Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.

Biomedical research relies increasingly on large collections of data sets and knowledge whose generation, representation and analysis often require large collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts. This dimension of ‘big data’ research calls for the development of computational tools to manage such a vast amount of data, as well as tools that can improve communication and access to information from collaborating researchers and from the wider community. Whenever research projects have a defined temporal scope, an additional issue of data management arises, namely how the knowledge generated within the project can be made available beyond its boundaries and life-time. DC-THERA is a European ‘Network of Excellence’ (NoE) that spawned a very large collaborative and interdisciplinary research community, focusing on the development of novel immunotherapies derived from fundamental research in dendritic cell immunobiology. In this article we introduce the DC-THERA Directory, which is an information system designed to support knowledge management for this research community and beyond. We present how the use of metadata and Semantic Web technologies can effectively help to organize the knowledge generated by modern collaborative research, how these technologies can enable effective data management solutions during and beyond the project lifecycle, and how resources such as the DC-THERA Directory fit into the larger context of e-science.

Collaborative research has a critical role to play in furthering our understanding of African politics. Many of the most important and interesting questions in the field are difficult, if not impossible, to tackle without some form of collaboration, either between academics within and outside of Africa—often termed North–South research partnerships—or between those researchers and organizations from outside the academic world. In Africa in particular, collaborative research is becoming more frequent and more extensive. This is due not only to the value of the research that it can produce but also to pressures on the funding of African scholars and academics in the Global North, alongside similar pressures on the budgets of non-academic collaborators, including bilateral aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and national and international non-government organizations. Collaborative projects offer many advantages to these actors beyond access to new funding sources, so they constitute more than mere “marriages of convenience.” These benefits typically include access to methodological expertise and valuable new data sources, as well as opportunities to increase both the academic and “real-world” impact of research findings. Yet collaborative research also raises a number of challenges, many of which relate to equity. They center on issues such as who sets the research agenda, whether particular methodological approaches are privileged over others, how responsibility for different research tasks is allocated, how the benefits of that research are distributed, and the importance of treating colleagues with respect despite the narrative of “capacity-building.” Each challenge manifests in slightly different ways, and to varying extents, depending on the type of collaboration at hand: North–South research partnership or collaboration between academics and policymakers or practitioners. This article discusses both types of collaboration together because of their potential to overlap in ways that affect the severity and complexity of those challenges. These challenges are not unique to research in Africa, but they tend to manifest in ways that are distinct or particularly acute on the continent because of the context in which collaboration takes place. In short, the legacy of colonialism matters. That history not only shapes who collaborates with whom but also who does so from a position of power and who does not. Thus, the inequitable nature of some research collaborations is not simply the result of oversights or bad habits; it is the product of entrenched structural factors that produce, and reproduce, imbalances of power. This means that researchers seeking to make collaborative projects in Africa more equitable must engage with these issues early, proactively, and continuously throughout the entire life cycle of those research projects. This is true not just for researchers based in the Global North but for scholars from, or working in, Africa as well.

With the recent advances in mobile networking, context‐aware computing, and sensor‐based computing, researchers and game designers are able to explore the potential of combining these new technologies to develop mobile, networked, context‐aware, augmented reality multiplayer games. As part of new research collaboration between Lancaster University, Cisco Systems, Microsoft Research and Orange – MIPv6 Systems Research Lab, such a mobile context‐aware multiplayer game is proposed and explored. The proposed game, Real Tournament, gathers real‐time contextual information, e.g. physical location and orientation, from the players and injects them into the game engine to generate game events.

The concept of authorship, while straightforward in theory, proves to be remarkably complex in practice. While existing frameworks provide a foundation for classifying and ranking authorship roles, conflicts still arise when contributions are ambiguous or poorly documented. To address these issues, we propose Dragon Kill Points, adapted from multiplayer gaming, which tracks individual contributions to projects throughout their lifecycle. Dragon Kill Points is built around five key principles: granularity, responsibility, equity, autonomy, and transparency (GREAT). Granularity ensures detailed documentation of tasks, preventing underrepresentation of individual contributions. Responsibility is maintained by setting clear authorship criteria from the outset, allowing contributors to know how their work will be recognised. Equity ensures authorship rules apply to every team member, flattening hierarchies and highlighting ghost or gift authorship. Autonomy allows contributors to challenge or change their authorship position based on their contributions as the project progresses. Finally, transparency fosters trust by continuously sharing contribution records with the entire team. Through Dragon Kill Points, researchers can reduce conflicts, create more inclusive authorship practices, and acknowledge the true value of middle authorship positions. This system offers a flexible, scalable approach to managing authorship across various contexts, providing a solution to the complex challenges of collaboration.

