Search

The PartnerREC network at the Geneva University Hospitals aims to facilitate the collaboration between researchers and patient partners in any type of clinical research, mainly those led at the HUG. It is the result of a coconstruction process initiated in 2019 by physicians, research professionals, cantonal research ethics committee members, a lawyer, and patient partners. The network implemented four initiatives: a) a website providing information to researchers and patients participating to research projects; b) personalized counseling for researchers to explore partnership opportunities in their own research projects; c) a training program related to patient partnership in research developed together with different partners in French-speaking Switzerland and d) its own research program on partnership in clinical research., Competing Interests: Les auteures font toutes partie du réseau PartnerREC.

The current scientific publication architecture and business models are structured to privilege high-impact Western journals. This has been perpetuated in academia and by funding agencies, where a researcher´s value is often measured by the number of publications and where these papers are published. However, the current system renders journals from low- and middle-income countries, including African journals, largely invisible. Indeed, it is important to answer the fundamental question of why we conduct research. Most would argue that research is only ethically grounded if its core purpose is to create impact and improve lives. There is compelling evidence that the time lag from evidence generation to translation into policy is about 17 years. There is no evidence that publishing in a high-impact journal is more likely to create an impact. Indeed, the move by many universities away from using the impact factor as a measure of academic value is increasingly welcomed. It has become critical to redefine and restructure academic merit. In this essay, we will explore the Afro-centric dimensions of the publish-or-perish rhetoric and its impact on tenure in African academia. We argue that context-relevant and alternative metrics are needed to redefine academic merit, as well as the intentionality of African governments and universities to invest in, trust, and value their own journals as non-negotiables in giving African journals the visibility and trust they deserve. We present an African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC) approach, supported by the Gates Foundation, intentional in decolonizing the global publication space, and clearly aligns with its mission of improving lives in Africa through research., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest., (Copyright: Alphonsus Neba et al.)

Background: Germany has increased its political and financial commitment for global health, but this needs to be backed by a robust global health research ecosystem with strong partnerships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)., Objective: This article suggests pathways for empowering researchers to operate beyond their disciplinary silos and strengthen partnerships across sectors and countries. The authors identify barriers and enablers of operations from a nascent research network in Germany, trusting that this experience can inform other initiatives seeking to stoke interdisciplinary and collaborative global health research., Methods: This article represents the culmination of extensive reflections spanning the initial four years of the German Alliance for Global Health Research (GLOHRA). The insights have additionally been informed by an analysis of publicly available reports, internal procedural records, and externally conducted studies based on interviews with researchers and policymakers., Results: GLOHRA has developed a toolbox of practices that foster interdisciplinary research and support capacity-building. Insights indicate that highly interdisciplinary and diverse governance structures and seed-funding for interdisciplinary and cross-sector research with appropriate review processes represent a critical step for achieving these aims. Additionally, inclusive training sessions and networking events help to bridge disciplinary boundaries, equipping researchers to envision the broader context of their work., Conclusions: Despite achievements, challenges persist. Wider support, especially from universities and research institutions, is necessary to make global health research an attractive career path and to reduce bureaucratic barriers for collaborators in LMICs. Sustained, longer-term federal funding mechanisms will also be essential for ongoing progress.

Drawing from collective experiences in our capacity building project: Health Equity Activation Research Team for Inclusion Health, we argue that while community-engaged partnerships tend to focus on understanding health inequities and developing solutions, they can be healing spaces for health professionals and researchers. Data were obtained from a 15-month participatory ethnography, including focus groups and interviews. Ethnographic notes and transcripts were coded and analyzed using both deductive and inductive coding. Practices of radical welcome, vulnerability, valuing the whole person, acknowledging how partnerships can cause harm, and centering lived experience expertise in knowledge creation processes were identified as key characteristics of healing spaces. Ultimately, health professionals and researchers work within the same social, political and economic contexts of populations with the worst health outcomes. Their own healing is critical for tackling larger systemic changes aimed at improving the well-being of communities harmed by legacies of exclusion.

Theories of innovation emphasize the role of social networks and teams as facilitators of breakthrough discoveries 1-4 . Around the world, scientists and inventors are more plentiful and interconnected today than ever before 4 . However, although there are more people making discoveries, and more ideas that can be reconfigured in new ways, research suggests that new ideas are getting harder to find 5,6 -contradicting recombinant growth theory 7,8 . Here we shed light on this apparent puzzle. Analysing 20 million research articles and 4 million patent applications from across the globe over the past half-century, we begin by documenting the rise of remote collaboration across cities, underlining the growing interconnectedness of scientists and inventors globally. We further show that across all fields, periods and team sizes, researchers in these remote teams are consistently less likely to make breakthrough discoveries relative to their on-site counterparts. Creating a dataset that allows us to explore the division of labour in knowledge production within teams and across space, we find that among distributed team members, collaboration centres on late-stage, technical tasks involving more codified knowledge. Yet they are less likely to join forces in conceptual tasks-such as conceiving new ideas and designing research-when knowledge is tacit 9 . We conclude that despite striking improvements in digital technology in recent years, remote teams are less likely to integrate the knowledge of their members to produce new, disruptive ideas., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Biomedical research in the United States has contributed enormously to science and human health and is conducted in several thousand institutions that vary widely in their histories, missions, operations, size, and cultures. Though these institutional differences have important consequences for the research they conduct, the organizational taxonomy of US biomedical research has received scant systematic attention. Consequently, many observers and even participants are surprisingly unaware of important distinguishing attributes of these diverse institutions. This essay provides a high-level taxonomy of the institutional ecosystem of US biomedical research; illustrates key features of the ecosystem through portraits of eight institutions of varying age, size, culture, and missions, each representing a much larger class exhibiting additional diversity; and suggests topics for future research into the research output of institutional types that will be required to develop novel approaches to improving the function of the ecosystem.

Background: The mid-career nurse scientist, defined as an associate professor with/without tenure, is often faced with a multitude of challenges and opportunities PURPOSE: This paper shares strategies to assist mid-career scientists as they juggle required career demands and navigate the mid-career phase in pursuit of the rank of full professor., Method: A review of the literature was performed on mid-career nurse scientists., Discussion: A combination of increased research responsibilities, increased institutional teaching and service demands, and dwindling support can result in a sense of overwhelm and burnout. The mid-career nurse scientist must balance several balls in the air at one time to remain successful., Conclusion: Strategies aligned with the Ecological Framework, focus on intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, organizational, and public policy domains to provide a wide scope of strategies that target the mid-career scientist and engage the larger nursing community., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Universities and research institutions have to assess individuals when making decisions about hiring, promotion and tenure, but there are concerns that such assessments are overly reliant on metrics and proxy measures of research quality that overlook important factors such as academic rigor, data sharing and mentoring. These concerns have led to calls for universities and institutions to reform the methods they use to assess research and researchers. Here we present a new tool called SPACE that has been designed to help universities and institutions implement such reforms. The tool focuses on five core capabilities and can be used by universities and institutions at all stages of reform process., Competing Interests: RS, SC, AH No competing interests declared, (© 2021, Schmidt et al.)