preneoplastic lesion in de sub-chronic studies and were negative in the carcinogenicity studies, was 75%, whereas the sensitivity, a measure of the sub-chronic study to predict a positive carcinogenicity outcome was only 5%. The specificity, the accuracy of the sub-chronic study to correctly identify non-carcinogens was 90%. When the chemicals which induced tumours generally considered not relevant for humans (33 out of 37 False Negatives) are classified as True Negatives, the negative predictivity amounts to 97%. Overall, the results of this retrospective study support the concept that chemicals showing no histopathological risk factors for neoplasia in a sub-chronic study in rats may be considered non-carcinogenic and do not require further testing in a carcinogenicity study.
Background: In their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance of avoiding overstatement of claims. We wanted to see to what extent editorial handling and peer review affects self-acknowledgment of limitations and hedging of claims.Methods: Using software that automatically detects limitation-acknowledging sentences and calculates the level of hedging in sentences, we compared the submitted manuscripts and their ultimate publications of all randomized trials published in 2015 in 27 BioMed Central (BMC) journals and BMJ Open. We used mixed linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of manuscript-publication pairs within journals, to quantify before-after changes in the mean numbers of limitation-acknowledging sentences, in the probability that a manuscript with zero self-acknowledged limitations ended up as a publication with at least one and in hedging scores.Results: Four hundred forty-six manuscript-publication pairs were analyzed. The median number of manuscripts per journal was 10.5 (interquartile range 6-18). The average number of distinct limitation sentences increased by 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76), from 2.48 in manuscripts to 3.87 in publications. Two hundred two manuscripts (45.3%) did not mention any limitations. Sixty-three (31%, 95% CI 25-38) of these mentioned at least one after peer review. Changes in mean hedging scores were negligible.Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that editorial handling and peer review lead to more self-acknowledgment of study limitations, but not to changes in linguistic nuance.
