Search

Supporting the ongoing development of educational researchers can be more challenging than supporting the development of other researchers because they work across the university in different disciplines and centres. This small-scale qualitative study explored the motivation and engagement of educational researchers at a UK university, the support that helped them and their perceived strengths in research skills. Future development hopes and needs were also expressed. The aim was to better understand ourselves (self-identifying educational researchers), individually and collectively, to help us to build an educational research community for future collaborative research projects. Participants demonstrated altruistic motivations as well as those linked to personal fulfilment and professional need. Specific hopes reported included the desire to work with collaborative research groups. The findings can aid educational researchers and their employers to better recognise educational researchers at an institutional level; to understand the needs of this disparate group; to build a sustainable community and to support the design of development opportunities locally, university-wide and externally, through personalised provision and peer support and mentoring. The study also provides a framework for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the limitations of the H-index as a research metric for evaluating the impact of experimental scientists. It presents a case study of six scientists in the biomolecular sciences, comparing their H-index and average citations per year. The study finds that a scientist without major awards, referred to as Scientist X, has a higher H-index and average citations per year than prize-winning scientists, primarily due to publishing review and perspective articles instead of conducting original experimental research. The article proposes a new metric, the EH-index, which would weigh citation counts based on the type of research contribution, specifically focusing on citations from experimental work. The author argues that the H-index fails to distinguish between original research studies and literature-based ones, and suggests further investigation into the impact of overpublishing secondary source articles on research metrics. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Collaboration among researchers is crucial for scientific progress. However, academics in developing countries like Nigeria continue to face structural and personal barriers to effectively utilising online collaborative tools. While there is much hope that researchers in this part of the globe will continue to maximise the opportunities presented within the online collaborative space, the effectiveness of these tools in supporting collaborative research activities in poor resource areas lacks significant study focus. Objective: The study investigated the effectiveness of online collaboration tools among researchers in some university communities in Nigeria. Methodology: The research adopted an online survey method to gather data from 312 academics/researchers across some universities in Nigeria who were selected using purposive and chain-referral sampling approaches. Results: Findings showed a high preference for many of the platforms presented to respondents, with Google Scholar being the most frequently used, followed by Mendeley and Zotero. Findings found common challenges that researchers face when using these online collaborative tools: limited access to Internet services, software compatibility issues, training and skill deficiency, data security concerns, absence of institutional support, high cost of software subscription plan, and difficulties using/managing different tools/platforms. In addition, findings revealed that the level of engagement, as defined by heavy use and non-heavy use, impacted the perceived effectiveness of these tools. Specifically, heavy usage had a greater impact on perceived effectiveness than non-heavy usage. Results also showed significant variances across various platform types regarding perceived effectiveness. Specifically, Mendeley was found to be mostly effective compared to other platforms. Finally, a regression analysis showed the influence of user group, age and frequency of using tools on perceived effectiveness. Contribution: The study adds to existing knowledge concerning the utilisation of and barriers to the effectiveness of adopting these online collaborative platforms, particularly within the contexts of Nigerian universities. Conclusion: Overall, the current research highlights the significance of developing evidence-based strategies to address the key barriers to effective online collaborative tool utilisation among Nigerian researchers and in places that share similar challenges with the present context. Recommendation: Specific or customised interventions should be developed to address challenges researchers face in their bid to maximise the huge potential of online collaborative partnerships.

In situations where animal models (AMs) are necessary, as in the field of neuroscience, a strong culture of care must be supported and established. The pivotal question remains: how can we uphold a robust “culture of care”? In the multifaceted domain of neuroscience research, AMs traverse a spectrum shaped by conflicting viewpoints, anthropocentrism and pathocentrism, where established scientific norms intersect with ethical deliberations. Anthropocentrism, representative of conventional scientific approaches, may prioritize scientific goals potentially to the detriment of animal welfare. Conversely, pathocentrism places significant importance on the ethical treatment and well-being of AMs. This divergence of approach prompts the imperative development of a robust culture of care framework within research institutions, advocating for animal welfare, ethical responsibility, and adherence to regulatory standards. In this review, we refer to a European view of animal care, discussing internationally valid concepts that find rebuttal in the current European legislation. This review meticulously analyzes the many facets of the culture of care, particularly for neuroscience studies involving AMs, illustrating the principles, practices, and collaborations critical to overcoming ethical expectations. This commitment increases credibility and builds trust in the public and research spheres, underscoring the critical importance of a culture of care in the ethics of neuroscience research.

