Trends in scientific editing and good research practices: what do researchers-nurses know?

Objective: To verify researchers-nurses’ knowledge about trends in scientific publishing and good research practices. Method: A descriptive study carried out through an online survey with 197 nurses holding master’s and/or doctoral degrees from all Brazilian regions. To raise knowledge, a validated, self-administered and anonymous questionnaire with 18 questions on the subject was used. Descriptive and inferential analyzes were performed on researchers’ scores (Mann-Whitney test). Results: Among the specific questions, the mean of correct answers was 7.1: 6.4 for master’s and 7.4 for doctoral degree holders. There was a significant difference in the mean of correct answers between masters and doctors (p = 0.025), and between productivity scholarship holders and non-scholarship holders (p = 0.021), according to mean difference tests. Questions about predatory editorial practices were those in which researchers had the worst knowledge. Conclusion: We identified that, regardless of the education level (master’s or doctoral degree), nurses have little knowledge about the topics studied, which can compromise the quality of production and the scientific vehicles used to disseminate this knowledge.

Clinical Verification of Homeopathy

The world is changing! This is certainly true regarding the homeopathic practice and access to homeopathic medicine. Therefore our first priority at the ECH-LMHI [1] has been to produce a yearly report on the scientific framework of homeopathy. In the 2010 version a new chapter about epidemic diseases has been added including the Leptospirosis survey on the Cuban population. A second priority has been to review the definition of the homeopathic medicines respecting the new framework generated by the official registration procedure and the WHO report. We are working now on a documented (Materia Medica and provings) list of homeopathic remedies to facilitate the registration of our remedies. The new challenges are: first of all more good research proposals and as such more funding (possible through ISCHI + Blackie Foundation as examples) [2]; international acceptance of new guidelines for proving and clinical verification of homeopathic symptoms (Proposals are ready for discussion); total reconsideration of the homeopathic repertories including results of the clinical verification of the symptoms. The world is changing, we are part of the world and changes are needed also for homeopathy!

Researching conferences as spaces of valuation: a pragmatic approach

Scientific conferences are not only sites of knowledge exchange and networking. They are also spaces of valuation that are constitutive of epistemic cultures. At conferences, scholars (re-) negotiate what counts as good research, what kind of scholarship is considered valuable and which epistemic properties matter for their field. This negotiation sometimes happens explicitly, but more often through evaluative acts: statements of reasoning and justification, questions and remarks, and evaluative emotional utterances that include literal and figurative expressions of appreciation, scepticism, rejection, etc. Combining conference ethnography with a pragmatic approach borrowing insights from linguistics offers a way to identify and interpret such evaluative acts in conference talk. An analysis of data from the 3rd International Forest Policy Meeting (IFPM3), a virtual event with participants from across the globe, serves as illustrative case. Text materials generated through observing participation (field notes, transcripts, chat comments and abstracts) show how forest policy researchers ascribe worth to studies characterised by methodical rigour and praxis orientation, and guided by an objectivistic ideal of science. However, the latter was also challenged by panelists who enthusiatically appraised reflexive research that acknowledged the role of emotions in knowledge production.The IFPM3 case shows that conferences offer a unique space for observing academic valuation practice. Exploring how scholars enact values through conference discourse will not only help to better understand the specificities of particular research fields and their epistemic cultures. It can also more generally enhance the understanding of how social and epistemic levels in science intersect.

Open Science, Replicability, and Transparency in Modelling

Recent years have seen large changes to research practices within psychology and a variety of other empirical fields in response to the discovery (or rediscovery) of the pervasiveness and potential impact of questionable research practices, coupled with well-publicised failures to replicate published findings. In response to this, and as part of a broader open science movement, a variety of changes to research practice have started to be implemented, such as publicly sharing data, analysis code, and study materials, as well as the preregistration of research questions, study designs, and analysis plans. This chapter outlines the relevance and applicability of these issues to computational modelling, highlighting the importance of good research practices for modelling endeavours, as well as the potential of provenance modelling standards, such as PROV, to help discover and minimise the extent to which modelling is impacted by unreliable research findings from other disciplines.

Teaching reproducible research for medical students and postgraduate pharmaceutical scientists

In medicine and other academic settings, (doctoral) students often work in interdisciplinary teams together with researchers of pharmaceutical sciences, natural sciences in general, or biostatistics. They should be fundamentally taught good research practices, especially in terms of statistical analysis. This includes reproducibility as a central aspect. Acknowledging that even experienced researchers and supervisors might be unfamiliar with necessary aspects of a perfectly reproducible workflow, a lecture series on reproducible research (RR) was developed for young scientists in clinical pharmacology. The pilot series highlighted definitions of RR, reasons for RR, potential merits of RR, and ways to work accordingly. In trying to actually reproduce a published analysis, several practical obstacles arose. In this article, reproduction of a working example is commented to emphasize the manifold facets of RR, to provide possible explanations for difficulties and solutions, and to argue that harmonized curricula for (quantitative) clinical researchers should include RR principles. These experiences should raise awareness among educators and students, supervisors and young scientists. RR working habits are not only beneficial for ourselves or our students, but also for other researchers within an institution, for scientific partners, for the scientific community, and eventually for the public profiting from research findings.

Ten simple rules in good research practice for early career researchers

This paper aims to provide early-career researchers with a useful introduction to good research practices.

Exploring Sustainable Measurements of Academic Research: How Do Faculty Members in Teaching-Oriented Universities of China Evaluate Good Research in Tourism and Hospitality?

Academic research contributes to the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) of teaching-oriented universities in many ways, such as providing quality education, promoting the healthy and diverse development of academia, and satisfying the sustainable career development of faculty. In essence, research can facilitate knowledge advancement, dissemination, and innovation, while existing metrics are outcome-based, quantitatively measured, and have methodological and invalidity problems in achieving these orientations. This exploratory study adopted a qualitative research approach guided by constructivist grounded theory to explore the fundamental question of how to evaluate good research in tourism and hospitality. By conducting 32 in-depth interviews with full-time faculty members in 16 teaching-oriented universities in mainland China, the perceptions of good research were captured. The perceived measurements that evaluate good research were interpreted, including counting publications and research projects, citation analysis and peer review, contribution to teaching, contribution to societal service and industrial interaction, and building research teams. Finally, this study provided discussions about the orientations of academic research as well as authorships in research evaluation from the perspective of HEI sustainability.

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.