-
Cancer Reports (Hoboken, N.J.) Feb 2019Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results...
Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories. SIGNIFICANCE: Failure to replicate research findings often arises from errors in the experimental design and statistical approaches. By providing a full account of the experimental design, procedures, and statistical approaches, researchers can address the reproducibility crisis and improve the sustainability of research outcomes. In this piece, we discuss the key issues leading to irreproducibility and provide general approaches to improving transparency and rigor in reporting, which could assist in making research more reproducible.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Data Accuracy; Editorial Policies; Humans; Peer Review, Research; Publishing; Quality Improvement; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design; Research Personnel
PubMed: 32721132
DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1150 -
Nursing Ethics Feb 2022Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or their equivalent review applications for prospective research with human participants. Reviewers use universally agreed principles...
BACKGROUND
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or their equivalent review applications for prospective research with human participants. Reviewers use universally agreed principles to make decisions about whether prospective health and social care research is ethical. Close attention to understanding how reviewers go about their decision-making work and consider principles in practice is limited.
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to understand how reviewers made decisions in the contexts of meetings and to understand more about how reviewers approach their work. The purpose of this article is to draw on data and findings and to show how reflective equilibrium as a theoretical frame can (1) deepen understanding of ethics review and (2) permit a reflexive examination of the habitual processes of review.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS
Methods captured the day-to-day work of the RECs. Seventeen applications were heard during eight observations. There were 12 formal interviews with reviewers (n = 12) and with researchers (n = 8) which are not reported on in this article.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Organisational permission for the study was given by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) whose functions became part of the Health Research Authority (HRA) during the study. The study was given favourable opinion by the University of Salford's REC (Reference HSCR11/17).
FINDINGS
Data were analysed using constructed grounded theory resulting in eight themes which revealed attention to procedure and engagement with applications. Reflective equilibrium was used as a qualitative frame to interpret themes distilling them into three processes at work in review: emotion and intuition; imagination and creative thinking; and intuition and trust.
DISCUSSION
Reviewers went back and forth between universal principles and considered these in the contexts of each application using the above processes.
CONCLUSIONS
Reflective equilibrium offers a coherent and grounded account of review work. Reflexivity in training for reviewers is essential for improving practices. The challenges reflexivity presents can be assisted by using reflective equilibrium as a tool to illuminate tacit review processes.
Topics: Ethics Committees, Research; Ethics, Research; Grounded Theory; Humans; Prospective Studies; Research Personnel
PubMed: 34318724
DOI: 10.1177/09697330211003252 -
Current Biology : CB Feb 2021Parachute science is the practice whereby international scientists, typically from higher-income countries, conduct field studies in another country, typically of lower...
Parachute science is the practice whereby international scientists, typically from higher-income countries, conduct field studies in another country, typically of lower income, and then complete the research in their home country without any further effective communication and engagement with others from that nation. It creates dependency on external expertise, does not address local research needs, and hinders local research efforts. As global hotspots of marine biodiversity, lower-income nations in the tropics have for too long been the subject of inequitable and unfair research practices. However, to date there has been little quantifiable evidence of this phenomenon in marine science. Here, we provide evidence through systematic literature searches and queries that parachute science practices are still widespread in marine research and make some recommendations to help change the current status quo. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
Topics: Biodiversity; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Income; Marine Biology; Research; Research Personnel
PubMed: 33621503
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.029 -
BMC Health Services Research Dec 2020The poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and...
BACKGROUND
The poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and clinicians experience engagement in and with research, their working relationships and expectations of each other, may be one way to help to facilitate collaborative partnerships and therefore increase successful translation of research into clinical practice.
AIMS
To explore the views of clinical and research staff about their experiences of working together during research projects and identify the facilitators and barriers.
METHODS
We conducted four focus groups with 18 participants - clinicians, researchers and those with a dual clinical-research role, recruited from one mental health Trust and one university. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Eight themes were identified under the headings of two research questions 1) Barriers and facilitators of either engaging in or with research from the perspective of clinical staff, with themes of understanding the benefits of the research; perceived knowledge and personal qualities of researchers; lack of time and organisational support to be involved in and implement research; and lack of feedback about progress and outcome of research. 2) Barriers and facilitators for engaging with clinicians when conducting research, from the perspective of researchers, with themes of understanding what clinicians need to know and how they need to feel to engage with research; demonstrating an understanding of the clinician's world; navigating through the clinical world; and demands of the researcher role.
