scholarly journals The RCCM 2009 Survey: Mapping Doctoral and Postdoctoral CAM Research in the United Kingdom

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Robinson ◽  
George Lewith
Keyword(s):  
Research Capacity ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Rigorous Research ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is widely available in the UK and used frequently by the public, but there is little high quality research to sustain its continued use and potential integration into the NHS. There is, therefore, a need to develop rigorous research in this area. One essential way forward is to train and develop more CAM researchers so that we can enhance academic capacity and provide the evidence upon which to base strategic healthcare decisions. This UK survey identified 80 research active postgraduates registered for MPhils/PhDs in 21 universities and were either current students or had completed their postgraduate degree during the recent UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2001–2008. The single largest postgraduate degree funder was the university where the students registered (26/80). Thirty-two projects involved randomized controlled trials and 33 used qualitative research methods. The UK RAE also indicates a significant growth of postdoctoral and tenured research activity over this period (in 2001 there were three full time equivalents; in 2008 there were 15.5) with a considerable improvement in research quality. This mapping exercise suggests that considerable effort is currently being invested in developing UK CAM research capacity and thus inform decision making in this area. However, in comparative international terms UK funding is very limited. As in the USA and Australia, a centralized and strategic approach by the National Institute of Health Research to this currently uncoordinated and underfunded activity may benefit CAM research in the UK.

scholarly journals The case for an ?Excellence in Scholarship for Australia? initiative

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Calver
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Education Sector ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Quality Research

Only those truly cryptozoic for all of 2010 could have missed the bustle and concern created by the Australian Commonwealth?s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative (http://www.arc.gov.au/era/default.htm). In common with other national research assessment exercises such as the RAE (UK) and PBRF (New Zealand), ERA is designed to assess research quality within the Australian higher education sector, identifying and rewarding those institutions and departments producing high-quality research. The linkages between achievement, recognition and reward have the potential to shape the research priorities and agendas of institutions and individual researchers.

scholarly journals The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Gregorius ◽  
Laura Dean ◽  
Donald C Cole ◽  
Imelda Bates
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Process Data ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Capacity Strengthening

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel’s understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

scholarly journals The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Gregorius ◽  
Laura Dean ◽  
Donald C Cole ◽  
Imelda Bates
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Process Data ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Capacity Strengthening

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness.Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria.Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel’s understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects.Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

Educating Students for E-Entrepreneurship in the UK, the USA and China

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Millman ◽  
Wang-Chan Wong ◽  
Zhengwei Li ◽  
Harry Matlay
Keyword(s):  
Entrepreneurship Education ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Rigorous Research ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Political Conditions ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

A growing body of research evaluates various aspects of entrepreneurship education (such as curriculum, delivery and assessment) and links it to outcomes in terms of both the number and quality of entrepreneurs entering an economy. There is, however, a marked paucity of empirically rigorous research appraising the impact of entrepreneurship education on graduates' intentions and perceived ability to set up Internet-based e-enterprises that can operate across temporal and geographical boundaries. This paper provides a comparative overview of entrepreneurship education in the UK, the USA and China with a focus on IT and non-IT students' e-entrepreneurship intentions, perceptions and outcomes. The research on which the paper is based was carried out in two distinct phases: first, focus groups were used to design, pilot and develop a comprehensive research questionnaire for use in a wider, multi-country survey; second, questionnaires were then distributed to students in IT and non-IT related disciplines in the UK, the USA and China. The preliminary results show that most respondents were slow to conceptualize and contextualize e-entrepreneurship in the prevailing socio-economic and political conditions of their countries of origin. There were no significant differences between students of IT and non-IT disciplines in their perceptions of the viability and practicality of engaging in e-entrepreneurship. Generic support initiatives appear to neglect the vast portfolio of skills needs for graduates engaging in Internet trading. The authors recommend that entrepreneurship education providers should engage with emergent models of e-entrepreneurship and that policy makers should provide innovative initiatives to cater for the specific needs of e-entrepreneurs.

Do online communities support research collaboration?

