Publishing priorities of biomedical research funders.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To understand the publishing priorities, especially in relation to open access, of 10 UK biomedical research funders.Design
Semistructured interviews.Setting
10 UK biomedical research funders.Participants
12 employees with responsibility for research management at 10 UK biomedical research funders; a purposive sample to represent a range of backgrounds and organisation types.Conclusions
Publicly funded and large biomedical research funders are committed to open access publishing and are pleased with recent developments which have stimulated growth in this area. Smaller charitable funders are supportive of the aims of open access, but are concerned about the practical implications for their budgets and their funded researchers. Across the board, biomedical research funders are turning their attention to other priorities for sharing research outputs, including data, protocols and negative results. Further work is required to understand how smaller funders, including charitable funders, can support open access.
SUBMITTER: Collins E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3808764 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
<h4>Objectives</h4>To understand the publishing priorities, especially in relation to open access, of 10 UK biomedical research funders.<h4>Design</h4>Semistructured interviews.<h4>Setting</h4>10 UK biomedical research funders.<h4>Participants</h4>12 employees with responsibility for research management at 10 UK biomedical research funders; a purposive sample to represent a range of backgrounds and organisation types.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Publicly funded and large biomedical research funders are c ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFunders are key players in supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) data-sharing. This research aimed to describe commercial and non-commercial funders' data-sharing policies and to assess the compliance of funded RCTs with the existing data-sharing policies.Methods and findingsFunders of clinical research having funded at least one RCT in the years 2016 to 2018 were surveyed. All 78 eligible non-commercial funders retrieved from the Sherpa/Juliet Initiative website and a random sample of 100 commercial funders selected from pharmaceutical association member lists (LEEM, IFPMA, EFPIA) and the top 100 pharmaceutical companies in terms of drug sales were included. Thirty (out of 78; 38%) non-commercial funders had a data-sharing policy with eighteen (out of 30, 60%) making data-sharing mandatory and twelve (40%) encouraging data-sharing. Forty-one (out of 100; 41%) of commercial funders had a data-sharing policy. Among funders with a data-sharing policy, a survey of two random samples of 100 RCTs registered on Clinicaltrial.gov, data-sharing statements were present for seventy-seven (77%, 95% IC [67%-84%]) and eighty-one (81% [72% - 88%]) of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. Intention to share data was expressed in 12% [7%-20%] and 59% [49%- 69%] of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively.ConclusionsThis survey identified suboptimal performances of funders in setting up data-sharing policies. For those with a data-sharing policy, the implementation of the policy in study registration was limited for commercial funders and of concern for non-commercial funders. The limitations of the present study include its cross-sectional nature, since data-sharing policies are continuously changing. We call for a standardization of policies with a strong evaluation component to make sure that, when in place, these policies are effective.
| S-EPMC7446799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tics are repeated, usually suppressible movements or vocalizations. They are the defining features of tic disorders including Tourette syndrome, but many people have them for shorter durations at some point in childhood. This editorial marks the beginning of the F1000RESEARCH: Tics specialty section, an effort to provide a single portal to modern research on tics and tic disorders. Publications in F1000RESEARCH: Tics benefit from F1000RESEARCH's novel approach to publishing, in which articles can be published within days of submission. Peer review happens after publication and is fully open. When the submitted article or a revision is approved, it is promptly submitted to repositories including NIH's PubMed Central. In addition to research articles and reviews, F1000RESEARCH: Tics will publish study protocols, clinical practice articles, case reports, and data notes. The home page will also provide links to expert recommendations of articles that have appeared elsewhere, and to relevant posters from scientific meetings (http://f1000.com/posters/). F1000RESEARCH's approach is enabled by the capabilities of internet publication, including space to publish the full results of a study rather than just a few graphs selected from the data. Publishing methodologically sound studies without requiring subjective editorial judgments of novelty or broad appeal brings numerous advantages, including minimizing publication bias and shining the light of openness on peer review. To celebrate the launch of the Tics section, F1000RESEARCH is offering discounted article processing charges for manuscripts submitted by March 1st 2015. I have had good experiences publishing in F1000RESEARCH, and look forward to seeing a wide range of tic-related manuscripts submitted.
