Search

Background: Scholarly publications are important indicators of research productivity and investigator development in Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBREs). However, no information is available to describe implementation and evaluation of writing development programs within COBREs. Therefore, this paper aimed to evaluate the first year of a campus-wide COBRE-supported writing program., Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design (QUAN + QUAL) was used. All writing program participants were invited to complete post-participation surveys, and a subgroup was selected using purposive sampling to complete individual semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize survey data, and qualitative content analysis was employed to analyze interview data. Self-determination theory served as the theoretical framework by which themes were developed and interpreted., Results: Professional staff, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty from all academic ranks (n = 29) participated in the writing program during its first year. Survey respondents (n = 18, response rate 62%) rated social support (89%), group accountability (89%), hearing group members' writing goals (78%), receiving group advice (67%), and setting a weekly writing schedule (56%) as beneficial program components. Participants rated program benefits such as breaking away from other responsibilities, staying on task with writing goals, and receiving social support as most beneficial. During interviews, participants (n = 14) described five major themes related to the benefits received: 1) belonging to a community of writers; 2) managing writing-related emotions; 3) improved productivity; 4) establishing helpful writing habits; and 5) improved motivation for scholarly writing., Conclusions: This first-year programmatic evaluation demonstrates the writing program's effectiveness as a campus-level development resource supported by a research center. Both survey and interview data affirmed that participants perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness were supported through participation in the writing program. Participants placed particular emphasis on the writing program's successful development of a community of scholarly writers., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Franks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Competing Interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Biomedical research collaborations are to be contextualized in the larger global health agenda which also opens up new information pathways, expands research networks, and brings additional resources. A qualitative inquiry was employed to understand the perceived benefits and challenges of research collaborations by biomedical scientists from India (Global South [GS] country) and the Global North (GN). In-depth interviews were conducted with 47 biomedical scientists from India and 06 from the GN. The data was analyzed using the grounded theory approach. Complementarity of skills and resources, access to funds, improved quality of work, an opportunity to conduct multi-centric studies, development of collaborative networks, better and larger number of publications, mutual learning, opportunity to work with credible researchers, address common interests, leverage interpersonal and trusted relationships and larger societal good were some of the critical factors for eagerness of participants in joint scientific endeavors. However, the challenging aspects of dissent and disagreements were the power imbalance between the collaborators, the development of a trust deficit, and local administrative issues. The challenges reported in the current publication, also echoed in several previous publications can be surmounted and negotiated amicably when the rules of the game, law of the land, sharing of the credits, and interest of the collaborating parties are addressed and agreed up in a fair and just manner before the start of the collaboration. Overall biomedical partnerships are complex collaborations with its challenges, the processes are dynamic and outcomes are emergent. This requires constant and proactive evolution of the preparation, implementation and sustainability of the collaborative efforts be it national or international., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Deshmukh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing biomedical sciences. Proportionally fewer physicians are actively engaged in scientific pursuits, attributed to attrition in the training and retention pipeline. This national study evaluated the ongoing and longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels, research productivity, and optimism for physician-scientists at all levels of training., Methods: A multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of medical students, graduate students, and residents/fellows/junior faculty (RFJF) was conducted from April to August 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on individual stress, productivity, and optimism. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify associated variables and unsupervised variable clustering techniques were employed to identify highly correlated responses., Results: A total 677 respondents completed the survey, representing different stages of physician-scientist training. Respondents report high levels of stress (medical students: 85%, graduate students: 63%, RFJF: 85%) attributed to impaired productivity concerns, concern about health of family and friends, impact on personal health and impairment in training or career development. Many cited impaired productivity (medical students: 65% graduate students: 79%, RFJF: 78%) associated with pandemic impacts on training, labs closures and loss of facility/resource access, and social isolation. Optimism levels were low (medical students: 37%, graduate students: 38% and RFJF: 39%) with females less likely to be optimistic and more likely to report concerns of long-term effects of COVID-19. Optimism about the future was correlated with not worrying about the long-term effects of COVID-19. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, all respondents reported increased prioritization of time with family/friends (67%) and personal health (62%) over career (25%) and research (24%)., Conclusions: This national survey highlights the significant and protracted impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels, productivity, and optimism among physician-scientists and trainees. These findings underscore the urgent need for tailored support, including mental health, academic, and career development assistance for this biomedical workforce., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Japanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers' characteristics., Design: We employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences., Participants: We received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine)., Outcomes: The subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating 'especially important' and 4 indicating 'not important'. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, 'strongly agree', to 4, 'completely disagree'., Results: Notably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree-basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important-basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important-basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias., Conclusion: Despite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In recent years, some researchers have engaged in scientific misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism to achieve higher research performance. Considering their detrimental effects on individuals' health status (e.g., patients, etc.) and extensive financial costs levied upon healthcare systems, such wrongdoings have even more salience in medical sciences. However, there has been little discussion on the possible influence of medical researchers' existing creative performance on scientific misconduct, and the moral psychological mechanisms underlying those effects are still poorly understood., Methods: We build a moderated mediation model to test how medical researchers' creative performance affects their scientific misconduct and explore the role of moral licensing and moral identity in this process. Based on situational experiments and projection techniques, 287 medical researchers in China participated in a survey., Results: Medical researchers' creative performance positively relates to scientific misconduct, and moral licensing plays a mediating role in the relationship between them. In addition, moral identity has a negative moderating effect on the mediating effect of moral licensing on creative performance and scientific misconduct., Conclusion: Moral licensing plays a fully mediating role in the relationship between creative performance and scientific misconduct. And moral identity negatively moderates the indirect effect of creative performance on scientific misconduct through moral licensing. The findings provide theoretical and practical implications for the prevention of medical researchers' scientific misconduct., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

