scholarly journals Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study

10.2196/25983 ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. e25983
Author(s):  
Thijs Devriendt ◽  
Pascal Borry ◽  
Mahsa Shabani
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Semistructured Interview ◽  
Epidemiological Research ◽  
Share Data ◽  
International Projects ◽  
The Evaluation System

Background The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data. Objective The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research. Methods A total of 17 participants linked to European Union–funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues. Conclusions The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor’s work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.

scholarly journals Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thijs Devriendt ◽  
Pascal Borry ◽  
Mahsa Shabani
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Semistructured Interview ◽  
Epidemiological Research ◽  
Share Data ◽  
International Projects ◽  
The Evaluation System

BACKGROUND The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research. METHODS A total of 17 participants linked to European Union–funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor’s work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.

Evaluation in the European Commission: For Accountability or Learning?

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Højlund
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Past Experience ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
The Evaluation System

The article accounts for the development of the European Commission's evaluation system. The article shows how internal and external developments shape an evaluation system aiming for both accountability and policy learning. In 58 interviews, several justifications for the evaluation system emerge, including four types of accountability as well as an evaluation system constructed to facilitate learning from past experience. In the system's commencement, financial and legal accountability overshadow the focus on policy learning that was perceived to be in contradiction with the two former. However, the article also demonstrates that accountability and policy learning are not necessarily opposed to each other.

scholarly journals The European Union and Public Health Emergencies: Expert Opinions on the Management of the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Suggestions for Future Emergencies

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Gontariuk ◽  
Thomas Krafft ◽  
Cassandra Rehbock ◽  
David Townend ◽  
Loth Van der Auwermeulen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Proper Actions ◽  
Public Health Emergencies

Objective: The first wave of the coronavirus SARS-COV-2 pandemic has revealed a fragmented governance within the European Union (EU) to tackle public health emergencies. This qualitative study aims: 1) to understand the current EU position within the field of public health emergencies taking the case of the COVID-19 as an example by comparing and contrasting experiences from EU institutions and experts from various EU Member States at the beginning of the pandemic; and, 2) to identify and to formulate future EU pandemic strategies and actions based on experts' opinions.Methods: Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with public health experts from various European Member States and European Commission officials from May 2020 until August 2020. The transcripts were analyzed by Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), mainly a manifest content analysis.Results: This study demonstrated that the limited EU mandate in health hinders proper actions to prevent and tackle infectious disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that this limitation significantly impacted the ECDC, as the Member States' competence did not allow the agency to have more capacity. The European Commission has fulfilled its role of coordinating and supporting the Member States by facilitating networks and information exchange. However, EU intra- and inter-communication need further improvement. Although diverse EU instruments and mechanisms were found valid, their implementation needed to be faster and more efficient. The results pointed out that underlying political challenges in EU decision-making regarding health emergencies hinder the aligned response. It was stated that the Member States were not prepared, and due to the restriction of their mandate, EU institutions could not enforce binding guidelines. Additionally, the study explored future EU pandemic strategies and actions. Both, EU institutions and national experts suggested similar and clear recommendations regarding the ECDC, the investment, and future harmonized preparedness tools.Conclusion: The complex politics of public health at the EU level have led to the fragmentation of its governance for effective pandemic responses. This ongoing pandemic has shed light on the fragility of the political and structural systems in Europe in public health emergencies. Health should be of high importance in the political agenda, and robust health reforms at the local, regional, national, and EU levels are highly recommended.

scholarly journals How Much Is Enough? Explaining the Continuous Transparency Conflict in TTIP

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 16-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Gheyle ◽  
Ferdi De Ville
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Trade And Investment

Transparency has been a central issue in the debate regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), especially on the side of the European Union (EU). The lack of transparency in the negotiating process has been one of the main criticisms of civil society organizations (CSOs). The European Commission (EC) has tried to gain support for the negotiations through various ‘transparency initiatives’. Nonetheless, criticism by CSOs with regard to TTIP in general and the lack of transparency in specific remained prevalent. In this article, we explain this gap between various transparency initiatives implemented by the EC in TTIP and the expectations on the side of European CSOs. We perform a content analysis of position papers on transparency produced by CSOs, mainly in response to a European Ombudsman consultation, complemented by a number of official documents and targeted interviews. We find that the gap between the TTIP transparency initiatives and the expectations of CSOs can be explained by different views on what constitutes legitimate trade governance, and the role of transparency, participation, and accountability herein.

Austrian Veto against European Union Membership Negotiations with Turkey

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-122
Author(s):  
Ewa Kaczan-Winiarska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Strategic Partner ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
European Standards ◽  
The Eu

The Austrian government is extremely sceptical about the accession negotiations which are conducted by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union with Turkey and calls for the negotiation process to end. Serious reservations of Vienna have been raised by the current political situation in Turkey under the rule of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as well as by the standards of democracy in Turkey, which differ greatly from European standards. Serious deficiencies in rule of law, freedom of speech and independence of the judiciary, confirmed in the latest European Commission report on Turkey, do not justify, from Vienna’s point of view, the continuation of talks with Ankara on EU membership. In fact, Austria’s scepticism about the European perspective for Turkey has a longer tradition. This was marked previously in 2005 when the accession negotiations began. Until now, Austria’s position has not had enough clout within the European arena. Pragmatic cooperation with Turkey as a strategic partner of the EU, both in the context of the migration crisis and security policy, proved to be a key factor. The question is whether Austria, which took over the EU presidency from 1.7.2018, will be able to more strongly accentuate its reservations about Turkey and even build an alliance of Member States strong enough to block Turkey’s accession process.

Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Ramona Grimberger ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Rebeka Hevesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Grand Chamber

Council of the European Union v. European Commission, Case C-409/13, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 14 April 2015European Commission v. Vanbreda Risk & Benefits, Case C‑35/15 P(R), Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 23 April 2015Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang...

scholarly journals Sustainability in the European Union: Analyzing the Discourse of the European Green Deal

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Eva Eckert ◽  
Oleksandra Kovalevska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Main Question ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Media ◽  
Institutional Power ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

In the European Union, the concern for sustainability has been legitimized by its politically and ecologically motivated discourse disseminated through recent policies of the European Commission and the local as well as international media. In the article, we question the very meaning of sustainability and examine the European Green Deal, the major political document issued by the EC in 2019. The main question pursued in the study is whether expectations verbalized in the Green Deal’s plans, programs, strategies, and developments hold up to the scrutiny of critical discourse analysis. We compare the Green Deal’s treatment of sustainability to how sustainability is presented in environmental and social science scholarship and point out that research, on the one hand, and the politically motivated discourse, on the other, do not correlate and often actually contradict each other. We conclude that sustainability discourse and its keywords, lexicon, and phraseology have become a channel through which political institutions in the EU such as the European Commission sideline crucial environmental issues and endorse their own presence. The Green Deal discourse shapes political and institutional power of the Commission and the EU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document