| S-EPMC4288402 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare research funders may undertake various roles to facilitate implementation of research findings. Their ability to enact such roles depends on several factors, knowledge of implementation being one essential requirement. However, previous studies do not assess the type or level of knowledge about implementation that research funders possess. This paper therefore presents findings from a qualitative, inductive study of the implementation knowledge of research funders. Three aspects of this knowledge are explored, namely how research funders define implementation, their level of self-assessed implementation knowledge and the factors influencing their self-assessment of implementation knowledge.MethodsResearch funders (n?=?18) were purposefully selected from a sample of research funding organisations in Sweden (n?=?10). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive method using a systematic coding procedure was employed to derive the findings.ResultsThe research funders defined implementation as either an outcome or a process, with the majority believing that implementation of healthcare research results demands a process, although its complexity varied in the research funders' view. They perceived their own level of implementation knowledge as either limited or substantial, with a majority regarding it as limited. Clinical research experience, clinical experience and task relevance were singled out as the clearest factors affecting the self-assessment of their own implementation knowledge.ConclusionsThis study, the first to focus on implementation knowledge of research funders, demonstrates that they are a category of policy-makers who may possess knowledge, based on their previous professional experience, that is comparable to some important findings from implementation research. Consequently, the findings not only pinpoint the relevance of professional experience, but also reveal a lack of awareness and knowledge of the results of implementation research among research funders in charge of healthcare research.
| S-EPMC6637601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodological design to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in humans but they are subject to bias, including study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. National and international organisations and charities give recommendations for good research practice in relation to RCTs but to date no review of these guidelines has been undertaken with respect to reporting bias.MethodsNational and international organisations and UK based charities listed on the Association for Medical Research Charities website were contacted in 2007; they were considered eligible for this review if they funded RCTs. Guidelines were obtained and assessed in relation to what was written about trial registration, protocol adherence and trial publication. It was also noted whether any monitoring against these guidelines was undertaken. This information was necessary to discover how much guidance researchers are given on the publication of results, in order to prevent study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.ResultsSeventeen organisations and 56 charities were eligible of 140 surveyed for this review, although there was no response from 12. Trial registration, protocol adherence, trial publication and monitoring against the guidelines were often explicitly discussed or implicitly referred too. However, only eleven of these organisations or charities mentioned the publication of negative as well as positive outcomes and just three of the organisations specifically stated that the statistical analysis plan should be strictly adhered to and all changes should be reported.ConclusionOur review indicates that there is a need to provide more detailed guidance for those conducting and reporting clinical trials to help prevent the selective reporting of results. Statements found in the guidelines generally refer to publication bias rather than outcome reporting bias. Current guidelines need to be updated and include the statement that all primary and secondary outcomes prespecified in the protocol should be fully reported and should not be selected for inclusion in the final report based on their results.
| S-EPMC2630961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. DCM is common (estimated prevalence, 2% of adults) and significantly impacts quality of life. The AO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research Objectives and Common Data Elements in DCM) project has recently established the top research priorities for DCM. This article examines the extent to which existing research activity aligns with the established research priorities.MethodsA systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase for "Cervical" AND "Myelopathy" was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Full-text papers in English, exclusively studying DCM, published between January 1, 1995 and August 08, 2020 were considered eligible. Extracted data for each study included authors, journal, year of publication, location, sample size and study design. Each study was then analysed for alignment to the established research priorities.ResultsIn total, 2261 papers with a total of 1,323,979 patients were included. Japan published more papers (625) than any other country. Moreover, 2005 (89%) of 2261 papers were aligned to at least one research priority. The alignment of papers to the different research priorities was unequal, with 1060 papers on the most researched priority alone (#15, predictors of outcome after treatment), but only 64 total papers on the least-researched 10 priorities. The comparative growth of research in the different priorities was also unequal, with some priorities growing and others plateauing over the past 5 years.DiscussionResearch activity in DCM continues to grow, and the focus of this research remains on surgery. The established research priorities therefore represent a new direction for the field.
| S-EPMC8116279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch investments are essential to address the burden of disease, however allocation of limited resources is poorly documented. We systematically reviewed the investments awarded by funding organisations to UK institutions and their global partners for infectious disease research.Methodology/principal findingsPublic and philanthropic investments for the period 1997 to 2010 were included. We categorised studies by infectious disease, cross-cutting theme, and by research and development value chain, reflecting the type of science. We identified 6165 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK £2.6 billion. Public organisations provided £1.4 billion (54.0%) of investments compared with £1.1 billion (42.4%) by philanthropic organisations. Global health studies represented an investment of £928 million (35.7%). The Wellcome Trust was the leading investor with £688 million (26.5%), closely followed by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) with £673 million (25.9%). Funding over time was volatile, ranging from ?£40 million to ?£160 million per year for philanthropic organisations and ?£30 million to ?£230 million for public funders.Conclusions/significanceInfectious disease research funding requires global coordination and strategic long-term vision. Our analysis demonstrates the diversity and inconsistent patterns in investment, with volatility in annual funding amounts and limited investment for product development and clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4146508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access. Methods:This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing. Results:The total percentage of fellows' publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy. Conclusions:While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.
