Seeking Approval from Universities to Research the Views of Their Staff. Do Gatekeepers Provide a Barrier to Ethical Research?

A “gatekeeper” controls access to an organization; “gatekeeper approval” is often needed before external research can take place within an organization. We explore the need for gatekeeper approval for research with university staff employing, as a case study, a project which collected data in Australia. This case study addresses known issues, seemingly rarely addressed in the literature. The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)'s requirement for approval from individual universities to approach their staff brought significant consequences, exacerbated by the lack of university procedures for such approvals. Simultaneously, since invitations could legitimately be distributed via other avenues, such approval was superfluous. We recommend the HREC's blanket requirement for institutional approval instead be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the risk of the research, and perhaps waived for low-risk research where participants are able to provide informed consent, and that universities establish processes to deal with requests from external researchers.

Flood Risk-Related Research Trends in Latin America and the Caribbean

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), like many other regions in the world, are areas that are prone to hydrometeorological disasters, which threaten livelihoods and cause economic losses. To derive LAC’s status in the field of flood risk-related research, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of the region’s publication record using the Web of Science journal database (WoS). After analysing a total of 1887 references according to inclusion-exclusion criteria, 302 articles published in the last 20 years were selected. The research articles published in the period 2000–2020 revealed that Mexico, Brazil, and certain South American countries such as Chile, Peru, and Argentina are more productive in flood risk research. Scientific research is increasing, and most of the available studies focus on lowland areas. The frequently-used keywords are generic, and there is often verbatim copying from the title of the article, which shows the poor coherence between the title, abstract, and keywords. This limited diversification of keywords is of little use in bibliometric studies, reducing their visibility and negatively impacting the citation count level. LAC flood studies are mainly related to hydrometeorological assessments, flood risk analyses, geomorphological and ecosystem studies, flood vulnerability and resilience approaches, and statistical and geographic information science evaluations. This systematic review reveals that although flood risk research has been important in the last two decades, future research linked with future climatic scenarios is key to the development of realistic solutions to disaster risks.

Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it

Peer review is an integral component of contemporary science. While peer review focuses attention on promising and interesting science, it also encourages scientists to pursue some questions at the expense of others. Here, we use ideas from forecasting assessment to examine how two modes of peer review—ex ante review of proposals for future work and ex post review of completed science—motivate scientists to favor some questions instead of others. Our main result is that ex ante and ex post peer review push investigators toward distinct sets of scientific questions. This tension arises because ex post review allows investigators to leverage their own scientific beliefs to generate results that others will find surprising, whereas ex ante review does not. Moreover, ex ante review will favor different research questions depending on whether reviewers rank proposals in anticipation of changes to their own personal beliefs or to the beliefs of their peers. The tension between ex ante and ex post review puts investigators in a bind because most researchers need to find projects that will survive both. By unpacking the tension between these two modes of review, we can understand how they shape the landscape of science and how changes to peer review might shift scientific activity in unforeseen directions.

Invited perspectives: A research agenda towards Disaster Risk Management pathways in multi-risk assessment

Whilst the last decades have seen a clear shift in emphasis from managing natural hazards to managing risk, the majority of natural hazard risk research still focuses on single hazards. Internationally, there are calls for more attention for multi-hazards and multi-risks. Within the European Union (EU), the concepts of multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment and management have taken centre stage in recent years. In this perspective paper, we outline several key developments in multi-hazard and multi-risk research in the last decade, with a particular focus on the EU. We present challenges for multi-risk management as outlined in several research projects and papers. We then present a research agenda for addressing these challenges. We argue for an approach that addresses multi-hazard, multi-risk management through the lens of sustainability challenges that cut across sectors, regions, and hazards. In this approach, the starting point is a specific sustainability challenge, rather than an individual hazard or sector, and trade-offs and synergies are examined across sectors, regions, and hazards. We argue for in-depth case studies in which various approaches for multi-hazard and multi-risk management are co-developed and tested in practice. Finally, we present a new pan-European research project in which our proposed research agenda will be implemented, with the goal of enabling stakeholders to develop forward-looking disaster risk management pathways that assess trade-offs and synergies of various strategies across sectors, hazards, and scales.

Communicating climate risk: a handbook

This handbook is a practical guide to communicating climate risk, designed specifically for those working at the interface of climate science and policy. It explains insights from psychology and neuroscience on how our brains engage with the idea of climate risk, it highlights journalism hacks for writing about risk clearly, it shares lessons learned from the authors' experience working with policymakers on climate risk, and it offers a set of useful questions to help other researchers ascertain what policymakers need from climate risk research. Contact the authors on Twitter @UCL_CAU or email [email protected] for further information.

Technology Advances, High-Risk Research, and a Safe Way Forward

The human and economic toll of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the unknowns regarding the origins of the virus, with a backdrop of enormous advances in technologies and human understanding of molecular virology, have raised global concerns about the safety of the legitimate infectious disease research enterprise. We acknowledge the safety and security risks resulting from the broad availability of tools and knowledge, tools and knowledge that can be exploited equally for good or harm.

Local perspectives on landslide prevention and management in Kalimpong district, West Bengal, India

PurposeThis paper is joint reflection on the role of research assistants (RAs) in fieldwork for disaster risk research, particularly at the doctoral level. The paper has been co-authored by Gurung, who worked as a RA with the other author McGowran during his doctoral field research in Kalimpong from May 2019 to January 2020. The piece allows Gurung to voice his ideas on the research in a published research output and allows both authors to reflect on how the collaborative approach taken helped to make the research more responsive to, and reflective of, the problems people affected by landslides in Kalimpong face. The paper aims to highlight the benefits of working with RAs on landslide prevention and management in areas that may be unfamiliar and to provide a space for the RAs to voice their opinion on the research.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is split into sections written by and in the voice of the authors. This reflects a compromise between wanting Gurung's voice to be clearly heard in the piece and the challenges of non-academically trained RAs contributing to academic outputs that require specific training. Brief outlines of Kalimpong district disaster research in the region are set out by McGowran initially. Gurung then outlines how he became involved in the research and how this affected the research methodology. He reflects on how the research played out and presents some brief reflections on the findings. McGowran then concludes the piece.FindingsThe authors discuss how landslides in Kalimpong are related to locally specific political, economic, cultural and physical processes. It is only through discussing these processes with the people who live with and are affected by these landslides that this more holistic understanding can be gained, even though complete explanations are never usually found. Ideas for further research into landslides in Kalimpong and elsewhere are presented, centering on the involvement of people affected by disasters in this research.Originality/valueThe authors hope the publication of the paper might set more of a precedent for the voice of RAs – and those who are affected by disasters – to be more clearly heard in disaster risk research and practice in future. More of this type of research could help to address some of the issues this special issue raises.