2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 603-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamid R. Jamali ◽  
Bill Russell ◽  
David Nicholas ◽  
Anthony Watkinson
Keyword(s):  
Online Communities ◽  
Online Community ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Online Research ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which academics are engaged with online communities for research purposes, and the research activities, platforms and tools associated with these communities. In addition, the paper aims to discover the benefits, disadvantages and barriers involved in the use of online communities, and especially in regard to the trust and authority issues, so important in scholarly communications. Design/methodology/approach – A layered, mixed-methods approach was used for this complex research topic. Interviews were undertaken with social science and humanities researchers, followed up with focus groups in both the USA and UK. This qualitative work was then followed up with an online questionnaire that generated over 1,000 responses. Findings – Over half the sample had experience of an online research community and a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one or more Web 2.0 services for communicating their research activity; for developing and sustaining networks and collaboration; or for finding out what others are doing. Big differences exist in membership rates according to subject, but not really by age or other demographic factors. The biggest benefit to joining an online community is the ability to seek information in one’s own specialism. Younger researchers are more engaged with online communities. Research limitations/implications – The qualitative research was limited to the UK and USA. While use of online communities is now accepted by both established and younger researchers, the main ways of communicating research remain scholarly journals and books. Practical implications – The implications for learned societies and publishers are not clear. Journals are confirmed as the primary way of disseminating research. However, it would be easy for these stakeholders to miss how younger researchers expect to connect in digital communities. Social implications – With researchers of all ages accepting the existing and importance of online communities and connections, there are few technical or social barriers to using mainstream digital tools to connect professionally. Originality/value – There is little published research considering the role of online research communities, so the study is highly original. It is valuable to discover that researchers still prefer to share research findings primarily through journals, rather than through social technologies.

scholarly journals An International Comparison of the Construction of the "Educational Research Quality/ Indicator Scheme"

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1&2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shen-Keng Yang
Keyword(s):  
Educational Research ◽  
International Comparison ◽  
Quality Indicator ◽  
Quality Standard ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Joint Research ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
Joint Research Project ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk

The proposed presentation will investigate deeply into the construction of  ”Educational Research Quality/ Indicator Scheme” in EU, OECD and in the USA, the UK, France, Germany, and Australia . Based on the results of one of the sub-projects of Integrated Joint Research Project financed by Science Council in Taiwan , this paper will focus on the process and construction of an “educational research quality standard/indicator scheme” through international comparison. The implications of the results of comparison for improving education research generally will be carefully examined with a view to developing a suitable "Educational Research Quality Standard/Indicator Scheme" for future use in assessing the input and output of research projects funded by governmental or non-governmental agencies.

Scoping review of existing funding sources for DCM research: opportunities and challenges for targeting the AO Spine RECODE-DCM research priorities (Preprint)

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Michael William Bestwick ◽  
Jye Quan Teh ◽  
Oliver Mowforth ◽  
Ben Grodzinski ◽  
Mark Kotter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spinal Cord ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Cord Compression ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Significant Research ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

BACKGROUND Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is a common, disabling condition of symptomatic cervical spinal cord compression that requires significant research advances to improve patient outcomes. AO Spine RECODE-DCM recently identified the top research priorities for DCM. To effectively address these priorities, appropriate funding of DCM research is essential. OBJECTIVE This review characterises current funding in DCM research to consider its significance and highlight future opportunities. METHODS A systematic review of Web of Science for “cervical” AND “myelopathy” was conducted. Papers exclusively studying DCM, with declared funding, and published between January 1, 1995 and March 21, 2020 were considered eligible. Funding sources were classified by country of origin and organisation type. A grant search was also conducted using Dimensions.ai (Digital Science Ltd, London, United Kingdom). RESULTS A total of 621 papers were included, with 300 unique funding bodies. The top funders were AO Spine (n=87), National Institutes of Health, USA (n=63) and National Natural Science Foundation, China (n=63). The USA (n=242) funded the most DCM research, followed by China (n=209) and Japan (n=116). Funding in the USA was primarily provided by corporate or non-profit organisations (60.3%); in China, by institutions (99.5%). Dimensions.ai data showed 180 DCM research grants explicitly awarded, with a total value of US$45.6 million since 1996. CONCLUSIONS DCM funding appears to be predominantly from USA, China and Japan, aligning with areas of high DCM research activity and underpinning the importance of funding to increasing research capacity. The existing funding sources differ from medical research in general, representing opportunities for future investment in DCM.