| S-EPMC6919981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent public health emergencies with outbreaks of influenza, Ebola and Zika revealed that the mechanisms for sharing research data are neither being used, or adequate for the purpose, particularly where data needs to be shared rapidly. A review of research papers, including completed clinical trials related to priority pathogens, found only 31% (98 out of 319 published papers, excluding case studies) provided access to all the data underlying the paper - 65% of these papers give no information on how to find or access the data. Only two clinical trials out of 58 on interventions for WHO priority pathogens provided any link in their registry entry to the background data. Interviews with researchers revealed a reluctance to share data included a lack of confidence in the utility of the data; an absence of academic-incentives for rapid dissemination that prevents subsequent publication and a disconnect between those who are collecting the data and those who wish to use it quickly. The role of the funders of research needs to change to address this. Funders need to engage early with the researchers and related stakeholders to understand their concerns and work harder to define the more explicitly the benefits to all stakeholders. Secondly, there needs to be a direct benefit to sharing data that is directly relevant to those people that collect and curate the data. Thirdly more work needs to be done to realise the intent of making data sharing resources more equitable, ethical and efficient. Finally, a checklist of the issues that need to be addressed when designing new or revising existing data sharing resources should be created. This checklist would highlight the technical, cultural and ethical issues that need to be considered and point to examples of emerging good practice that can be used to address them.
| S-EPMC6317492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Microbiome research has increased dramatically in recent years, driven by advances in technology and significant reductions in the cost of analysis. Such research has unlocked a wealth of data, which has yielded tremendous insight into the nature of the microbial communities, including their interactions and effects, both within a host and in an external environment as part of an ecological community. Understanding the role of microbiota, including their dynamic interactions with their hosts and other microbes, can enable the engineering of new diagnostic techniques and interventional strategies that can be used in a diverse spectrum of fields, spanning from ecology and agriculture to medicine and from forensics to exobiology. From June 19-23 in 2017, the NIH and NSF jointly held an Innovation Lab on Quantitative Approaches to Biomedical Data Science Challenges in our Understanding of the Microbiome. This review is inspired by some of the topics that arose as priority areas from this unique, interactive workshop. The goal of this review is to summarize the Innovation Lab's findings by introducing the reader to emerging challenges, exciting potential, and current directions in microbiome research. The review is broken into five key topic areas: (1) interactions between microbes and the human body, (2) evolution and ecology of microbes, including the role played by the environment and microbe-microbe interactions, (3) analytical and mathematical methods currently used in microbiome research, (4) leveraging knowledge of microbial composition and interactions to develop engineering solutions, and (5) interventional approaches and engineered microbiota that may be enabled by selectively altering microbial composition. As such, this review seeks to arm the reader with a broad understanding of the priorities and challenges in microbiome research today and provide inspiration for future investigation and multi-disciplinary collaboration.
| S-EPMC7042322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify research priorities to increase understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and improved treatment of spasmodic dysphonia. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:A multidisciplinary working group was formed that included both scientists and clinicians from multiple disciplines (otolaryngology, neurology, speech pathology, genetics, and neuroscience) to review currently available information on spasmodic dysphonia and to identify research priorities. RESULTS:Operational definitions for spasmodic dysphonia at different levels of certainty were recommended for diagnosis and recommendations made for a multicenter multidisciplinary validation study. CONCLUSIONS:The highest priority is to characterize the disorder and identify risk factors that may contribute to its onset. Future research should compare and contrast spasmodic dysphonia with other forms of focal dystonia. Development of animal models is recommended to explore hypotheses related to pathogenesis. Improved understanding of the pathophysiology of spasmodic dysphonia should provide the basis for developing new treatment options and exploratory clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE:This document should foster future research to improve the care of patients with this chronic debilitating voice and speech disorder by otolaryngology, neurology, and speech pathology.
| S-EPMC2643054 | biostudies-literature