Tag: RESEARCH EVALUATION

  • Nine major funders sign ORCID Open Letter

    Nine funding agencies in seven countries have signed an ORCiD open letter committing to implement ORCID iDs in the grant application and reporting process, in accordance with the organisation’s best practice guidelines for funders.

    The nine funders are:

    1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (Austria)
    2. National Research Foundation (South Africa) 
    3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (USA)
    4. Wellcome Trust (UK)
    5. Research Council of Norway (Norway)
    6. CAPES (Brazil)
    7. The Royal Society (UK)
    8. UK Research and Innovation (UK)
    9. Swiss National Science Foundation (Switzerland)

    The Swiss National Science Foundation also released an open letter to accompany the announcement, detailing their future plans through three separate initiatives.

    This ORCiD open letter initiative, and the support of these major funding bodies, is an excellent move towards increasing the efficiency of the application and reporting processes.

    This Summer, EASE announced our own Statement of Endorsement of ORCiD to encourage our members to register and use ORCIDs for their works and to encourage authors and reviewers with whom they work to do likewise.

  • Cochrane-REWARD prizes for reducing research waste: 2018 winners

    This year’s winners of the Cochrane-REWARD prizes for reducing waste in research were announced during the Cochrane Colloquium Gala Dinner last night. The winners were the UK Equator Centre (for its Good Reports Tool), the EBM DataLab (for its Trials Tracker initiative), and the James Lind Alliance (for its Priority Setting Partnerships).

    The prize of GBP 2500 recognizes local or pilot initiatives that could lead to reductions in research waste. Given the high standard of the 15 applicants, the panel decided to award three prizes this year, with Trials Tracker and the James Lindt Alliance being awarded a joint second prize.

    The UK Equator Centre developed the Equator Good Reports Tool to help overcome key barriers which prevent authors finding and using reporting guidelines. Good reports guides authors to the right guidelines to use, then provides access to reporting guidelines in a user-friendly way. In October 2017, BMJ Open introduced an optional free online automatic manuscript checker for their authors, provided by Penelope.ai. In January 2018, Penelope.ai’s manuscript checker was adapted to incorporate the EQUATOR Good Reports Tool, and now directs authors to a suitable checklist when appropriate. Integrating reporting guidelines into an automated manuscript checker has created a viable way for journals and publishers to:

    1. enforce use of appropriate reporting guidelines;
    2. improve publication standards;
    3. decrease author and editor burden; and
    4. reduce publishing time and cost.

    Initial results of user testing are encouraging: prompting authors to complete a checklist as part of an automated manuscript check, results in more authors uploading a completed checklist when submitting to a journal. In the coming two years, the UK EQUATOR aims to expand this work through collaborations with 50 other journals.

    The TrialsTracker initiative, developed by the EBM DataLab, began in 2016 with the launch of the original TrialsTracker. When trials go unreported, the investment is spent, but with zero output. Hence getting some unreported trials reported has an extremely high marginal value. The automated tool developed searches all trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and Pubmed for results and reports performance by sponsor.

    In 2018, the EBM DataLab launched the FDAAA TrialsTracker, which monitors breaches of the Final Rule of the FDA Amendments Act 2007. It ranks trial sponsors on their reporting rates, with updates every working day. As of 15 August 2018, just 59% of all trials required to report under FDAAA have submitted results to ClinicalTrials.gov since the new regulations came into effect in early 2017.

    Additional trackers are being planned that aim to use new datasets, bring new features, and respond to the needs of various user groups.

    The James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and health professionals together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs), and ensures that their research priorities are taken into account. PSPs use an established, transparent method to identify and prioritize uncertainties, or ‘unanswered questions’ in a particular area of health and social care, giving a voice to patient and clinician stakeholders who have traditionally had little say in what research should be done. The partnerships work with specific funders to highlight research questions of most relevance and potential benefit to patients and the clinicians who treat them. Since 2007 a total of 63 JLA PSPs have been completed in a diverse range of conditions and settings.

    The JLA community is growing and embracing different countries, contexts, languages and cultures with partnership methods used in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany. The decisions in this second year of the Cochrane-REWARD prize were particularly difficult with considerable breadth and depth of the initiatives submitted. For example, the CAMARADES group has developed SyRF – a free-to-use online platform for researchers to perform systematic reviews and meta-analysis of animal studies. A group in the Netherlands developed an online register for protocols of preclinical animal studies. MoreTrials started a public campaign in 2016 for more and better randomized trials in medicine. In particular, it has campaigned to reduce excessive regulation which adds expense to clinical trials with little benefit, while ignoring key principles of trials. It aims to replace the ICH-GCP guideline with more scientifically focused but more streamlined guidance. Open Source Malaria is a novel project trying a different approach to curing malaria. Guided by open source principles, it fosters research and collaboration where anyone can contribute.

    These are just some examples of the great work being done by researchers to improve research. We look forward to continuing the Cochrane-REWARD prize in 2019, and encourage initiatives that were not yet advanced enough this year to consider submitting their nomination for the 2019 award. A call for nominations will be issued early 2019.