As scientific research becomes increasingly cross-disciplinary, many universities seek to support collaborative activity through new buildings and institutions. This study examines the impacts of spatial proximity on collaboration at MIT from 2005 to 2015. By exploiting a shift in the location of researchers due to building renovations, we evaluate how discrete changes in physical proximity affect the likelihood that researchers co-author. The findings suggest that moving researchers into the same building increases their propensity to collaborate, with the effect plateauing five years after the move. The effects are large when compared to the average rate of collaboration among pairs of researchers, which suggests that spatial proximity is an important tool to support cross-disciplinary collaborative science. Furthermore, buildings that host researchers working in the same or related fields and from multiple departments have a larger effect on their propensity to collaborate., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Importance: A systematic assessment of existing research should justify the conduct and inform the design of new clinical research but is often lacking. There is little research on the barriers to and factors facilitating systematic evidence assessments., Objective: To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between February and August 2020 with 48 Swiss stakeholder groups (27 primary investigators, 9 funders and sponsors, 6 clinical trial support organizations, and 6 ethics committee members) and between January and March 2021 with 9 international funders of clinical trials from North America and Europe with a reputation for requiring systematic evidence synthesis in applications for academic clinical trials., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis., Results: Of the 57 participants, 40 (70.2%) were male. Participants universally acknowledged that a comprehensive understanding of the previous evidence is important but reported wide variation regarding how this should be achieved. Participants reported that the conduct of formal systematic reviews was currently not expected before most clinical trials, but most international funders reported expecting a systematic search for the existing evidence. Whereas time and resources were reported by all participants as barriers to conducting systematic reviews, the Swiss research ecosystem was reported not to be as supportive of a systematic approach compared with international settings., Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, Swiss stakeholders and international funders generally agreed that new clinical trials should be justified by a systematic evidence assessment but that barriers on individual, organizational, and political levels kept them from implementing it. More explicit requirements from funders appear to be needed to clarify the required level of comprehensiveness in summarizing existing evidence for different types of clinical trials.

A previous note illustrated how the odds of an outcome have an undesirable property for risk summarization and communication: Noncollapsibility, defined as a failure of a group measure to represent a simple average of the measure over individuals or subgroups. The present sequel discusses how odds ratios amplify odds noncollapsibility and provides a basic numeric illustration of how noncollapsibility differs from confounding of effects (with which it is often confused). It also draws a connection of noncollapsibility to sparse-data bias in logistic, log-linear, and proportional-hazards regression., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Blinding reviewers to applicant identity has been proposed to reduce bias in peer review., Methods: This experimental test used 1200 NIH grant applications, 400 from Black investigators, 400 matched applications from White investigators, and 400 randomly selected applications from White investigators. Applications were reviewed by mail in standard and redacted formats., Results: Redaction reduced, but did not eliminate, reviewers' ability to correctly guess features of identity. The primary, preregistered analysis hypothesized a differential effect of redaction according to investigator race in the matched applications. A set of secondary analyses (not preregistered) used the randomly selected applications from White scientists and tested the same interaction. Both analyses revealed similar effects: Standard format applications from White investigators scored better than those from Black investigators. Redaction cut the size of the difference by about half (e.g. from a Cohen's d of 0.20-0.10 in matched applications); redaction caused applications from White scientists to score worse but had no effect on scores for Black applications., Conclusions: Grant-writing considerations and halo effects are discussed as competing explanations for this pattern. The findings support further evaluation of peer review models that diminish the influence of applicant identity., Funding: Funding was provided by the NIH., Competing Interests: RN now retired, was Director of the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) while the study was designed and implemented. LM now retired, was employed by CSR. ML, VD is employed by NIH/CSR, JB was employed by the contract research organization that conducted the data collection and initial analysis. MC MC is employed by NIH/CSR. AV is employed by NIH/Center for Scientific Review. NB is employed by NIH/Center for Scientific Review. She is the Director of CSR. BR is employed by NIH, he is the Deputy Director of CSR

