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]