In situations where animal models (AMs) are necessary, as in the field of neuroscience, a strong culture of care must be supported and established. The pivotal question remains: how can we uphold a robust "culture of care"? In the multifaceted domain of neuroscience research, AMs traverse a spectrum shaped by conflicting viewpoints, anthropocentrism and pathocentrism, where established scientific norms intersect with ethical deliberations. Anthropocentrism, representative of conventional scientific approaches, may prioritize scientific goals potentially to the detriment of animal welfare. Conversely, pathocentrism places significant importance on the ethical treatment and well-being of AMs. This divergence of approach prompts the imperative development of a robust culture of care framework within research institutions, advocating for animal welfare, ethical responsibility, and adherence to regulatory standards. In this review, we refer to a European view of animal care, discussing internationally valid concepts that find rebuttal in the current European legislation. This review meticulously analyzes the many facets of the culture of care, particularly for neuroscience studies involving AMs, illustrating the principles, practices, and collaborations critical to overcoming ethical expectations. This commitment increases credibility and builds trust in the public and research spheres, underscoring the critical importance of a culture of care in the ethics of neuroscience research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we attempt to reconstruct the tacit and implicit notions of quality in the humanities. This reconstruction is based on a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 33 humanities scholars. Applying Max Weber's theory of authority, we argue the quality notions have two different sources—external and internal. External sources correspond to the Weber's types of authority: traditional authorities (academic tradition, professors, PhD advisors), rational-legal authorities (research administrators, policy makers) and charismatic authorities ('the great minds', 'the founding fathers' in a given academic field). Internal sources providing the quality notion do not fit into Weberian classification. These sources are based on the personal experience of a humanities researcher's evaluation practices, which cannot be reduced to either type of authority above. Combining the interview data and Max Weber's theory of authority, we try to demonstrate the existence of four different and sometimes incompatible notions of quality in the humanities: administrative; individual; semi-administrative, semi-individual; moderate individual. These notions are interpreted as ideal types, which serve as a regulative ideas rather than objective representations of research evaluation reality. The manuscript is important to Research Evaluation for the following reasons: first, it reconstructs the different types of notions of quality, which are crucial in better understanding peer review and other qualitative research evaluation practices; second, it provides better understanding of individual evaluator's premises; third, it provides opportunity to have a glimpse beyond dominant administrative quality notions and criteria as usually the perspectives of the humanities researchers are neglected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. Methods Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. Results One hundred and sixty‐three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. Conclusion Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. Patient or Public Contribution Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development.