  • How CrossRef is handling peer reviews as publications

    Nice article on the Crossref blog by Jennifer Lin, in advance of Peer Review Week, explaining the metadata they register on peer reviews, how researchers are credited for their reviews and the potential value this has for the scholarly community.

    “Published reviews can show peer feedback in progress; the progress of scholarly discussion unfolding, as expert ideas build upon each other. Many of us have traditionally located the article’s publication as the climactic event, but the story in fact doesn’t end there. Pre-publication becomes post-publication. Throughout this time, research is validated and sprouts into new ideas.”

    Read the blog post in full here: https://www.crossref.org/blog/peer-review-publications/

  • Peer review as a cooperation dilemma

    An article assessing the institutional pressures and resource limitations faced by scientists has been published in the journal Scientometrics.

    Authored by Federico Bianchi, Francisco Grimaldo, Giangiacomo Bravo and Flaminio Squazzoni, the article shows that a mix of competition and cooperation is possible in peer review, but only if reviewer rewards are improved for a better division of academic labour.

    Previous versions of the paper were presented during some PEERE meetings.

    Bianchi, F., Grimaldo, F., Bravo, G. et al. The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures. Scientometrics (2018).
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2825-4

  • Preproducibility

    Stark PB. Before reproducibility must come preproducibility. Nature 2018 May 24
    (doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05256-0)

    Most papers fail to report many aspects of an experiment or an analysis that are crucial to understanding the result and its limitations, and to repeating the work. The author proposes a new neologism, “preproducibility”, meaning that an experiment or analysis is preproducible if it has been described in adequate detail for others to undertake it. It requires information about materials, instruments and procedures; experimental design; raw data; computational tools used in analyses; and other information.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05256-0

  • B – Triangulation

    Munafò MR, Smith GD. Robust research needs many lines of evidence. Nature 2018;553(7689):399-401
    (doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-01023-3)

    Several studies across many fields estimate that only around 40% of published findings can be replicated reliably. But replication is not enough. The authors recommend triangulation, that is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strenghts and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be artefacts.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3

  • B – Prestigious journals and reliability

    Brembs B. Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2018;12:37
    (doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037)

    Data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, some of the data suggest the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank.
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full?utm_content=buffer74521&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

  • B – Google Scholar normalization

    Mingers J, Meyer M. Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics 2017;112(2):1111-1121
    (doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x)

    Bibliometric evaluations across disciplines require that the data are normalized to the field as the fields are very different in their citation processes. This paper tests a method for Google Scholar (GS) normalization developed by Bornmann et al. on an alternative set of data involving journal papers, book chapters, and conference papers. The results show that GS normalization is possible although at the moment it requires extensive manual involvement in generating and validating the data.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x

  • B – Quantity and quality in scientific publishing

    Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S. And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing. PLos ONE 2017;12(6):e0178074
    (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178074)

    Scientists often perceive a trade-off between quantity and quality on scientific publishing. The authors compared members of the National Academy of Sciences with themselves across years, and used a much larger dataset than previously analized. They found that a member’s most highly cited paper in a given year has more citations in more productive years than in less productive years. Their lowest cited paper in a year, on the other hand, has fewer citations in more productive years.

  • B – Ethical aspects of Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF)

    Howard HC, Mascalzoni D, Mabile L, et al. How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF). Journal of Community Genetics 2017 Sep 25:1-8
    (doi: 10.1007/s12687-017-0332-6)

    There is currently no system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to researchers and clinicians developing bioresources. This article reviews the objectives and functions of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF) initiative including the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources. It also presents results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and an ethical analysis of its ethical aspects.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12687-017-0332-6

  • B – NISO Alternative altmetrics project

    Lagace N. NISO Releases recommended practice covering outputs of its multiyear project in alternative assessment metrics. Serials Review 2016;42(4):337-338.
    (doi: 10.1080/00987913.2016.1246343)   
     

    NISO, the National Information Standards Organization, announced the publication of its latest Recommended Practice, NISO RP-25-2016, Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project, in September 2016 http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/17091/NISO%20RP-25-2016%20Outputs%20of%20the%20NISO%20Alternative%20Assessment%20Project.pdf This document is the culmination of a two-phase project initialized in 2013 and designed to support the uptake of altmetrics. To further facilitate adoption of these new assessment measures, the scholarly community developed consensus work via NISO that addresses several areas of the altmetric environment: definitions and use cases; persistent identifiers, output types, and data metrics; and data quality.
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00987913.2016.1246343?scroll=top&needAccess=true

  • B – Citation indicators

    Davis P. Citation performance indicators – A very short introduction. The Scholarly Kitchen 2017 May 15

    This post provides a brief summary of the main citation indicators used today. It is not intended to be comprehensive, nor to opine on which indicator is best. The goal  is simply to highlight their salient strengths and weaknesses. These citation indicators are grouped based on the design of their algorithm: the group Ratio-based indicators is built on the same model as the Impact Factor, by dividing citations counts by document counts; the group Portfolio-based indicators calculates a score based on a ranked set of documents; and the last group Network-based indicators seeks to measure influence within a larger citation network.
     https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/05/15/citation-performance-indicators-short-introduction/