3R Blackboard: A platform for animal and organ sharing

Since the embedding of the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in national and international regulations on the use of animals, scientists have been challenged to find ways to reduce the number of animals in their research. Here, we present a digital platform, called ‘3R Backboard’, linked to a laboratory animal management system, which facilitates sharing of surplus biological materials from animals (e.g. tissues, organs and cells) to other research teams. Based on information provided, such as genotype, age and sex, other animal workers were able to indicate their interest in collecting specific tissues and to communicate with the person providing the animals. A short pilot study of this approach conducted in a limited academic environment presented strong evidence of its effectiveness and resulted in a notable reduction of the number of mice used. In addition, the use of 3R Blackboard led to resource saving, knowledge exchange and even establishment of new collaboration.

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

Closing Commentary, Opening Conversations: Liminal Reflections on Decent Work, Emerging Adulthood, and Social Justice

This paper engages with and reacts to the five papers authored by the UNITWIN research teams responsible for this special issue. It highlights some of the key concepts, themes, and analyses in regard to prolonged transitions and decent work, weaving them together while offering a series of reflections about them. In so doing, this paper adopts a social justice lens and deploys critical social science perspectives in order to make sense of the trials and tribulations faced by low qualified, emerging adults under the long shadow of neoliberalism. Such an approach enables a contrapuntal reading of the papers under consideration, with a view to generating fresh insights on contemporary transitions in both developed and developing country contexts. These reflections seek to further enrich a powerful and compelling set of papers by adding complementary layers of analyses, providing pointers to renewed policy and practice.

HUME Lab: výzkumná infrastruktura pro podporu experimentálního výzkumu v sociálních a humanitních vědách

HUME Lab is a research infrastructure at the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University University (FF MU). As a support facility, it helps with the implementation of experiment methodology within research in the humanities and social sciences. The laboratory services are available primarily to researchers from FF MU, but they are also open for any interested researchers across the university and beyond. Various projects using the HUME Lab equipment and services have been carried out in the past involving, for example, CEITEC, BUT, or various international research teams usually with the participation of FF MU researchers.

Abstracts of the 45th Symposium on Cuniculture, ASESCU

The 45th Congress of the Spanish Association of Cuniculture (ASESCU), co-organised by the Spanish Association of Cuniculture (ASESCU) and Grupo Editorial Agrícola-Henar Comunicación Agroalimentaria, was online held on 6th and 7th October, 2021. The four main talks were mainly focussed on “In-farm composting. Enhancing the value of rabbit manure” by Raúl Moral (University Miguel Hernández, Spain), “Recent advances in artificial insemination” by Pilar Viudes (Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias, Spain), “The necessary transition of rabbit farming in Europe. The French Example” by Davi Savietto (INRAE, France), and “Social networks in rabbit farming. A practical view” by Jesús López (Grupo Editorial Agrícola-Henar Comunicación Agroalimentaria, Spain). A commercial speech on “Building immunity for a healthier world” was also presented by Sandra Gascón (Hipra). Two round tables were also held: the first on “News in veterinary prescription” with the participation of María Hernández (Spanish Ministry of Agriculture) and Mario Malo (Spanish Association of Veterinarians specialised in Rabbit Farming), and the second on “Rabbit meat processing and new products” with the participation of Raúl Grau (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain) and María Luz de Santos (Spanish interprofessional organization to promote the rabbit sector, INTERCUN). Moreover, a total of 14 oral communications were presented by research teams from Spain, Algeria, Venezuela, Portugal and Italy. The congress was attended by around 130 participants from several European, American and African countries. Abstracts of the contributions presented are reported below.

Creation of a Tool to Evaluate Supportive Care: Experiences from Socioesthetics

The absence of a specific tool to evaluate the impact of Supportive care in general and socioesthetics in particular as a rendered medical service is undoubtedly at the origin of the lack of published research based on scientific standards.In this context, we developed one supportive-care patient-reported outcome [PRO] using the multistep methods following COSMIN recommendations. Its construction followed all recommended steps: elaboration of the questionnaire, measurement properties of the questionnaire, internal and external validation, test-retest validation and translation, cross-cultural adaptation and cognitive debriefing. In total, our questionnaire includes11 items. It is scored by adding each VAS, making it range from 0 to 110, with a higher benefit when the score is higher. The Cronbach’s α coefficient is 0.88 for the entire questionnaire. The questionnaire thus constructed is a reflection of the patient's feelings, and it is quite natural that the name The “patient centricity questionnaire” (PCQ) was retained and validated by the Scientific Committee. The PCQ correlated negatively and moderately with the PSS, positively and moderately with the mental dimension of the and poorly with the WB12, the physical dimension of the SF-12 and the satisfaction EVA. Constructed according to the recommendations, the PCQ meets the prerequisite for this type of questionnaire. Its short format (11 questions) and simplicity of use allow it to be used by a large number of people and provides an pragmatic answer by making available to research teams a simple, reliable, easy-to-use and validated tool. It makes possible randomized studies to prove the impact on quality of life of the Supportive care in general and socioesthetics" in particular.