It is generally agreed that researchers' 'local context' matters to the successful implementation of research integrity policies. However, it often remains unclear what the relevant local context is. Is it the institutions and immediate working surroundings of researchers? Or, do we need to pay more attention to researchers' epistemic communities if we want to understand their 'local context'? In this paper, we examine this question by using the International Research Integrity Survey with more than 60,000 respondents. Survey responses indicate that academics identify with both their geographical local units ('polis') and their more transnational epistemic or scholarly communities ('cosmos'). Identification with scholarly communities tends to be strongest. We embed the survey results in the academic literature by proposing a theoretical understanding of academics' 'local context' based on Beck's notion of cosmopolitanism and Durkheim's concept of solidarity. We conclude with considerations on how to successfully implement research integrity policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To increase research reproducibility, sharing of study data, analysis code, and use of standardized reporting are increasingly advocated. However, beyond reproducibility, few initiatives have addressed the integrity of how research is conducted before manuscripts are submitted. We describe a decades-long experience with a comprehensive approach based in an academic research community around prospective cohort studies that is aimed at promoting a culture of integrity in observational research. The approach includes prespecifying hypotheses and analysis plans, which are discussed in the research community and posted; presentation and discussion of analysis results; mandatory analysis code review by a programmer; review of concordance between analysis output and manuscripts by a technical reviewer; and checks of adherence to the process, including compliance with institutional review board requirements and reporting stipulations by the National Institutes of Health. The technical core is based in shared computing and analytic environments with long-term archiving. More than simply a list of rules, our approach promotes research integrity through integrated educational elements, making it part of the "hidden curriculum," by fostering a sense of belonging, and by providing efficiency gains to the research community. Unlike reproducibility checklists, such long-term investments into research integrity require substantial and sustained funding for research personnel and computing infrastructure. Our experiences suggest avenues for how institutions, research communities, and funders involved in observational research can strengthen integrity within the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. Methods: Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. Results: One hundred and sixty‐three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. Conclusion: Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. Patient or Public Contribution: Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interdisciplinary approaches are required to tackle complex environmental issues as freshwater ecosystems face unprecedented pressures globally. The emerging Ecohydraulics field of research should, therefore, take steps towards developing true interdisciplinarity to adapt to a continuing changing world. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics and shapes its growth by identifying key actions, actors and implementation strategies that can strengthen it. Based on an online questionnaire and a workshop involving over 150 early and established careers, we present a list of 20 prioritised actions that will help engage the research community towards specific goals and will result in increased interdisciplinary outcomes. While early career researchers (ECRs) have taken the lead on creating this roadmap, its implementation should be a joint responsibility of both ECRs, established career scientists, groups, and institutions within Ecohydraulics. The list of identified actions and assigned responsibility should, therefore, be considered a conversation starter. Continued revision of the here-stated approaches will be required in the future as the field of research and its community progresses. With this contribution, we resume a critical reflection on where the Ecohydraulics field of research and community stand today and suggest where resources should be invested in the long-term to consolidate the inherent interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the inception of the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and its publication of a series of guidelines to instruct companies how to respond to climate change, physical and transition risks have become must‐know terms for businesses around the world. The development of various physical and transition risk assessment tools has become an urgent task for not only climate service companies but also for the scientific research community. Nevertheless, there is still an obvious gap between the contribution of the scientific research community and enterprise needs for clarification of the TCFD requirements. This article draws on interviews from representatives of more than a dozen related corporations and institutions in Taiwan, including private firms, research units, and industry associations, to understand and summarize their experience and expectations for the research community's contributions to TCFD alignment. The interview findings point out that physical risk assessment, transition risk assessment, data/information disclosure and integration, and policies and systems are the most concerned aspects of the interviewees. Based on these findings, the paper then provides suggestions for improvement by the research community, policy makers, and decision makers, including appropriate policies and systems, localized high‐quality climate services, and international competition, helping to effectively bridge the gap between daily research work and external expectations for the research results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Horyzonty Wychowania is the property of Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this research paper, we analyzed the bibliographic data of the research publications issued by the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry between 2013 and 2021. As an open-access country-based research journal with a narrow area of interest and international online exposure, it will be interesting to see how it affects the local chemical research community through the comparison of the characteristics of the research outputs of the journal as retrieved from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) with the features of Moroccan chemical research from 2014 to 2021 in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS). In this context, we generated scientometric networks using Gephi, a tool for large-scale data visualization, to reveal the patterns of the publications in the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry. When performing our analysis, we found a significant alignment between the research topics featured in the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry and the main research areas of the Moroccan chemical scholarly outputs, particularly Multidisciplinary Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, and Analytical Chemistry. We also identified that the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry functions as an incubator for establishing new traditions of research collaboration between Moroccan institutions and target nations such as Asian and African countries. As well, it is clear that the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry is an interesting venue for the most productive chemical researchers in Morocco for sharing preliminary research findings and discussing trendy topics.

