Introduction: Ascorbic acid (AA) is present as a vitamin and neuromodulator in most part of the mammalian brain, especially in nucleus accumbens shell (Acbsh), which is one of the important areas controlling motor activity and anxiety. This study evaluates the effect of injection of AA and its co-administration with bromocriptin (Br) in Acbsh on motor activity and anxiety of rats by Open Field test.Methods: Forty nine adult male Wistar rats (220-270 g) were allocated into 7 groups: control (intact), sham AA (normal saline injected as AA vehicle), 3 groups of AA (12, 24 and 48 mg/rat/side), AA plus Br (AA 24 mg/rat/side and Br 25 mg/rat/side), sham AA plus Br. Drugs were injected (volume=1 mL) once, and duration of the test was 5 minutes.Results: Intra-accumbance injection of AA increased locomotor activity and decreased anxiety. Co-administration of AA and Br resulted in less motor activity and attenuation of Br-induced anxiety.Conclusion: Our results support the previous findings which introduced AA as an effective factor in regulation of locomotor activity and anxiety in Acbsh, that may be mediated by D2 receptors.

After offering an overview of some of the main themes of Popper’s political thought, the paper argues that his account faces two problems relating to institutions. The first is that while Popper stresses the ‘rational unity of mankind’, and the potential for any of us to furnish criticisms of public policy, it is not clear what institutional means currently exist for this to enable this to take place. Second, Popper has stressed the conjectural character of even our best theories. However, at any point, some theories will have fared better in the face of criticism than others, and they may give us important information about constraints on our actions. At the same time, as ordinary citizens we may not be in a good position to understand the theories in question, let alone appraise the state of the specialised discussion of them. There is, it is suggested, a case for thinking of ways to institutionally entrench such fallible theories, especially in the current setting in which social media play an important role

Purpose: Analyzing social networks of open innovation field for drawing the intellectual and conceptual structure of this field. Methodology: This research is applied research that has been done by academic social network analysis. In this research, 2099 documents of open innovation field that published between 2003-2018 in Web of Science were analyzed. We use CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer for analyzing data. Findings: The number of studies in open innovation represents a sharp increase since 2014. Subjects and concepts that relate to open innovation have not been changed dramatically. Ten important journals received 20% of citations, and 14% of all citations pertain only to 10 articles. Common theoretical background categorized in 4 clusters and contemporary research streams categorized in 5 major clusters. The US has published the most documents in this field, and Iran is the 46th country with only five documents. Conclustion: Open innovation paradigm has been applied in many areas and according to its role in wellbeing, economic growth, environmental improvement, and etc. more attention to this field is needed. Purposeful research and collaboration with other countries are necessary.

The knowledge related to the methodology of the field trial study as a type of intervention studies, yet for many of our researchers is not fully understood. The aim of the current study was a better understanding of conducting this type of research. Field trial studies are done on healthy individuals and aim to prevent. These types of studies such as clinical trials are performed on both individual and collective levels. One type of these studies is Community Intervention Trial which is usually done on a large scale population. Field trial study should be carried out in stages, such as the formulation of hypotheses, selection of the population (reference population, study population, and sampling), measuring the baseline variables (before conducting preventive intervention), random allocation of subjects to intervention and control groups, doing interventions and measuring outcome. The methodology of field trial studies is very similar to clinical trials. The difference is that field trials are conducted on healthy individuals and aim to prevent and also the sample size required to this type of study is relatively more, and these studies are usually time consuming and costly.