Importance: Emerging vision scientists who have yet to be awarded their first independent funding may have their research careers disproportionately affected by early COVID-19-related disruptions. In September 2020, the Alliance for Eye and Vision Research convened a panel of 22 such scientists (nominated by their academic institutions) to communicate to the US Congress about the importance of vision research. As part of the effort, interviews were conducted with scientists about the effect of the pandemic on their research., Observations: Qualitative areas of adverse consequences from the early months of COVID-19 disruptions included striking interruptions of patient-based research, limits on other types of clinical research, loss of research time for scientists with young children (especially women), challenges with animal colonies and cell cultures, impediments to research collaborations, and loss of training time., Conclusions and Relevance: The early months during the COVID-19 pandemic increased career stress on many early-stage investigators in the vision field and delayed (and may potentially derail) their ability to attract their first independent research funding grant. As a result, federal and private granting agencies may need to take these factors into account to retain talented, early-stage vision researchers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted autism research and services. Early career researchers (ECRs) are particularly vulnerable to the impact of the pandemic on job security and career development. The goal of this study was to capture the challenges ECRs are facing during the pandemic and the supports that are needed for career development and research. ECRs were invited to complete an online survey that focused on four major areas; the impact of COVID-19 on their research; changes in productivity due to COVID-19; changes to training due to COVID-19; and current mental health. 150 ECRs were eligible and provided sufficient data for inclusion. All but one ECRs reported their research had been negatively impacted by the pandemic. Reductions in productivity were reported by 85% of ECRs. The biggest impacts included recruitment of participants, increased needs at home and personal mental health. ECRs reported a 3-fold increase in burnout, as well as increased anxiety. ECR supports, such as funding, flexibility, and tenure extensions, are required to ensure ASD research does not suffer from a "lost generation" of researchers. LAY SUMMARY: The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative impacts on research around the world. Loss of productivity impedes autism research discoveries. However, researchers in the earliest phases of their career, specifically postdoctoral fellows through individuals in assistant professor (or equivalent) positions, are particularly vulnerable to long-lasting effects of pandemic-related disruptions which may limit their ability to continue as autism researchers. This survey highlights the needs of this group and identifies mechanisms by which these early career researchers may be supported in this time. This is critical to ensure the next generation of ASD researchers and clinician scientists continue on the path to advancing understanding of autism in the decades to come., (© 2021 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

This text builds on a conversation with Dr. Gordon Guyatt who provided guidance to trainees on interdisciplinary collaboration and work-life balance as part of a graduate-level biostatistics course in September 2020. The participants in the conversation comprised a group of clinicians, methodologists and biostatisticians, ranging from junior trainees to world-renowned established researchers. Biostatisticians, methodologists and clinicians often collaborate in conducting clinical research, calling upon interpersonal soft skills that are rarely explicitly addressed in undergraduate and graduate coursework. Acquiring such skills are essential for allowing seamless collaboration and communication within a multidisciplinary team and are therefore key to career advancement for young researchers, which was the focus of this session. As an invited guest, Dr. Guyatt shares his experiences after decades of leadership and successful international collaborations. He emphasizes the importance finding the right mentor, forming productive collaborations, developing self-awareness, and strategies for achieving a work-life balance., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Success in academic surgery is challenging and research cannot survive without funding. NIH K-awards are designed to mentor junior investigators to achieve independence. As a result we aimed to study K awardees in departments of surgery and learn from their experience., Material and Methods: Utilizing the NIH RePORTer database and filtering by department of surgery, clinically active surgeons receiving a K-award between 2008 and 2018 were asked to complete an online survey. Qualitative data from two open-ended questions were coded independently using standard qualitative methods by three researchers. Using grounded theory, major themes emerged from the codes., Results: Of the 144 academic surgeons identified, 89 (62%) completed the survey. The average age was 39 ± 3 when the K-award was granted. Most identified as white (69%). Men (70%) were more likely to be married (P = 0.02) and have children (P = 0.05). To identify intention to pursue R01 funding, surgeons having a K-award for 5 y or more were analyzed (n = 45). Most either intended to (11%) or had already applied (80%) of which 36% were successful. Men were more likely to apply (P = 0.05). Major themes to succeed include protected time, mentorship, and support from leadership. Common barriers to overcome include balancing time, pressures to be clinically productive, and funding., Conclusions: The demographics and career trajectory of NIH K-awarded surgeons is described. The lack of underrepresented minorities receiving grants is concerning. Most recipients required more than one application attempt and plan to or have applied for R01 funding. The major themes were very similar; a supportive environment and time available for research are the most crucial factors to succeed as an academic surgeon., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As part of our commitment to amplifying the voices of underrepresented scientists, we are publishing the insights and experiences of a panel of underrepresented scientists. In this segment, we asked about support systems-the types of support that are most helpful (and less helpful), how to find a supportive network, and how institutions can better support underrepresented scientists. These are the personal opinions of the authors and may not reflect the views of their institutions., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

