Dataset Information

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.

ABSTRACT: Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel's understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

SUBMITTER: Gregorius S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5750705 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.

Gregorius Stefanie S Dean Laura L Cole Donald C DC Bates Imelda I

F1000Research 20171006

<b>Background: </b>Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary res ...[more]

PMID: 29333239

Similar Datasets

Project description:Non-English-speaking developing countries in Southeast Asia have been provided only limited opportunities for faculty development in the education of health professions. Although there exist a few programs that have been shown to be effective, they are frequently presented with few explanations on how and why the programs work due to their outcome-oriented nature. This study explores the process of the Lee Jong-Wook Fellowship for Health Professional Education, an international faculty development program designed for capacity building of educators of health professions in Southeast Asian developing countries.Fellows were from Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos. Qualitative data were collected from two types of semi-structured interviews - group and individual. Thematic analysis was conducted to explore the factors related to the effectiveness of the program, framed by four components of faculty development, which included context, facilitators, program, and participants.From the thematic analysis, the authors identified a total of 12 themes in the four components of faculty development. In the context domain, the resource-poor setting, a culture that puts emphasis on hierarchy and seniority, and educational environment depending on individual commitment rather than broad consensus emerged as key factors. In the facilitators domain, their teaching methods and materials, mutual understanding between teacher and learner, and collaboration between facilitators mainly influenced the learning during the fellowship. In the program domain, the key advantages of the fellowship program were its applicability to the workplace of the fellows and enough allowed time for practice and reflection. Finally, in the participants domain, Fellows valued their heterogeneity of composition and recognized cognitive as well as non-cognitive attributes of the participants as essential.This process-oriented evaluation reveals the diverse factors that contributed to achieving the intended outcomes of the fellowship. Although much evidence from best practices in faculty development are still valid, the findings suggest that the selection strategies, learning environment, and English communication should be given more consideration when organizing a program targeting these people and cultures. A comprehensive understanding of the process would contribute to developing tailored strategies for educators of health professions in developing countries in similar settings.

Project description:BackgroundQualitative research appears to be gaining acceptability in medical journals. Yet, little is actually known about the proportion of qualitative research and factors affecting its publication. This study describes the proportion of qualitative research over a 10 year period and correlates associated with its publication.DesignA quantitative longitudinal examination of the proportion of original qualitative research in 67 journals of general medicine during a 10 year period (1998-2007). The proportion of qualitative research was determined by dividing original qualitative studies published (numerator) by all original research articles published (denominator). We used a generalized estimating equations approach to assess the longitudinal association between the proportion of qualitative studies and independent variables (i.e. journals' country of publication and impact factor; editorial/methodological papers discussing qualitative research; and specific journal guidelines pertaining to qualitative research).FindingsA 2.9% absolute increase and 3.4-fold relative increase in qualitative research publications occurred over a 10 year period (1.2% in 1998 vs. 4.1% in 2007). The proportion of original qualitative research was independently and significantly associated with the publication of editorial/methodological papers in the journal (b?=?3.688, P?=?0.012); and with qualitative research specifically mentioned in guidelines for authors (b?=?6.847, P<0.001). Additionally, a higher proportion of qualitative research was associated only with journals published in the UK in comparison to other countries, yet with borderline statistical significance (b?=?1.776, P?=?0.075). The journals' impact factor was not associated with the publication of qualitative research.ConclusionsDespite an increase in the proportion of qualitative research in medical journals over a 10 year period, the proportion remains low. Journals' policies pertaining to qualitative research, as expressed by the appearance of specific guidelines and editorials/methodological papers on the subject, are independently associated with the publication of original qualitative research; irrespective of the journals' impact factor.

Project description:BackgroundNormalisation Process Theory (NPT) is frequently used to inform qualitative research that aims to explain and evaluate processes that shape late-stage translation of innovations in the organisation and delivery of healthcare. A coding manual for qualitative researchers using NPT will facilitate transparent data analysis processes and will also reduce the cognitive and practical burden on researchers.Objectives(a) To simplify the theory for the user. (b) To describe the purposes, methods of development, and potential application of a coding manual that translates normalisation process theory (NPT) into an easily usable framework for qualitative analysis. (c) To present an NPT coding manual that is ready for use.MethodQualitative content analysis of papers and chapters that developed normalisation process theory, selection and structuring of theory constructs, and testing constructs against interview data and published empirical studies using NPT.ResultsA coding manual for NPT was developed. It consists of 12 primary NPT constructs and conforms to the Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration of realist evaluation studies. Contexts are defined as settings in which implementation work is done, in which strategic intentions, adaptive execution, negotiating capability, and reframing organisational logics are enacted. Mechanisms are defined as the work that people do when they participate in implementation processes and include coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Outcomes are defined as effects that make visible how things change as implementation processes proceed and include intervention mobilisation, normative restructuring, relational restructuring, and sustainment.ConclusionThe coding manual is ready to use and performs three important tasks. It consolidates several iterations of theory development, makes the application of NPT simpler for the user, and links NPT constructs to realist evaluation methods. The coding manual forms the core of a translational framework for implementation research and evaluation.

Project description:Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.

Dataset Information

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.

Publications

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets