Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
176,519
result(s) for
"Research funding"
Sort by:
What is research funding, how does it influence research, and how is it recorded? Key dimensions of variation
Evaluating the effects of some or all academic research funding is difficult because of the many different and overlapping sources, types, and scopes. It is therefore important to identify the key aspects of research funding so that funders and others assessing its value do not overlook them. This article outlines 18 dimensions through which funding varies substantially, as well as three funding records facets. For each dimension, a list of common or possible variations is suggested. The main dimensions include the type of funder of time and equipment, any funding sharing, the proportion of costs funded, the nature of the funding, any collaborative contributions, and the amount and duration of the grant. In addition, funding can influence what is researched, how and by whom. The funding can also be recorded in different places and has different levels of connection to outputs. The many variations and the lack of a clear divide between “unfunded” and funded research, because internal funding can be implicit or unrecorded, greatly complicate assessing the value of funding quantitatively at scale. The dimensions listed here should nevertheless help funding evaluators to consider as many differences as possible and list the remainder as limitations. They also serve as suggested information to collect for those compiling funding datasets.
Journal Article
Patient participation in research funding: an overview of when, why and how amongst Dutch health funds
Background
Patient participation in decision-making on health-related research has gained ground. Nineteen Dutch health-related research-funding organisations (HFs) have taken up the challenge to include patients in their funding process. A ‘Patient participation (PP) advisory team’ was set-up, with HF-representatives and patient advocates, who together initiated this study. We provide an overview of
when
,
why
, and
how
PP activities take place in HFs’ funding processes, share main challenges and identify possible solutions.
Methods
A qualitative research design was used. Data was gathered by questionnaires (
n
= 14) and semi-structured interviews (
n
= 18) with HF employees responsible for patient participation, followed by a workshop (
n
= 27) with involved employees of HFs and key players in PP from national patient organisations and research organisations. A descriptive analysis was used for the questionnaire. A semi-directed content analysis was used for the interviews and the workshop.
Results
Three stages can be identified in the funding process in which HFs carry out PP activities: (1) strategic decision-making about focus of research (e.g. shared research agendas); (2) call for and receipt of research proposals (e.g. mandatory inclusion of letter of recommendation from patient organisation); (3) decision-making about the funding of research proposals (e.g. patients reside in a patient panel to co-review research proposals). Main challenges identified to carry out PP activities include: how to accommodate diversity of the patient body (mainly encountered in stage 1 and 3); to what extent should patients receive training to successfully participate (mainly encountered in stage 1 and 3); and who is responsible for patient-researcher dialogues (mainly encountered in stage 1 and 2). All nineteen HFs agree that patients should be included in at least one stage of the funding process for health-related research. CONCLUSION: Further broadening and optimising patient involvement is still needed. The proposed solutions to the identified challenges could serve as inspiration for national and international research funding foundations that aim to structurally include patients in their funding process.
Journal Article
Do research performances of universities and disciplines in England converge or diverge? An assessment of the progress between research excellence frameworks in 2014 and 2021
Performance-based research funding systems (PBRFSs) have been used in selectively distributing research funding, increasing public money accountability and efficiency. Two recent such evaluations in England were called the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which took place in 2014 and 2021, and the research environment, outputs and impact of the research were evaluated. Even though various aspects of the REF were examined, there has been limited research on how the performance of the universities and disciplines changed between the two evaluation periods. This paper assesses whether there has been convergence or divergence in research quality across universities and subject areas between 2014 and 2021 and found that there was an absolute convergence between universities in all three research elements evaluated, and universities that performed relatively worse in REF in 2014 experienced higher growth in their performance between 2014 and 2021. There was also an absolute convergence in the research environment and impact across different subject areas, but there is no significant convergence in the quality of research outputs across disciplines. Our findings also highlight that there has been an absolute convergence in research quality within the universities (between different disciplines in a given university) and within disciplines (between universities in a given subject).
Journal Article
Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding
In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion in this database, we present a bibliographic analysis of the publications identified. First, we show how the yearly number of publications in questionable journals has evolved over the period 2003-2016. Second, we present a disciplinary classification of the identified journals. In the third part of the results section, three authorship characteristics are discussed: multi-authorship, the seniority-or experience level-of authors in general and of the first author in particular, and the relation of the disciplinary scope of the journal (cognitive classification) with the departmental affiliation of the authors (organizational classification). Our results regarding yearly rates of publications in questionable journals indicate that awareness of the risks of questionable journals does not lead to a turn away from open access in general. The number of publications in open access journals rises every year, while the number of publications in questionable journals decreases from 2012 onwards. We find further that both early career and more senior researchers publish in questionable journals. We show that the average proportion of senior authors contributing to publications in questionable journals is somewhat higher than that for publications in open access journals. In addition, this paper yields insight into the extent to which publications in questionable journals pose a threat to the public and political legitimacy of a performance-based research funding system of a western European region. We include concrete suggestions for those tasked with maintaining bibliographic databases and screening for publications in questionable journals.
