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:As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.
| S-EPMC9361261 | biostudies-literature
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:BackgroundA significant gap persists between evidence from research and its use in practice. Research funders, important actors in the health research system, can help reduce this gap by initiating dissemination and implementation (D&I) activities. The specific types of D&I activities funders currently lead have not been explored thoroughly. The Ensuring Value in Research (EViR) Funders' Forum-an international collaboration of health-related research funders-was established in 2017 to address research waste issues and increase the value of research. The Forum surveyed funders to learn about their D&I practices and challenges.MethodsWe distributed a five-item exploratory survey to participating funders in August 2018. The results informed the development of a survey instrument, distributed in June 2019. The survey instrument contained 15 items prompting respondents to categorize and describe their level of effort in six practice areas: release of findings, dissemination, knowledge exchange/partnering, implementation, building capacity, and implementation research. In addition, funders were asked to describe examples of their practices in detail. Thirty-one funders completed the survey instrument, a 58% response rate.ResultsMost funders regard D&I as a high priority, but funders vary in levels of activity per practice area. Over half of respondents reported that they have at least some activity in all D&I practice areas surveyed, with the exception of implementation research. The vast majority indicated some or significant activity in release of findings (97%) and dissemination (87%). Nearly one-fifth of funders (19%) indicated that implementation is outside their remit, and 26% indicated that implementation research is outside their remit. Survey respondents shared a broad range of examples of activities in each practice area. Lack of evidence for successful approaches and measuring impact were named frequently as challenges and as potential areas for collaboration.ConclusionsAlthough models of dissemination and implementation vary across organizations, the majority of funders indicated that D&I of research findings is a priority. Funders indicated a need for evidence on effectiveness of various approaches to D&I. Increased collaboration between funders, including sharing good practices, will increase our collective learning and knowledge development.
| S-EPMC8966333 | biostudies-literature
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:The cost of academic publishing has increased substantially despite the ease with which information can be shared on the web. Open Access publishing is a key mechanism for amplifying research access, inclusivity, and impact. Despite this, shifting to a free-to-read publishing environment requires navigating complex barriers that vary by career status and publishing expectations. In this article, we investigate the motivations and preferences of researchers situated within our large research institution as a case study for publishing attitudes at similar institutions. We surveyed the publishing priorities and preferences of researchers at various career stages in STEM fields as they relate to openness, data practices, and assessment of research impact. Our results indicate that publishing preferences, data management experience and research impact assessment vary by career status and departmental approaches to promotion. We find that open access publishing is widely appreciated regardless of career status, but financial limitations and publishing expectations were common barriers to publishing in Open Access journals. Our findings shed light on publishing attitudes and preferences among researchers at a major R1 research institution, and offer insight into advocacy strategies that incentivize open access publishing.
| S-EPMC10205490 | 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