As part of our commitment to amplifying the voices of underrepresented scientists, we are publishing the insights and experiences of a panel of underrepresented scientists. Here they tell us about behaviors that can lead underrepresented scientists to feel that they do not belong and what the scientific community can do to provide better support. These are the personal opinions of the authors and may not reflect the views of their institutions., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for mid-career investigators seeking new academic opportunities. JCB asked scientists to share their experiences of uprooting their research careers and laboratories during the pandemic., (© 2020 Casadio and Simon.)

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has affected practically every aspect of life across the globe for the past year or more; the practice of clinical research not the least. Clinician scientists attempting to start or continue work both related and unrelated to the disease itself have faced ethical, oversight, or regulatory challenges. No aspect of the clinical trial enterprise was unaffected. These narratives detail some of the barriers encountered and how the investigators coped (or didn't cope). Common themes emerged, ranging from a need to contribute, which drove the researchers to frustration with real and perceived obstructions (both old and new). The narratives disclose common ethical issues related to research during a pandemic: issues both qualitatively and quantitatively different from other human subject research; challenges both new and novel, as well as those previously seen, but writ large in the face of the crisis. The narratives also offer words of advice from the trenches and speak to successes, both large and small, and to the value of teamwork and focus on a common goal.

Background: Biomedical research is overseen by numerous Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Singapore but there has been no research that examines how the research review process is perceived by the local research community nor is there any systematic data on perceptions regarding the review process or other research ethics processes and IRB characteristics. The aim of this study was to ascertain general views regarding the overall perceived value of ethics review processes; to measure perceptions about local IRB functions and characteristics; to identify IRB functions and characteristics viewed as important; and to compare these views with those of other international studies., Methods: An online survey was used with the main component being the IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), a validated tool, to evaluate perceptions of ideal and actual IRB functions and characteristics held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff. Data were analysed descriptively first, with mean and SD of each item of IRB-RAT questionnaire reported, excluding the respondents whose answers were unknown or not applicable. The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was used to compare the ideal and actual ratings of each IRB-RAT item, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings of each IRB-RAT item between respondents with different characteristics. The Z-test was used to compare the mean ratings of our cohort with the mean ratings reported in the literature. The correlation between our mean ideal scores and those of two international studies also employing the IRB-RAT was examined., Results: Seventy-one respondents completed the survey. This cohort generally held positive views of the impact of the ethics review process on: the quality of research; establishing and maintaining public trust in research; the protection of research participants; and on the scientific validity of research. The most important ideal IRB characteristics were timeliness, upholding participants' rights while also facilitating research, working with investigators to find solutions when there are disagreements, and not allowing biases to affect reviews. For almost all 45 IRB-RAT statements, the rating of the importance of the characteristic was higher than the rating of how much that characteristic was descriptive of IRBs the respondents were familiar with. There was a significant strong correlation between our study's scores on the ideal IRB characteristics and those of the first and largest published study that employed the IRB-RAT, the US National Validation (USNV) sample in Keith-Spiegel et al. [19]., Conclusions: An understanding of the perceptions held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff on the value that the ethics review process adds, their perceptions of actual IRB functions and characteristics as well as what they view as central to high functioning IRBs is the first step to considering the aspects of the review process that might benefit from improvements. This study provides insight into how our cohort compares to others internationally and highlights strengths and areas for improvement of Singapore IRBs as perceived by a small sample of the local research community. Such insights provide a springboard for additional research and may assist in further enhancing good relations so that both are working towards the same end., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Both a significant body of literature and the case study presented here show that digital knowledge repositories struggle to attract the needed level of data and knowledge contribution that they need to be successful. This happens also to high profile and prestigious initiatives. The paper argues that the reluctance of researchers to contribute can only be understood in light of the highly competitive context in which research careers need to be built nowadays and how this affects researchers' quality of life. Competition and managerialism limit the discretion of researchers in sharing their results and in donating their working time. A growing corpus of research shows that academic researchers are increasingly overworked and highly stressed. This corroborates the point that the room for undertaking additional tasks with future and uncertain benefits is very limited. The paper thus recommends that promoters of digital knowledge repositories focus on the needs of the researchers who are expected to contribute their knowledge. In order to treat them fairly and to ensure the success of the repositories, knowledge sharing needs to be rewarded so as to improve the working conditions of contributors. In order to help implementing this researcher-centred approach, the paper proposes the idea of expediential trust: rewards for contributing should be such that rational, self-interested researchers would freely decide to contribute their knowledge and effort trusting that this would make them better off.