CONCLUSION
There was agreement between clinicians and researchers about the barriers and facilitators for engaging clinicians in research. Both groups identified that it was the researcher's responsibility to form and maintain good working relationships. Better support for researchers in their role calls for training in communication skills and bespoke training to understand the local context in which research is taking place.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Focus Groups; Humans; Mental Health; Qualitative Research; Research Personnel
PubMed: 33278896
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05978-w -
Tijdschrift Voor Psychiatrie 2017In the last years many people have questioned the reliability of research results and the societal relevance of much of today's clinical research; they are critical too... (Review)
Review
In the last years many people have questioned the reliability of research results and the societal relevance of much of today's clinical research; they are critical too about the current publication culture in which scientists are judged according to the number of articles they have published, impact factors and citations.
AIM: To make a close study of the publication culture that now prevails in the Dutch biomedical sciences.
METHOD: Discussion of results described in the thesis entitled 'Publish and Perish; research on research and researchers'.
RESULTS: To investigate what 'pressure to publish' is, we designed the Publication Pressure Questionnaire. In addition, in a group of 437 professors, we found a relationship between 'pressure to publish' and burnout; about 25% of the professors reported having suffered from severe burnout. We used focus groups to discover the factors that scientists consider are harmful in today's publication culture. They mentioned aspects such as impact factors, problems with research funding, authorship of articles, publication bias, emphasis on quantity rather than quality and 'domineering egos'. Next, we sought the views of 400 Dutch psychiatrists on the influence of pharmaceutical sponsorship on clinical trials. The psychiatrists seem to overlook the effects that pharmaceutical sponsoring might have on research results, but were more critical of results that appeared to be 'too good to be true'. A character study of more than 500 biomedical professionals revealed a link between scientific misconduct and pressure to publish; Machiavellian characteristics seemed to be associated with this misconduct. Finally, the author of the thesis (with 'tongue in cheek') describes a new psychiatric disorder which he calls 'publiphilia impactfactorius', defined as a disorder affecting biomedical professionals characterised by narcissistic, psychopathic, manipulative and emotionally unstable traits, whose egos are focused primarily on publication and high citation scores.
CONCLUSION: The thesis demonstrates that on the one hand scientists should look critically at new research so that they can assess its value, but on the other hand they must be ready to support new research, even though most results are likely to require later revision and updating. In spite of the shortcomings of many published research results, they are after all, the best we have at a particular moment.Topics: Biomedical Research; Humans; Netherlands; Publishing; Research Personnel
PubMed: 28703260
DOI: No ID Found -
ELife Aug 2023A new platform for studying how brain activity is linked to behavior enables researchers to perform diverse experiments on mice that have their heads immobilized.
A new platform for studying how brain activity is linked to behavior enables researchers to perform diverse experiments on mice that have their heads immobilized.
Topics: Animals; Mice; Humans; Research; Movement; Brain; Research Personnel
PubMed: 37646772
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.91145 -
Improving the reproducibility and integrity of research: what can different stakeholders contribute?BMC Research Notes Apr 2022Increasing awareness of problems with the reproducibility and integrity of research led the UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee to launch, in July 2021, an...
Increasing awareness of problems with the reproducibility and integrity of research led the UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee to launch, in July 2021, an inquiry into reproducibility and research integrity. We recognise at least four potential reasons why attempts to replicate a research finding may be unsuccessful: false positive statistical analyses, low generalisability of findings, suboptimal study designs (research integrity), and deliberate malfeasance (researcher integrity). It is important to make a distinction between the contributions of research integrity and of researcher integrity to the reproducibility crisis. While the impact of an individual instance of compromised researcher integrity is substantial, the aggregate impact of more prevalent problems with research integrity is likely much greater. The research community will be most efficient when failed replication efforts are never due to issues of research integrity or of researcher integrity, as this would allow focus on the scientific reasons for why two apparently similar experiments should reach different conclusions. We discuss the role of funders, institutions and government in addressing the "reproducibility crisis" before considering which interventions might have a positive impact on academia's approach to reproducible research, and a possible role for a committee on research integrity.
Topics: Government; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design; Research Personnel
PubMed: 35468858
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06030-2 -
Co-producing research with people impacted by dementia and service providers: issues and challenges.Public Health Research & Practice Jun 2022Co-production is a collaborative method that can make the research process more egalitarian by ensuring researchers work in partnership with key stakeholders in both the...