Journal Article
UK LEADERS EYE RADICAL SHAKE-UP OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT
[...]of the change, the latest exercise saw a 46% increase in the number of staff submitted for assessment compared with the previous one. \"The current REF has been quite focused on the research end points, and not focusing so much on the inputs or the research process,\" says Firth. Because research outputs are assessed for their originality, institutions do not submit review articles, negative results or replication studies, which are all important for research, she says. The results of the REF review will be very important for the rest of the world, says Lidia Borrell-Damián, head of research and innovation at policy group Science Europe.
Journal Article
Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study
To foster research integrity (RI), it is necessary to address the institutional and system-of-science factors that influence researchers’ behavior. Consequently, research performing and research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs) could develop comprehensive RI policies outlining the concrete steps they will take to foster RI. So far, there is no consensus on which topics are important to address in RI policies. Therefore, we conducted a three round Delphi survey study to explore which RI topics to address in institutional RI policies by seeking consensus from research policy experts and institutional leaders. A total of 68 RPO and 52 RFO experts, representing different disciplines, countries and genders, completed one, two or all rounds of the study. There was consensus among the experts on the importance of 12 RI topics for RPOs and 11 for RFOs. The topics that ranked highest for RPOs concerned education and training, supervision and mentoring, dealing with RI breaches, and supporting a responsible research process (e.g. through quality assurance). The highest ranked RFO topics concerned dealing with breaches of RI, conflicts of interest, and setting expectations on RPOs (e.g. about educating researchers about RI). Together with the research policy experts and institutional leaders, we developed a comprehensive overview of topics important for inclusion in the RI policies of RPOs and RFOs. The topics reflect preference for a preventative approach to RI, coupled with procedures for dealing with RI breaches. RPOs and RFOs should address each of these topics in order to support researchers in conducting responsible research.
Journal Article
Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review
Research integrity (RI) is a continuously developing concept, and increasing emphasis is put on creating RI promotion practices. This study aimed to map the existing RI guidance documents at research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funding organisations (RFOs). A search of bibliographic databases and grey literature sources was performed, and retrieved documents were screened for eligibility. The search of bibliographical databases and reference lists of selected articles identified a total of 92 documents while the search of grey literature sources identified 118 documents for analysis. The retrieved documents were analysed based on their geographical origin, research field and organisational origin (RPO or RFO) of RI practices, types of guidance presented in them, and target groups to which RI practices are directed. Most of the identified practices were developed for research in general, and are applicable to all research fields (n = 117) and medical sciences (n = 78). They were mostly written in the form of guidelines (n = 136) and targeted researchers (n = 167). A comprehensive search of the existing RI promotion practices showed that initiatives mostly come from RPOs while only a few RI practices originate from RFOs. This study showed that more RI guidance documents are needed for natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities since only a small number of documents was developed specifically for these research fields. The explored documents and the gaps in knowledge identified in this study can be used for further development of RI promotion practices in RPOs and RFOs.
Journal Article
The Pandemic Year 2020: World Map of Coronavirus Research
Background: SARS-CoV-2 is one of the most threatening pandemics in human history. As of the date of this analysis, it had claimed about 2 million lives worldwide, and the number is rising sharply. Governments, societies, and scientists are equally challenged under this burden. Objective: This study aimed to map global coronavirus research in 2020 according to various influencing factors to highlight incentives or necessities for further research. Methods: The application of established and advanced bibliometric methods combined with the visualization technique of density-equalizing mapping provided a global picture of incentives and efforts on coronavirus research in 2020. Countries’ funding patterns and their epidemiological and socioeconomic characteristics as well as their publication performance data were included. Results: Research output exploded in 2020 with momentum, including citation and networking parameters. China and the United States were the countries with the highest publication performance. Globally, however, publication output correlated significantly with COVID-19 cases. Research funding has also increased immensely. Conclusions: Nonetheless, the abrupt decline in publication efforts following previous coronavirus epidemics should demonstrate to global researchers that they should not lose interest even after containment, as the next epidemiological challenge is certain to come. Validated reporting worldwide and the inclusion of low-income countries are additionally important for a successful future research strategy.
Journal Article