Background: To preserve the future of surgical innovation, opportunities for surgical residents to receive structured research training are paramount. The objective of this article is to help surgical residents navigate a research fellowship by overviewing key topics such as choosing an area of focus and supervisor, applying for external funding, transitioning away from clinical duties, managing intellectual property, integrating family planning, and incorporating research experience into independent career development., Materials and Methods: Using the framework of the University of Toronto's graduate degree-awarding Surgeon-Scientist Training Program, the authors outline key considerations, decisions, and pearls for surgical residents considering or currently enrolled in a full-time research fellowship training program., Results: Full-time research fellowships offer a unique opportunity for residents interested in an academic career. Such full-time research fellowships away from clinical duties allow surgical trainees to focus on developing key research competencies, including how to generate hypotheses, apply research methodology, gain experience presenting and publishing manuscripts, and ultimately apply these skills as independent investigators to improve patient and population health. Research fellowships may also be an opportunity to develop intellectual property or facilitate family planning. Practical tips are provided for the transition back into clinical training and how to effectively market one's research skills for career advancement., Conclusions: The authors outline key considerations, decisions, and pearls for surgical residents considering or currently enrolled in a full-time research fellowship training program. By adhering to the principles highlighted in this article, residents will be able to successfully navigate a full-time research fellowship to optimize their intellectual development, maximize their academic productivity, and facilitate their transition into an independent investigator., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Radiation oncologists require clinical appraisal and research methodology skills, yet it is unclear how to develop these competencies during residency. We sought to attain a deeper understanding of the barriers that limit, as well as the factors that promote, engaging in research/scholarly activity during radiation oncology residency training in Canada. Following ethics approval, online surveys were circulated to all Canadian Radiation Oncology program directors and residents. Unidentifiable demographics, prior research experience, and descriptions of current research environment and barriers to engaging in research and scholarly activities were collected. Thirty-three percent (35/105) of residents and 71% (10/14) of program directors responded. Ninety-seven percent of residents, and 90% of program directors, agreed or strongly agreed that research/scholarly activity was an important part of residency training. While 66% of residents felt that there was a lack of protected time for research/scholarly activity, only 20% of program directors agreed this was a barrier (p = 0.011). While 94% of residents thought mentorship was important to completing high-quality research/scholarly activity, only 48% of respondents had a mentor. The highest barriers to completing research/scholarly activity projects were lack of protected time (for both residents and faculty), high resident clinical workload, and lack of experience in research skills. Canadian Radiation Oncology residents expressed strong enthusiasm to participate in research/scholarly activity, yet lack of protected time and competing demands were identified as major barriers. We suggest programs offer more protected time for research/scholarly activity, provide optional research methodology training, and support meaningful mentorship relationships.

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Australia. Investment in research solutions has been demonstrated to yield health and a 9.8-fold return economic benefit. The sector, however, is severely challenged with success rates of traditional peer-reviewed funding in decline. Here, we aimed to understand the perceived challenges faced by the cardiovascular workforce in Australia prior to the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We used an online survey distributed across Australian cardiovascular societies/councils, universities and research institutes over a period of 6 months during 2019, with 548 completed responses. Inclusion criteria included being an Australian resident or an Australian citizen who lived overseas, and a current or past student or employee in the field of cardiovascular research., Results: The mean age of respondents was 42±13 years, 47% were male, 85% had a full-time position, and 40% were a group leader or laboratory head. Twenty-three per cent (23%) had permanent employment, and 82% of full-time workers regularly worked >40 hours/week. Sixty-eight per cent (68%) said they had previously considered leaving the cardiovascular research sector. If their position could not be funded in the next few years, a staggering 91% of respondents would leave the sector. Compared to PhD- and age-matched men, women were less likely to be a laboratory head and to feel they had a long-term career path as a cardiovascular researcher, while more women were unsure about future employment and had considered leaving the sector (all p<0.05). Greater job security (76%) and government and philanthropic investment in cardiovascular research (72%) were highlighted by responders as the main changes to current practices that would encourage them to stay., Conclusion: Strategic solutions, such as diversification of career pathways and funding sources, and moving from a competitive to a collaborative culture, need to be a priority to decrease reliance on government funding and allow cardiovascular researchers to thrive., (Copyright © 2020 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

When extreme events occur, some research becomes a clear priority, but what becomes of all other research? Does it stop indefinitely, or can it be paused with plans to resume, persist with modifications, or pivot to address new priorities? Facing this dilemma and witnessing it among their fellow health professions education researchers, the authors recognized a need for guidance. This Invited Commentary presents a framework, organized as key questions related to the research stage and process, to assist health professions education researchers in making decisions about how to proceed with research that was planned or in progress when an extreme event occurred. Although at the time of this writing, the COVID-19 pandemic was the extreme event at hand, the authors intentionally created questions and discussed considerations that can be helpful for thinking through decisions in a variety of disruptions in health professions education research-many of which require similar difficult decisions and creative solutions to carry important research forward and maintain high quality.