Making decisions regarding data and the overall credibility of research constitutes research data governance. In this paper, we present results of an exploratory study of the stakeholders of research data governance. The study was conducted among individuals who work in academic and research institutions in the US, with the goal of understanding what entities are perceived as making decisions regarding data and who researchers believe should be responsible for governing research data. Our results show that there is considerable diversity and complexity across stakeholders, both in terms of who they are and their ideas about data governance. To account for this diversity, we propose to frame research data governance in the context of polycentric governance of a knowledge commons. We argue that approaching research data from the commons perspective will allow for a governance framework that can balance the goals of science and society, allow us to shift the discussion toward protection from enclosure and knowledge resilience, and help to ensure that multiple voices are included in all levels of decision-making.

Cloud and Earth Observation (EO) based services offer the European Research community a wealth of powerful tools. However, for many researchers these tools are currently out of reach. It is difficult to find and select suitable services. Establishing agreements with cloud and EO service providers and ensuring legal and technical compliance requires specialist skills and takes an inordinate amount of time. Equally, service providers find it difficult to reach and meet the needs of the research community in technical, financial and legal areas. The Open Clouds for Research Environments consortium (OCRE) will change this, by putting in place an easy adoption route. In the autumn of 2019, OCRE will run a pan-European tender and establish framework agreements with service providers who meet the requirements of the research community. 10.000 European research and education institutes will be able to directly consume these offerings via the European Open Science Cloud service catalogue, through ready-to-use agreements. They will not have to run a tender of their own. In addition, to stimulate usage, OCRE will make available 9.5 million euro in service credits (vouchers), through adoption funds from the European Commission. OCRE is a pioneer project without precedence, with potentially high impact in the future EO market activities and evolution of service offering, with the objective to burst the usage of EO commercial services by the research environment.

The Global OER Graduate Network (GO-GN) is a global community of researchers in Open education. For this collection we invited papers from GO-GN members (past and present) to highlight the research they are undertaking and the impact of the network. As well as conventional research papers, we encouraged joint papers with other members or external to the network; shorter, work-in-progress papers; case studies or narrative accounts of OEP and suggestions for innovative formats. The collection provides an opportunity for members to showcase their work, gain feedback and demonstrate the value of the network. The GO-GN team also offered to act as mentors on request for any authors who wished to work up their contributions.

Bibliometrics, and more generally all metric indicators, are increasingly used as research tools as well as for managing and evaluating research activities. This study analyzes the characteristics of publications that use bibliometrics as a research method. We identified all relevant records indexed in the Web of Science-Core Collection (1965–2019), generating a coauthorship network and performing a comparative analysis of papers published in journals specializing in Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) and in other areas of knowledge. Metric studies show an "uncontainable" pattern of dynamic development, with the number of papers published in the past 15 years multiplying 12-fold and spreading to all areas of knowledge. This growth has evaded the discipline's natural mechanisms of control, taking place outside the traditional niche of bibliometric studies as an autonomous and "uncontrollable" process that disregards the knowledge generated within the main theoretical frameworks linked to IS&LS. Different research groups are widely dispersed and atomized, and there are few collaboration and citation ties between IS&LS and non-IS&LS bibliometric research. Our results should spark reflection on the need to strengthen the teaching of bibliometrics and other metrics for use as research tools, to demand rigorous and critical review prior to the acceptance and publication of this type of study, and to foster links and cohesion of the extended research community operating in the area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brain research in Europe is a rapidly evolving field, and increasingly at the forefront of science. Although considerable amounts of knowledge and innovative approaches have been generated, the translation into new health interventions is hindered by excessive fragmentation. Effective and efficient collaboration and cooperation among the various initiatives are often identified as a key success factor to achieve brain research full impact. EBRA fully responds to these needs by bringing together the various stakeholders and major brain research initiatives, at European level and beyond. EBRA creates the conditions for real and effective cross fertilisation, dialogue, building consensus and exploiting research potential. On the operational level, EBRA facilitates the emergence of research projects in specific areas in active clusters. A cluster is understood as a research community that can be directed towards basic research, clinical research and/or methodological approaches under a common topic and disease area within brain research. EBRA support clusters to: 1. Consolidate or expand further the research community expand their community, 2. Engage with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders, 3. Build consensus on various issues (research priorities, research roadmap, data sharing, etc.), 4. Promote links with existing research infrastructures, 5. Increase the visibility of the research community through communication and dissemination activities, 6. Coordinate the development of position/consensus papers, white papers, guidelines, meeting reports and/or other cluster outcomes. EBRA currently has 6 existing clusters: EPICLUSTER, Prevention of Severe Mental Disorders (PSMD)-cluster, TRISOMY21-cluster, BRAINFOOD-cluster., PREMOS-cluster and ECIB-cluster.