scholarly journals Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Stewart ◽  
Emily K. Farran ◽  
James A. Grange ◽  
Malcolm Macleod ◽  
Marcus Munafò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Output ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Research Organisations ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThe adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery.

scholarly journals View From Above: Bibliometric and Citation Analysis of Global High Altitude Medicine Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-115
Author(s):  
Chee Hwui Liew ◽  
Gerard Thomas Flaherty
Keyword(s):  
High Altitude ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Acute Mountain Sickness ◽  
Travel Medicine ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Medicine Journal ◽  
The Usa ◽  
High Altitude Illness ◽  
The Uk

Introduction: High altitude destinations are popular among international travelers. Travel medicine practitioners should be familiar with altitude physiology and high altitude illness recognition, prophylaxis, and management. We performed the first bibliometric analysis of high altitude medicine research. Methods: All articles published in a specialist high altitude medicine journal through April 2020 were mapped against the 34 domains in a theoretical body of knowledge. Citation counts of articles, as well as authors publishing the most articles, were obtained from Scopus. Collaboration analysis was performed using established methods. Results: Mapping of 1150 articles published from 2000 to 2020 identified the leading domains represented by high altitude medicine articles. The top five domains were altitude acclimatization and deterioration (19.4%, n=510); cardiovascular physiology (6.8%, n=180); work at altitude (6.6%, n = 174); acute mountain sickness (6.4%, n=169); respiratory and acid-base physiology (5.9%, n=155). Published articles attracted a total of 13,324 citations, with a mean of 11.6 citations per article. The average number of citations per author was 22.3. The USA was the most productive country with 432 publications (37.6%), followed by the UK (9.5%, n=109) and Switzerland (5.6%, n=64). The collaboration index for multi-authored publications increased from 3.8 in 2002 to 5.4 in 2019. Conclusion: We have performed the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis in high altitude medicine. Efforts to increase the research activity in neglected topics and to promote greater collaboration between high altitude medicine and related fields of study such as travel medicine may be worthwhile.

Assessing community health research capacity across stakeholders: adapting a tool

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debbie Humphries ◽  
Ravi Gupta ◽  
Tshering Dukpa ◽  
Dechen Wangmo
Keyword(s):  
Community Health ◽  
Organizational Support ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Organizational Capacity ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Community Research ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Organizational Research

Summary Multi-sectoral collaborative approaches with strong community engagement are essential for addressing health disparities. A valid tool for assessing organizational research and capacity for community health research stakeholders could help strengthen organizational capacity for engagement in such collaborations. This study was conducted to validate an innovative tool for assessing research activity and capacity of a spectrum of stakeholder organizations to provide support for strengthening community health research capacity in Bhutan. In-person interviews with academics (n = 10), clinicians (n = 10), government staff (n = 10), consultants (n = 2) and management of health-related civil society organizations (CSOs; n = 12 interviews/organizations, 13 individuals) were recorded and transcribed. Questions covered individual and organizational research activity and capacity, research networks and an international version of the Community Research Assessment Tool (CREAT-I). Almost all participants (84%) had participated in community health research projects. Social network analysis showed a large, interconnected cluster with a few key individuals linking across sectors. CREAT-I responses identified the highest capacity in organizational support for research among academic participants, while clinical and CSO participants reported highest capacity in practical research experiences and government participants reported highest capacity in research specific experiences. The CREAT-I tool showed strong internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.91) and validity. Limited money, time and skilled staff were identified as barriers to research. The CREAT-I assesses community health research capacity of organizations, and such a tool could be useful in identifying research capacity needs, monitoring impact of research capacity-building activities and contributing to a greater capacity for multi-sectoral collaborative approaches to community health research in international settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document