The Development and Validation of a Cognitive Diversity Scale for Chinese Academic Research Teams

Cognitive diversity is an important concept stemming from western management research in the 1990s. With the rapid development of science and technology, there is a growing interest in the composition of an academic research team, such as team diversity. However, there is no tool available for measuring team cognitive diversity (TCD) for academic research teams. Based on Van der Vegt’s theoretical model of TCD, an Academic Research Team Cognitive Diversity Scale (ATCDS) is developed and validated for an academic research team in our research with two studies (N=737). In Study One, in-depth interviews and panel discussions were conducted to generate a preliminary questionnaire. In Study Two, the questionnaire was administered among academic research teams. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four factors regarding cognitive diversity: (1) the way of thinking, (2) knowledge and skills, (3) the view of the world, and (4) beliefs about what is right and wrong. The factor structure was further validated by confirmatory factor analysis. Moreover, correlation and regression analyses showed that academic research TCD was positively related to team creativity (r =0.306, p <0.01) and performance (r =0.204, p <0.10). To sum up, our newly developed 15-item ATCDS is sufficiently reliable and valid to be used for understanding cognitive diversity among academic research teams.

An Examination of Research Agency and its Practical Applications

The goal of this evaluation is to offer instructive practice on how to improve researcher agency. Indicated are how the literature review is an investigative process providing context to research studies and overall scholarship. Further, practical connection exhibits how exceptional research skills improve the body of information, structure, and quality needed to investigate global issues. Researchers provide a comprehensive analysis of phenomena to convey conceptual, theoretical, and empirical analysis of studies. Further, substantive feedback from collaborative research teams allows for corroboration and a refined final product. Likewise, the content of a research study must align to reflect objectivity and continuity. Conclusively, researchers must employ a regimented and ethical process to refine conceptual, theoretical, empirical, or grey literature studies to provide focus, clarity, and organization.

Identifying Potential Barriers and Solutions to Patient Partner Compensation (Payment) in Research

Research that engages patients on the research team is often supported by grant funding from different organizations and, in some cases, principal investigators (who control the grant funding) provide patient partners with compensation (or payment) for their contributions. However, we have noted a gap in resources that identify and address barriers to compensating patient partners. In this paper, we present thoughts and experiences related to barriers to compensating patient partners with the goal of helping individuals identify and find solutions to these obstacles.Based on our experiences as individuals who live with chronic conditions and are patient partners, and those who are researchers who engage patient partners, we have identified eight barriers to compensating patient partners. We discuss each of these barriers: lack of awareness about patient partnership, institutional inflexibility, policy guidance from funders, compensation not prioritized in research budgets, leadership hesitancy to create a new system, culture of research teams, preconceived beliefs about the skills and abilities of patient partners, and expectations placed on patient partners. We demonstrate these barriers with real life examples and we offer some solutions. To further demonstrate these barriers, we ask readers to reflect on some scenarios that present realistic parallel situations to those that patient partners face. The intention is to illustrate, through empathy or putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, how we might all do better with respect to institutional barriers related to patient partner compensation. Last, we issue a call to action to share resources and identify actions to overcome these barriers so we can create a resource hub.

Early experience with an opt-in research register - Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE): a multi-method evaluation of participant recruitment performance

Background Recruiting participants to a clinical study is a resource-intensive process with a high failure rate. The Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE) provides recruitment support service which helps researchers recruit participants by searching patients’ Electronic Health Records (EHRs). The current study aims to evaluate the performance of SHARE in participant recruitment. Methods Recruitment projects eligible for evaluation were those that were conducted for clinical trials or observational studies and finished before 2020. For analysis of recruitment data, projects with incomplete data were excluded. For each project we calculated, from SHARE records, 1) the fraction of the participants recruited through SHARE as a percentage of the number requested by researchers (percentage fulfilled), 2) the percentage of the potential candidates provided by SHARE to researchers that were actually recruited (percentage provided and recruited), 3) the percentage of the participants recruited through SHARE of all the potentially eligible candidates identified by searching registrants’ EHRs (percentage identified and recruited). Research teams of the eligible projects were invited to participate in an anonymised online survey. Two metrics were derived from research teams’ responses, including a) the fraction of the recruited over the study target number of participants (percentage fulfilled), and b) the percentage of the participants recruited through SHARE among the candidates received from SHARE (percentage provided and recruited). Results Forty-four projects were eligible for inclusion. Recruitment data for 24 projects were available (20 excluded because of missingness or incompleteness). Survey invites were sent to all the eligible research teams and received 12 responses. Analysis of recruitment data shows the overall percentage fulfilled was 34.2% (interquartile 13.3–45.1%), the percentage provided and recruited 29.3% (interquartile 20.6–52.4%) and percentage identified and recruited 4.9% (interquartile 2.6–10.2%). Based on the data reported by researchers, percentage fulfilled was 31.7% (interquartile 5.8–59.6%) and percentage provided and recruited was 20.2% (interquartile 8.2–31.0%). Conclusions SHARE may be a valuable resource for recruiting participants for some clinical studies. Potential improvements are to expand the registrant base and to incorporate more data generated during patients’ different health care encounters into the candidate-searching step.