Copyright of Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The academic community frequently engages with OpenStreetMap (OSM) as a data source and research subject, acknowledging its complex and contextual nature. However, existing literature rarely considers the position of academic research in relation to the OSM community. In this paper we explore the extent and nature of engagement between the academic research community and the larger communities in OSM. An analysis of OSM-related publications from 2016 to 2019 and seven interviews conducted with members of one research group engaged in OSM-related research are described. The literature analysis seeks to uncover general engagement patterns while the interviews are used to identify possible causal structures explaining how these patterns may emerge within the context of a specific research group. Results indicate that academic papers generally show few signs of engagement and adopt data-oriented perspectives on the OSM project and product. The interviews expose that more complex perspectives and deeper engagement exist within the research group to which the interviewees belong, e.g., engaging in OSM mapping and direct interactions based on specific points-of-contact in the OSM community. Several conclusions and recommendations emerge, most notably: that every engagement with OSM includes an interpretive act which must be acknowledged and that the academic community should act to triangulate its interpretation of the data and OSM community by diversifying their engagement. This could be achieved through channels such as more direct interactions and inviting members of the OSM community to participate in the design and evaluation of research projects and programmes.

This paper describes the evolution and outcome of a research journey spanning six years. It is a discursive document rather than a research report, offered to inform, appreciate and celebrate the many children, family members, New Zealand music therapists, allied health professionals, educators, and other experts who participated in a contemporary study and the exploratory research that preceded it. I begin by discussing the impetus for the exploratory research, before sharing the ways in which the findings informed the larger study. The latter involved ten music therapists each working for up to one year with a child with an autism spectrum condition who had not had music therapy before. At the end of that year they produced their case material (descriptions, photographs, videos), not as data to be analysed, but artefacts for 'evaluators' to appraise. The primary focus of this paper will be on the music therapy practice that was presented, with brief reference to the ways in which the evaluators perceived the work. I conclude by discussing the ways in which published findings might increase the potential for increased access to music therapy for children with autism spectrum conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses how the Cold War influenced the discourses on basic research and on Science and Technology Policies (STPs) of some leaders of the Argentine research community. It explores two key intersections to study the Cold War: the first between politics and policies; the second between the global and the regional/national. The basic assumption is that, just as there was no one Cold War, specific regional and national traits lent specific meanings to basic research. In dialogue with the literature on Latin American history of STPs, on Cold War and on the conceptual history of science, the paper identifies three discursive configurations around S&T: the first refers to the semi-peripheral scientific context; the second is associated with the 'democracy-totalitarianism' dichotomy, and the third is linked to the 'development-dependence' dichotomy. Finally, the paper also traces some connections between these discourses and the institutional models proposed by different key actors of the research community to implement STPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Created in 2006 with the coming together of RLG and OCLC, the RLG Partnership is a transnational research venue for libraries, archives and museums. In concert with OCLC Research, the RLG Partnership focuses on a work agenda that includes system-wide organization and interactions of libraries, archives and museums; research information management; mobilizing unique materials in collections; metadata support and management; and infrastructure to support metadata flow in the Web environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]