Several disciplines, such as economics, law, and political science, emphasize the importance of legislative quality, namely well-written legislation. Low-quality legislation cannot be easily implemented because the texts create interpretation problems. To measure the quality of legal texts, we use information from the syntactic and lexical features of their language and apply these measures to a dataset of European Union legislation that contains detailed information on its transposition and decision-making process. We find that syntactic complexity and vagueness are negatively related to member states’ compliance with legislation. The finding on vagueness is robust to controlling for member states’ preferences, administrative resources, length of texts, and discretion. However, the results for syntactic complexity are less robust.

In recent issues of the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions, Holzer and colleagues presented an Expert Consensus Document titled: “PICS / AEPC / APPCS / CSANZ / SCAI / SOLACI: Expert consensus statement on cardiac catheterization for pediatric patients and adults with congenital heart disease.” This Expert Consensus Document is a massively important contribution to the community of paediatric and congenital cardiac care. This document was developed as an Expert Consensus Document by the Pediatric and Congenital Interventional Cardiovascular Society, the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology, the Asia-Pacific Pediatric Cardiac Society, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Latin American Society of Interventional Cardiology, as well as the Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia Society and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

As perfectly stated in the Preamble of this Expert Consensus Document, “This expert consensus document is intended to inform practitioners, payors, hospital administrators and other parties as to the opinion of the aforementioned societies about best practices for cardiac catheterisation and transcatheter management of paediatric and adult patients with congenital heart disease, with added accommodations for resource-limited environments.” And, the fact that the authorship of this Expert Consensus Document includes global representation is notable, commendable, and important.

This Expert Consensus Document has the potential to fill an important gap for this patient population. National guideline documents for specific aspects of interventions in patients with paediatric heart disease, including training guidelines, do exist. However, this current Expert Consensus Document authored by Holzer and colleagues provides truly globally applicable standards on cardiac catheterisation for both paediatric patients and adults with congenital heart disease (CHD).

Our current Editorial provides different regional perspectives from senior physicians dedicated to paediatric and congenital cardiac care who are practicing in Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Latin America, Australia/New Zealand, and North America. Establishing worldwide standards for cardiac catheterisation laboratories for children and adults with CHD is a significant stride towards improving the quality and consistency of care. These standards should not only reflect the current state of medical knowledge but should also be adaptable to future advancements, ultimately fostering better outcomes and enhancing the lives of individuals affected by CHD worldwide.

Ensuring that these standards are accessible and adaptable across different healthcare settings globally is a critical step. Given the variability in resources and infrastructure globally, the need exists for flexibility and tailoring to implement recommendations.

The potential impact of the Expert Consensus Document and its recommendations is likely significant, but heterogeneity of healthcare systems will pose continuing challenges on healthcare professionals. Indeed, this heterogeneity of healthcare systems will challenge healthcare professionals to finally close the gap between acceptable and ideal in the catheterisation of patients with paediatric and/or congenital heart disease.

The true characterization of elite germplasm is of utmost importance for accelerating the crop breeding programme. The Indian dolichos bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) var. typicus Prain] has the potential to improve nutritional and food security. In the present investigation, a total of 21 genotypes of dolichos bean, comprising local collections mainly, along with one standard check (Kashi Sheetal) were evaluated in a complete randomized block design with three replications for two consecutive years, 2021–22 to 2022–23 for the perusal of the genetic variability. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences among all the genotypes for all the characters. PCV and GCV estimates revealed very little influence of environment on the expression of traits under study. High heritability (>90%) estimates coupled with high genetic advance as a percent of the mean were observed for flower attributes, pod length, average weight of 10 pods, pod yield and protein content. The principal component analysis revealed that the first two components cumulatively accounted for more than 50% of total variability. The present investigation revealed that the genotypes, RLBDL-S-8, RLBDL-S-14 and RLBDL-S-4-5 were stable across the years and genotype RLBDL-S-8 exhibited the highest yield potential, which can be used effectively in the development of high yielding varieties of dolichos bean in the Bundelkhand region. The study also revealed the presence of wide genetic variability in the studied local accessions which is a prerequisite for the genetic improvement of crop plants. High heritability and genetic advancement indicated the scope of selection in the crop improvement.

According to decades of research, whether negotiations succeed depends on how much of the stake each person will get. Yet, real-world stakes often consist of resources that vary on quality, not just quantity. While it may appear obvious that people should reject qualitatively inferior offers, just as they reject quantitatively unequal offers, it is less clear why. Across three incentive-compatible studies (N = 1,303) using the ultimatum game, we evaluate three possible reasons for why people reject qualitatively unequal negotiation offers (that are 50% of the stake): fairness, mere inequality, or badness. Data across the three studies are consistent with the fairness account. Casting doubt on the possibility that people reject qualitatively unequal offers merely because they are ‘bad’, Studies 1 and 2 found that participants were more likely to reject the same coins when these were inferior (e.g., 200 × 5¢ coins) to the negotiation partner’s coins (e.g., 5 × $2 coins) than when both parties received the same undesirable coins (e.g., both received 200 × 5¢ coins). Supporting a fairness explanation, rejection rates of the qualitatively inferior offer were higher when the proposal came from a human (vs. a computer), suggesting that rejection stemmed in part from a desire to punish the negotiation partner for unfair treatment (Study 3). Nevertheless, some participants still rejected the unequal offer from a computer, suggesting that mere inequality matters as well. In sum, the findings highlight that quality, not just quantity, is important for attaining fair negotiation outcomes.