加强在澳大利亚卫生和医学研究供资方面鼓励负责任的研究做法。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Joanna Diong, Cynthia M Kroeger, Katherine J Reynolds, Adrian Barnett, Lisa A Bero
{"title":"加强在澳大利亚卫生和医学研究供资方面鼓励负责任的研究做法。","authors":"Joanna Diong,&nbsp;Cynthia M Kroeger,&nbsp;Katherine J Reynolds,&nbsp;Adrian Barnett,&nbsp;Lisa A Bero","doi":"10.1186/s41073-021-00113-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: \"Instructed\", \"Encouraged\", or \"No mention\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Funders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"6 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328133/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding.\",\"authors\":\"Joanna Diong,&nbsp;Cynthia M Kroeger,&nbsp;Katherine J Reynolds,&nbsp;Adrian Barnett,&nbsp;Lisa A Bero\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-021-00113-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: \\\"Instructed\\\", \\\"Encouraged\\\", or \\\"No mention\\\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Funders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328133/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00113-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00113-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:澳大利亚健康和医学研究资助者支持大量的研究工作,资助计划中的激励措施会影响研究人员的行为。我们旨在确定澳大利亚卫生和医疗资助者在多大程度上激励负责任的研究实践。方法:我们对研究资助和研究金计划的指示进行了审计。有目的地对八项国家研究补助金和研究金进行了抽样,以选择获得最多资金的计划。根据9个标准对资助计划说明进行了评估,以确定它们在多大程度上激励了这些负责任的研究和报告实践:(1)在开始数据收集之前公开注册研究协议,(2)在开始分析之前注册分析协议,(3)公开研究数据,(4)公开分析代码,(5)公开研究材料,(6)不鼓励使用发表指标,(7)进行高质量的研究(例如遵守报告指南),(8)与统计学家合作,以及(9)遵守其他负责任的研究实践。每个标准都使用以下回答之一回答:“指示”、“鼓励”或“不提及”。结果:在来自5名资助者的8个计划中,申请人被指示或鼓励满足9个标准中的4个(范围0至5)。在任何方案中都没有提到三个标准(注册分析协议、开放分析代码、与统计学家合作)。重要的是,大多数激励措施似乎并不强烈,因为申请人只被要求注册研究方案,不鼓励使用发表指标,并进行高质量的研究。鼓励但不要求采用其他标准。结论:资助者可以通过要求拨款和研究金申请人在其提案中实施这些做法来加强对负责任研究实践的激励。管理机构可能被要求实施这些做法,才有资格获得资助。大力奖励实施稳健研究实践的研究人员,可以持续提高健康和医学研究的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding.

Background: Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices.

Methods: We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: "Instructed", "Encouraged", or "No mention".

Results: Across the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required.

Conclusions: Funders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信