Regression analysis is a widely used statistical technique to build a model from a set of data on two or more variables. Linear regression is based on linear correlation, and assumes that change in one variable is accompanied by a proportional change in another variable. Simple linear regression, or bivariate regression, is used for predicting the value of one variable from another variable (predictor); however, multiple linear regression, which enables us to analyse more than one predictor or variable, is more commonly used. This paper explains both simple and multiple linear regressions illustrated with an example of analysis and also discusses some common errors in presenting the results of regression, including inappropriate titles, causal language, inappropriate conclusions, and misinterpretation.

Aim: To assess ethical issues in everyday clinical practice among physicians and nurses of the University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia. Subjects and methods: We surveyed the entire population of internal medicine, oncology and intensive care specialists and associated nurses employed at the University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia (n = 532). An anonymous questionnaire was used to explore the type and frequency of ethical dilemmas, rank of their difficulty, access to and use of ethics support services, training in ethics and confidence about knowledge in ethics. Physicians (n = 113, 55% of them female) ranged in age from 27 to 61 years, and nurses (n = 251, 95% female), from 20 to 52. Results: The most frequent ethical dilemmas concerned uncertain or impaired decision-making capacity (66% of physicians, 47% of nurses, p = 0.008), limitation of treatment at the end of life (60% of physicians, 31% of nurses, p<0.001) and disagreements among family members (47% of physicians, 31% of nurses, p = 0.025). The most difficult dilemmas concerned euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (49% of physicians, 52% of nurses) and limitation of treatment at the end of life (14% of physicians, 18% of nurses). Only a minority reported ever using any kind of ethics support services (12% of physicians, 3% of nurses, p = 0.001) or being very confident about knowledge in ethics (5% of physicians, 6% of nurses). Conclusions: Similar ethical difficulties are present in the clinical practice of both physicians and nurses, with important differences in access and use of ethics support services. A need for systematic ethics educational activities was identified. Inclusion of individual ethics consultants in Croatian healthcare ethics support services is strongly advised.

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists’ engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists’ attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists’ attitudes and their open science practices.