This study aims to determine the relationship among factors affecting research misconduct within the research system of medical sciences in Iran. Using phenomenography, the perceptions of individuals involved in the activities of macro, meso, and micro levels of the research system were investigated and 13 affecting factors were identified. The DEMATEL method revealed complicated and intertwined relationships among these factors based on the experts' judgment. Most of the macro and meso factors were in the cause group and most of the micro factors were in the effect group. The results showed that critical factors such as "Monitoring and dealing with research misconduct," "Transparency in research," "Management of journals" and "Ethical considerations in the publication of research results" escalate research misconduct. The study indicated that track the relationship among factors in the research system can provide the opportunity to explain research misconduct on a transitional path from macro to micro level.

We stand against racism and discrimination in cancer research in the U.S. By sharing the stories of scientists from different ethnicities, identities, and national origins, we want to promote change through mentoring, active participation, and policy changes and to inspire the next generation of cancer researchers: we make better science together., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The growing trend of for-profit organization (FPO)-funded university research is concerning because resultant potential conflicts of interest might lead to biases in methods, results, and interpretation. For public health academic programmes, receiving funds from FPOs whose products have negative health implications may be particularly problematic., Methods: A cross-sectional survey assessed attitudes and practices of public health academics towards accepting funding from FPOs. The sampling frame included universities in five world regions offering a graduate degree in public health; 166 academics responded. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were conducted., Results: Over half of respondents were in favour of accepting funding from FPOs; attitudes differed by world region and gender but not by rank, contract status, % salary offset required, primary identity, or exposure to an ethics course. In the last 5 years, almost 20% of respondents had received funding from a FPO. Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that there was potential for bias in seven aspects of the research process, when funds were from FPOs., Conclusions: Globally, public health academics should increase dialogue around the potential harms of research and practice funded by FPOs.

We report on occurrence and correlates of self-reported research misconduct (RM) by 100 Kenyan researchers who had received ethics approval for an HIV research in the 5 years preceding the survey. The survey used the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised tool uploaded on a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCAP) platform. The response rate was low at 17.3% (100 out of 577) with 53.9% reporting awareness of an incident of RM in the preceding 5 years . Awareness was associated with being in academia, perception of vulnerability to being caught, and the severity of possible punishment, if discovered. Two-thirds (68.3%) reported ever-involvement in any misconduct. Self-report of involvement in misconduct was associated with knowledge of rules and procedures on RM and a disposition to support such rules and regulations. Nearly 36% reported ever-involvement infabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism (FFP). Self-report of ever-involvement in FFP was associated with number of years in the academic position, perceived likelihood of being caught, and the perceived severity of the sanctions, if caught. We conclude that the occurrence of RM is not uncommon, and efforts to create awareness about RM as well as to establish institutional structures and policies on RM are needed.

Aims: We aimed to map out the scope and type of health research studies with patients involved as co-researchers throughout the research process and to explore the outcomes and experiences of such research. Methods: We conducted a narrative review by systematically searching selected databases. A total of 1451 hits were identified and screened, and 17 studies were included and categorised by type of health problem, design, publication sources and modes of presentation. We conducted an inductive, iterative analysis of outcomes and experiences of patient involvement. Results: We identified two types of impact from studies with patients participating as co-researchers: (a) patient involvement as primary focus, where seven articles largely reported and reflected upon the shared experiences, and (b) patient involvement as strategy, where 10 articles presented results from empirical studies of specific health problems, with patient involvement used as a strategy to expand understanding. The first group of studies reported collaborative processes and resource investments, while the second group addressed specific health problems from a distinctive perspective due to patient involvement. Several studies in both groups repeated or confirmed positive values of user involvement rather than providing original findings. In both groups, methodological standards were often downgraded to provide access for the co-researchers. Conclusions: These articles, where the co-researcher model represents the contemporary superior level of patient involvement, may indicate that mere collaboration efforts are prioritised at the expense of knowledge outcomes and scientific quality. Collaboration formats other than participation as co-researchers may be necessary for patient involvement in medical research to add to the existing knowledge.

