scholarly journals Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Diong ◽  
Cynthia M. Kroeger ◽  
Katherine J. Reynolds ◽  
Adrian Barnett ◽  
Lisa A. Bero
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Register Study ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
Register Analysis ◽  
Responsible Research

Abstract Background Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices. Methods We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: “Instructed”, “Encouraged”, or “No mention”. Results Across the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required. Conclusions Funders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.

scholarly journals Path2Integrity Learning Cards: First Year Experiences of an Educational Programme to Foster Research Integrity

Edukacja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Julia Priess-Buchheit ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Research Integrity ◽  
Role Playing ◽  
Educational Programme ◽  
First Year ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Citizen Education ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Research Education ◽  
Dialogical Approach ◽  
Responsible Research

This article outlines the experience gained in the first twelve (12) months of the Path2Integrity (P2I) learning programme, an initiative designed to promote reliable research results and responsible research practices with all students, not only those destined to be researchers. Path2Integrity learning cards are student-centred instructions with a dialogical approach, using role-playing and storytelling aimed at fostering a culture of research integrity. This report shows that feedback gathered in this first year of the P2I programme supported the following three actions. First, the feedback informed distinctions between the different contexts of research education and citizen education. Second, a handbook was prepared to accompany the learning cards. And finally, students will be asked in the future to reflect on the competencies each learning card features. A review of the feedback and actions will be followed by an overview of the implications for the programme itself and for research integrity education in general.

scholarly journals Evaluating Whole Grain Intervention Study Designs and Reporting Practices Using Evidence Mapping Methodology

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caleigh Sawicki ◽  
Kara Livingston ◽  
Alastair Ross ◽  
Paul Jacques ◽  
Katie Koecher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Whole Grains ◽  
Cardiometabolic Health ◽  
Whole Grain ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Evidence Mapping ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Wide Range

Consumption of whole grains have been associated with reduced risk of chronic diseases in many observational studies; yet, results of intervention studies are mixed. We aimed to use evidence mapping to capture the methodological and reporting variability in whole grain intervention studies that may contribute to this inconsistency. We conducted a reproducible search in OVID Medline for whole grain human intervention studies (published 1946 to February 2018). After screening based on a priori criteria, we identified 202 publications describing a total of 213 unique trials. Over half (55%) were acute trials, lasting ≤1 day, 30% were moderate duration studies (up to 6 weeks) and 15% were of longer duration (more than 6 weeks). The majority of acute trials (75%) examined measures of glycaemia and/or insulinemia, while most of the longer trials included measures of cardiometabolic health (71%), appetite/satiety (57%) and weight/adiposity (56%). Among the moderate and long duration trials, there was a wide range of how whole grains were described but only 10 publications referenced an established definition. Only 55% of trials reported the actual amount of whole grains (in grams or servings), while 36% reported the amount of food/product and 9% did not report a dose at all. Of the interventions that provided a mixture of whole grains, less than half (46%) reported the distribution of the different grain types. Reporting of subject compliance also varied and only 22% used independent biomarkers of whole grain intake. This evidence map highlights the need to standardize both study protocols and reporting practices to support effective synthesis of study results and provide a stronger foundation to better inform nutrition scientists and public health policy.

scholarly journals Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. e0176210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine M. Schmucker ◽  
Anette Blümle ◽  
Lisa K. Schell ◽  
Guido Schwarzer ◽  
Patrick Oeller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014-2017)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Elis Hardwicke ◽  
Robert T. Thibault ◽  
Jessica Elizabeth Kosie ◽  
Joshua D Wallach ◽  
Mallory Kidwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Psychology Research ◽  
Reform Initiatives ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
Psychology Literature ◽  
Disclosure Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

Psychologists are navigating an unprecedented period of introspection about the credibility and utility of their discipline. Reform initiatives have emphasized the benefits of several transparency and reproducibility-related research practices; however, their adoption across the psychology literature is unknown. To estimate their prevalence, we manually examined a random sample of 250 psychology articles published between 2014-2017. Over half of the articles were publicly available (154/237, 65% [95% confidence interval, 59%-71%]); however, sharing of research materials (26/183, 14% [10%-19%]), study protocols (0/188, 0% [0%-1%]), raw data (4/188, 2% [1%-4%]), and analysis scripts (1/188, 1% [0%-1%]) was rare. Pre-registration was also uncommon (5/188, 3% [1%-5%]). Many articles included a funding disclosure statement (142/228, 62% [56%-69%]), but conflict of interest statements were less common (88/228, 39% [32%-45%]). Replication studies were rare (10/188, 5% [3%-8%]) and few studies were included in systematic reviews (21/183, 11% [8%-16%]) or meta-analyses (12/183, 7% [4%-10%]). Overall, the results suggest that transparency and reproducibility-related research practices were far from routine. These findings establish a baseline which can be used to assess future progress towards increasing the credibility and utility of psychology research.

An Empirical Review of Research and Reporting Practices in Psychological Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-209
Author(s):  
Richard E. Hohn ◽  
Kathleen L. Slaney ◽  
Donna Tafreshi
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Reporting Decisions ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
State Of Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Made In

As meta-analytic studies have come to occupy a sizable contingent of published work in the psychological sciences, clarity in the research and reporting practices of such work is crucial to the interpretability and reproducibility of research findings. The present study examines the state of research and reporting practices within a random sample of 384 published psychological meta-analyses across several important dimensions (e.g., search methods, exclusion criteria, statistical techniques). In addition, we surveyed the first authors of the meta-analyses in our sample to ask them directly about the research practices employed and reporting decisions made in their studies, including the assessments and procedures they conducted and the guidelines or materials they relied on. Upon cross-validating the first author responses with what was reported in their published meta-analyses, we identified numerous potential gaps in reporting and research practices. In addition to providing a survey of recent reporting practices, our findings suggest that (a) there are several research practices conducted by meta-analysts that are ultimately not reported; (b) some aspects of meta-analysis research appear to be conducted at disappointingly low rates; and (c) the adoption of the reporting standards, including the Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards (MARS), has been slow to nonexistent within psychological meta-analytic research.

scholarly journals Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices

2021 ◽  
pp. 155626462110189
Author(s):  
Joeri K. Tijdink ◽  
Serge P.J.M. Horbach ◽  
Michèle B. Nuijten ◽  
Gareth O’Neill
Keyword(s):  
Research Agenda ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Opinion Piece ◽  
Funding Programs ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Scientific System ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
And Training

This opinion piece aims to inform future research funding programs on responsible research practices (RRP) based on three specific objectives: (1) to give a sketch of the current international discussion on responsible research practices (RRPs); (2) to give an overview of current initiatives and already obtained results regarding RRP; and (3) to give an overview of potential future needs for research on RRP. In this opinion piece, we have used seven iterative methodological steps (including literature review, ranking, and sorting exercises) to create the proposed research agenda. We identified six main themes that we believe need attention in future research: (1) responsible evaluation of research and researchers, (2) the influence of open science and transparency on RRP, (3) research on responsible mentoring, supervision, and role modeling, (4) the effect of education and training on RRP, (5) checking for reproducibility, and (6) responsible and fair peer review. These themes have in common that they address aspects of research that are mostly on the level of the scientific system, more than on the level of the individual researcher. Some current initiatives are already gathering substantial empirical evidence to start filling these gaps. We believe that with sufficient support from all relevant stakeholders, more progress can be made.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document