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
Co-production is a collaborative method that can make the research process more egalitarian by ensuring researchers work in partnership with key stakeholders in both the design and delivery of research projects and outcomes. A departure from more traditional ways of conducting research, co-production requires the researcher to reflect on their role in the co-production partnership. However, academic research projects are often constrained by parameters set by funding bodies, ethics committees and the researchers themselves. This raises questions about whether some of the key tenets of co-production, including equally shared power, control and responsibility, can be achieved in a meaningful way. This paper presents some of the issues and challenges faced by researchers in achieving shared power when utilising co-production methodology in academic settings. Type of program or service: The application of co-production within an academic research project is illustrated by a case study involving co-production with family carers, people living with dementia and service providers to develop dementia-specific training for home care workers.
RESULTS
There were unavoidable external constraints on sharing power and decision making within some elements of this project. Project parameters, including the research topic, timelines and funds available, were set by the funding body. Similarly, the study objectives and methods involving participants were required to be predetermined for ethical review. Power was redistributed by shifting the power dynamic in various ways within the internal project environment. Researchers developed strong relationships and built trust with key stakeholders, maintained consistent communication, negotiated conflict, ensured each stakeholder voice was heard and supported people living with dementia to be involved safely and comfortably.
LESSONS LEARNT
Funding body requirements, ethical governance and researcher responsibilities can limit power sharing and decision making when using co-production in academic contexts. Although the researcher or research organisation may hold ultimate responsibility for the overall management and delivery of the project, power can still be ceded and redistributed at many points within the project.
Topics: Communication; Dementia; Humans; Research Design; Research Personnel
PubMed: 35702749
DOI: 10.17061/phrp3222216 -
BMC Medical Ethics Jul 2021The last few decades have seen the rising global acknowledgment of the importance of ethics in the conduct of health research. But research ethics committees or...
BACKGROUND
The last few decades have seen the rising global acknowledgment of the importance of ethics in the conduct of health research. But research ethics committees or institutional review boards (IRBs) have also been criticized for being barriers to research. This article examines the case of the Philippines, where little has been done to interrogate the health research and IRB culture, and whose circumstances can serve as reflection points for other low- and middle-income countries.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted from July to October 2020 to elicit health researchers' perspectives and experiences regarding IRBs and the ethics approval process in the country, as well as counterpoint narratives from researchers who have also worked for IRBs.
RESULTS
Across the fields of clinical, public health, and social science research, the issue of ethics review revealed itself to be foremost an issue of inequity. IRB processes serve as a barrier for those outside the academe; those belonging to institutions, cities, or entire regions without their own accredited IRBs; and researchers working independently, without ample budget, or on highly specialized topics-more so for non-clinical researchers who must grapple with the primarily biomedical framework of most IRBs. Consequently, the research landscape invariably favors those with the resources to do research, and researches that tend to attract funding.
CONCLUSION
The broader challenge of equity in health research will entail more fundamental reforms, but proximal interventions can be done to make the ethics approval process more equitable, such as enhancing institutional oversight, regulating IRB fees, and enabling a more supportive and welcoming environment for early-career, student, independent, and non-clinical health researchers. This article ends by reflecting on the implications of our findings toward the larger research culture.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Ethics Committees, Research; Humans; Philippines; Qualitative Research; Research Personnel
PubMed: 34210301
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00653-z -
Archives of Disease in Childhood.... Aug 2019Patient and public involvement (PPI) is important both in research and in quality improvement activities related to healthcare services . While PPI activities do not...
Patient and public involvement (PPI) is important both in research and in quality improvement activities related to healthcare services . While PPI activities do not require formal ethical approval, they can raise a number of ethical concerns, through the introduction of complex technical medical concepts, challenging language or sensitive subject areas. There is very little published literature to guide ethical practice in this area. We have been conducting PPI with children and young people throughout a research study in paediatric palliative care. PPI started during the application process and continued to guide and shape the research as it progressed. Ethical issues can arise at any time in PPI work. Although many can be predicted and planned for, the nature of PPI means that researchers can be presented with ideas and concepts they had not previously considered, requiring reflexivity and a reactive approach. This paper describes how we considered and addressed the potential ethical issues of PPI within our research. The approach that emerged provides a framework that can be adapted to a range of contexts and will be of immediate relevance to researchers and clinicians who are conducting PPI to inform their work.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Female; Guidelines as Topic; Health Services Research; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Participation; Research Design; Research Personnel; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29440127
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-313480