Despite the need to map research careers, the empirical evidence on career patterns of researchers is limited. We also do not know whether career patterns of researchers can be considered conventional in terms of steady progress or international mobility, nor do we know if career patterns differ between men and women in research as is commonly assumed. We use sequence analysis to identify career patterns of researchers across positions and institutions, based on full career histories of applicants to the European Research Council frontier research grant schemes. We distinguish five career patterns for early and established men and women researchers. With multinomial logit analyses, we estimate the relative likelihood of researchers with certain characteristics in each pattern. We find grantees among all patterns, and limited evidence of gender differences. Our findings on career patterns in research inform further studies and policy making on career development, research funding, and gender equality., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist

Physiological synchronization is the study of how individuals in interaction coregulate their physiology. The topic has sparked increasing interest in counseling and psychotherapy research, where it has been found to be associated with the therapeutic alliance, clinicians' empathy and patients' outcome. Physiological synchronization allows researcher to investigate subtle but fundamental aspects of the clinical process through objective measures. In this article, we aim to offer a guide to researchers and clinicians to explore this growing field of study. We begin by reviewing the existing literature of physiological synchronization in clinical relationships, and then we provide practical guidelines for research. We discuss the various aspects involved in synchronization studies: study design, selection of physiological signals, data analytic approaches, and interpretation of results. To better illustrate how to implement these types of design, we provide a running example describing the data collection and analysis of a single-case study. In the example we discuss both how to conduct a longitudinal nomothetic analysis, as well as a moment-to-moment idiographic exploration of the clinical content. In this latter analysis, in particular, we show how physiological synchronization can be used in combination with 2 transcripts analysis tools, the Patient Attachment Coding System, and the Therapist Attunement Scales to reach a deeper understanding of the ongoing processes. We conclude by arguing that research in counseling and psychotherapy has much to gain from and contribute to the overall development of our understanding of physiological synchronization in human interaction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: The goal of this study was to understand prospective cohort study Principal Investigators' (PIs') attitudes regarding the importance of religion and spirituality (R/S) on disease etiology in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research., Methods: One-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs, who represent 24 different National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded prospective cohort studies in the U.S. Collectively, these PIs collect detailed health data on approximately 1.25 of every 100 adult Americans. Sample size was calculated to achieve thematic saturation., Results: The majority of PIs we interviewed viewed R/S as potentially important factors influencing disease etiology, particularly among minority communities that report higher levels of religiosity. Yet nearly all PIs interviewed felt there was not yet a compelling body of evidence elucidating R/S influences on health, and the potential mechanisms through which R/S may be operating to affect health outcomes. PIs identified 5 key areas that would need to be addressed before they would be persuaded to collect more R/S measures in their cohorts: (1) high-quality, prospective studies that include all appropriate covariates for the outcome under study; (2) studies that posit a plausible biological mechanism of effect; (3) well-validated R/S measures, collected in common across multiple cohorts; (4) the need to address bias against R/S research among investigators; and (5) NIH funding for R/S research., Conclusions: Results of this study provide a roadmap for future R/S research investigating the impact of R/S influences on disease etiology within the context of U.S. prospective cohort studies. Identifying significant R/S influences on health could inform novel interventions to improve population health. Given the higher levels of religiosity/spirituality among minority communities, R/S research may also provide new leverage points for reducing health disparities.

Background: Perspectives of clinical trial (CT) personnel on accrual to oncology CTs are relatively absent from the literature. This study explores CT personnel's experience recruiting patients to oncology CTs., Methods: A qualitative study design was utilized. In-depth, individual interviews with 12 oncology CT personnel were conducted, including six CT nurses and six physician-investigators. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subjected to thematic and ethical analysis to identify key concepts and themes., Results: CT personnel reported considering two ethical commitments in CT recruitment: maintaining trial integrity and ensuring patient autonomy through obtaining informed consent. The process of gatekeeping emerged as a way to navigate these ethical commitments during CT accrual. Gatekeeping was influenced by: (a) perceptions of patients' personal suitability for a trial, and (b) healthcare resources and infrastructure. CT personnel's discernment of personal suitability was influenced by patients' cognitive and mental health status, language and cultural background, geographic location, family support, and disease status. Three structural factors impacted gatekeeping: complexity of CTs, consent process, and time limitations in the healthcare system. CT personnel experienced most factors as constraints to accrual and gaining patients' informed consent., Conclusion: CT personnel discussed navigating ethical challenges in CT recruitment by offering enrollment to specific patient populations, exacerbating other ethical tensions. Systems-level strategies are needed to address barriers to ethical CT recruitment. Future research should investigate the role of policies and/or tools (eg, decision aids) to support patients and CT personnel's discussions about CT participation, promote more ethical recruitment, and potentially increase accrual., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Building or acquiring research data management (RDM) capacity is a major challenge for health and medical researchers and academic institutes alike. Considering that RDM practices influence the integrity and longevity of data, targeting RDM services and support in recognition of needs is especially valuable in health and medical research., Objective: This project sought to examine the current RDM practices of health and medical researchers from an academic institution in Australia., Method: A cross-sectional survey was used to collect information from a convenience sample of 81 members of a research institute (68 academic staff and 13 postgraduate students). A survey was constructed to assess selected data management tasks associated with the earlier stages of the research data life cycle., Results: Our study indicates that RDM tasks associated with creating, processing and analysis of data vary greatly among researchers and are likely influenced by their level of research experience and RDM practices within their immediate teams., Conclusion: Evaluating the data management practices of health and medical researchers, contextualised by tasks associated with the research data life cycle, is an effective way of shaping RDM services and support in this group., Implications: This study recognises that institutional strategies targeted at tasks associated with the creation, processing and analysis of data will strengthen researcher capacity, instil good research practice and, over time, improve health informatics and research data quality.

