Search

Dr Aarts has advisory board / consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. Prof vd Eertwegh has advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck and has received research study grants not related to this paper from Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer and Sanofi and has received speaker honoraria from BMS and Novartis. Dr Suijkerbuijk has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Abbvie and received honoraria from Novartis, MSD and Roche. [Extracted from the article]

European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grants are arguably the most competitive grants in Europe and their prestige is fully justified considering that they (i) allow focus on a high risk/high gain project through generous funding of 1.5–2 million Euros, (ii) they can enable the foundation of a new academic group and earn the submitting principal investigator a professorship, and (iii) they serve as a highly reputable award that can either facilitate tenure/promotion or assist in securing a subsequent academic position. However, the journey to getting one is far from easy. In this Viewpoint Article, I will discuss my first two unsuccessful attempts to secure an ERC Starting Grant and how the lessons learned during the process led me to ultimately secure a grant upon my third attempt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grants are arguably the most competitive grants in Europe and their prestige is fully justified considering that they (i) allow focus on a high risk/high gain project through generous funding of 1.5–2 million Euros, (ii) they can enable the foundation of a new academic group and earn the submitting principal investigator a professorship, and (iii) they serve as a highly reputable award that can either facilitate tenure/promotion or assist in securing a subsequent academic position. However, the journey to getting one is far from easy. In this Viewpoint Article, I will discuss my first two unsuccessful attempts to secure an ERC Starting Grant and how the lessons learned during the process led me to ultimately secure a grant upon my third attempt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article corrects the following:In this research paper by Chew et al.,[1] on page 590, the funding information in the Acknowledgement is incorrect.The correct funding information should be:This work is funded by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Fundamental Research Grant Scheme [Grant Number: FRGS/1/2019/STG06/USM/02/5], for the project entitled "New Robust Adaptive Model for Coefficient of Variation in Infinite and Finite Horizon Processes."We apologise for this error. [Extracted from the article]

This study investigates the role of research funding and research collaboration in the potential for publication in predatory journals among Indonesian social science academia. A total of 2953 articles published by at least one Indonesian author in the social science field between 2010 and 2020 in Scopus‐indexed journals were collected. The SCImago quartiles of 2019 for the Scopus database and Beall's list of potential predatory journals 2021 were used to evaluate the quality and credibility of the publication outlets. Descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis were performed to classify and predict the quality and credibility of the publications. A contrast in the quality and credibility of publications was identified between research funded by Indonesian and foreign institutions. Research publications that were financially supported by Indonesian ministries and authored by a single author and/or via local and national collaboration were more likely to appear in lower‐ranked journals and predatory journals than publications funded by international sponsors and/or that involved foreign author(s)/international collaboration. This study therefore highlights the need for significant changes in monitoring and evaluation systems, timelines, and output targets of Indonesian government research grant schemes, alongside the enhanced involvement of foreign researchers and reviewers in the research funding schemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Higher Education Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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 Centre for Marine Evolutionary Biology (CeMEB) at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was established in 2008 through a 10‐year research grant of 8.7 m€ to a team of senior researchers. Today, CeMEB members have contributed >500 scientific publications, 30 PhD theses and have organised 75 meetings and courses, including 18 three‐day meetings and four conferences. What are the footprints of CeMEB, and how will the centre continue to play a national and international role as an important node of marine evolutionary research? In this perspective article, we first look back over the 10 years of CeMEB activities and briefly survey some of the many achievements of CeMEB. We furthermore compare the initial goals, as formulated in the grant application, with what has been achieved, and discuss challenges and milestones along the way. Finally, we bring forward some general lessons that can be learnt from a research funding of this type, and we also look ahead, discussing how CeMEB's achievements and lessons can be used as a springboard to the future of marine evolutionary biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This research aims to examine the impact of the National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Registry‐funded research activities. Methods: Registry‐funded research and related publications were identified through the National ALS Registry website, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Reporter website, and verified by Principal Investigators. Key study characteristics (e.g., study population, sample size) and key impact features (e.g., risk factors) were abstracted and recorded on study abstraction forms. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the volume, productivity, and findings of the Registry‐funded research. Results: Since 2012, the National ALS Registry funded 21 research projects. Of these, 14 were through extramural research grants and included in the analysis. These studies are often related to environmental, medical conditions, and genetic risk factors. On average, the funded grants produced 1 to 2 publications which were cited 114 times by other researchers. The relative citation ratio averaged 1.81 with a weighted relative citation ratio of 16.28. These studies supported the identification and confirmation of candidate risk factors. Environmental and occupational risk factors typically related to heavy metal exposure (e.g., lead, mercury) and agricultural chemicals (e.g., pesticides, herbicides), and the occupations associated with exposure to these substances were most frequently explored. Interpretation: The National ALS Registry is a multifaceted research platform, one component of which is funded research. This Registry‐funded research fills an essential gap in the overall ALS scientific community as it is difficult to prevent and treat a disease without a deeper understanding of its causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Highly pigmented African skin and hair have distinct characteristics because of their unique physiology and structure. Twenty years ago, despite an increasing number of dermatology specialists in some African countries, there remained a paucity of collaborative research and workshops on African hair and skin, and there was a need for an inclusive African society to represent dermatologists from all English and French‐speaking countries in sub‐Saharan Africa. Methods: We documented significant research advances between 2000 and 2021 on African hair and skin physiology, as well as clinical dermatology, in sub‐Saharan Africa. Results: The main advances documented include the launch of annual African hair and skin workshops in 2004, the introduction of African research grants and the Africaderm web platform in 2013, and the registration of the African Society of Dermatology and Venereology (ASDV) in 2015, which led to the inaugural scientific meeting of ASDV in 2016. Conclusion: There have been significant research advances in African hair and skin over the past 20 years. As skin physiology and skin conditions are similar across sub‐Saharan Africa, scientific and clinical partnerships between companies, academia, and public health care sectors have played a key role in translating new scientific findings on African hair and skin to ensure knowledge is shared. This information has helped educate African specialists, health care workers, and consumers, with a particular focus on the preventable nature of certain dermatoses like skin bleaching‐related complications and traction alopecia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]