In this paper, we explore academic researchers' perceptions of the relative importance of the individual responsibilities in the "Singapore Statement on Research Integrity". The way researchers view those responsibilities affects the role that research integrity enablers can play in achieving responsible research conduct. Hence, we also explore researchers' perceptions of five such integrity enablers in this paper: country and university codes of conduct, staff training, mentoring and peer pressure.Using data from a global online survey of university researchers (n = 302), a Best-Worst Scaling approach was used to elicit researchers' priorities in different scenarios of responsibilities. In conjunction with latent class analysis, this yielded the implied relative importance of each researcher responsibility. For three of the four homogeneous classes of researchers identified, a different responsibility dominated the hierarchy. For instance, STEM researchers gave precedence to research methods over all other responsibilities. In relation to researchers' perceptions on the effects of research integrity enablers, our results identified research mentoring relationships and normative peer pressure as important integrity conduits. Further exploration showed that researchers differed in their perceptions on enablers, particularly by academic position, duration of employment and country of employment. Based on our exploratory study, we identify several avenues for further research.

To assist in resolving ethical questions surrounding unregulated mHealth research, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with experts from four key stakeholder groups: patient/research advocates, researchers, regulatory professionals, and mobile app/device developers. They discussed challenges and potential solutions in the context of two hypothetical scenarios involving unregulated mHealth research, including notifications/permissions for research use of mHealth data, data access procedures, new primary data collection, offering individual research results, and data sharing and dissemination.

In qualitative interviews with a diverse group of experts, the vast majority believed unregulated researchers should seek out independent oversight. Reasons included the need for objectivity, protecting app users from research risks, and consistency in standards for the ethical conduct of research. Concerns included burdening minimal risk research and limitations in current systems of oversight. Literature and analysis supports the use of IRBs even when not required by regulations, and the need for evidence-based improvements in IRB processes.

Background: Integrated knowledge translation refers to researcher and research user partnerships to co-generate and implement knowledge. This type of partnership may be critical to success in increasing knowledge use and impact, but the conceptualisation of its initiation has not been fully developed. Initiating this type of partnership has proven to be challenging but crucial to its success. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-narrative review of partnership initiation concepts, processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes in the disciplines of healthcare and social sciences where examples of researcher and research user partnerships were found., Methods: Seven research traditions were identified. Three were in the discipline of social sciences (including psychology, education and business) and five were in the discipline of healthcare (including medicine, nursing, public health, health services research). Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ABI Inform, ERIC, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Library on June 9, 2017. Fifty titles and abstracts were screened in triplicate; data were extracted from three records in duplicate. Narratives comprised of study characteristics and conceptual and empirical findings across traditions were tabulated, summarised and compared., Results: A total of 7779 unique results were identified and 17 reviews published from 1998 to 2017 were eligible. All reviews identified a partnership initiation phase referred to as 'early' or 'developmental', or more vaguely as 'fuzzy', across six traditions - integrated knowledge translation, action research, stakeholder engagement, knowledge transfer, team initiation and shared mental models. The partnership initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes were common to multiple narratives and summarised in a Partnership Initiation Conceptual Framework. Our review revealed limited use or generation of theory in most included reviews, and little empirical evidence testing the links between partnership initiation processes, enablers or barriers, and outcomes for the purpose of describing successful researcher and research user partnership initiation., Conclusions: Narratives across multiple research traditions revealed similar integrated knowledge translation initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes, which were captured in a conceptual framework that can be employed by researchers and research users to study and launch partnerships. While partnership initiation was recognised, it remains vaguely conceptualised despite lengthy research in several fields of study. Ongoing research of partnership initiation is needed to identify or generate relevant theory, and to empirically establish outcomes and the determinants of those outcomes.