On the basis of discussing the current status and problems of China's government procurement project monitoring system, The issue proposes idea of collaborative regulation which is based on the project life cycle as the main line, emphasizing accountability, through the various regulatory departments, consisted with our national conditions, and further discusses design of government procurement project collaborative monitoring process. This is a new proposition which can realize virtual organizational innovation and administrative process reengineering of regulatory system and has an extremely important significance for achieving effective regulation of government procurement.

Both a vision for future scholarship and a slogan for university restructuring, interdisciplinarity promises to break through barriers to address today's complex challenges. Yet even high-stakes projects often falter, undone by contradictory incentives, bureaucratic frameworks, communication breakdowns, and the strong feelings raised by urgent social debates. Jumping into collaborative research without preparation or ongoing attention, researchers often fall back on disciplinary habits and raise disciplinary defenses. Above all, there is never enough time. Born of six years' experience in the Göttingen Interdisciplinary Working Group on Cultural Property, this book examines social research as social process, identifying characteristic challenges of funded interdisciplinary projects: the clash of positivist, interpretivist, and normative approaches, the hierarchies and personalities among researchers, and the interaction of academic knowledge work with the common sense of social problems. While calling for reforms in research policy and administration, the book's immediate goal is to help researchers make the most of existing conditions. Drawing on economistic models of exchange and anthropological accounts of play and ritual, six chapters trace the life cycle of an interdisciplinary project--a temporary community of practice partially removed from everyday academic life--from its initial formulation to closure and aftermath. A seventh chapter provides recommendations for funders, administrators, principal investigators, and junior researchers. Reflexive attention to the research process can shepherd interaction across disciplines and capture insights as they emerge.

An exploration of the technical, social, legal, and economic aspects of the scholarly infrastructure needed to support research activities in all fields in the twenty-first century. Scholars in all fields now have access to an unprecedented wealth of online information, tools, and services. The Internet lies at the core of an information infrastructure for distributed, data-intensive, and collaborative research. Although much attention has been paid to the new technologies making this possible, from digitized books to sensor networks, it is the underlying social and policy changes that will have the most lasting effect on the scholarly enterprise. In Scholarship in the Digital Age, Christine Borgman explores the technical, social, legal, and economic aspects of the kind of infrastructure that we should be building for scholarly research in the twenty-first century. Borgman describes the roles that information technology plays at every stage in the life cycle of a research project and contrasts these new capabilities with the relatively stable system of scholarly communication, which remains based on publishing in journals, books, and conference proceedings. No framework for the impending “data deluge” exists comparable to that for publishing. Analyzing scholarly practices in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, Borgman compares each discipline's approach to infrastructure issues. In the process, she challenges the many stakeholders in the scholarly infrastructure—scholars, publishers, libraries, funding agencies, and others—to look beyond their own domains to address the interaction of technical, legal, economic, social, political, and disciplinary concerns. Scholarship in the Digital Age will provoke a stimulating conversation among all who depend on a rich and robust scholarly environment.

Awarded 2008 Best Information Science Book by the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T).Scholars in all fields now have access to an unprecedented wealth of online information, tools, and services. The Internet lies at the core of an information infrastructure for distributed, data-intensive, and collaborative research. Although much attention has been paid to the new technologies making this possible, from digitized books to sensor networks, it is the underlying social and policy changes that will have the most lasting effect on the scholarly enterprise. In Scholarship in the Digital Age, Christine Borgman explores the technical, social, legal, and economic aspects of the kind of infrastructure that we should be building for scholarly research in the twenty-first century.Borgman describes the roles that information technology plays at every stage in the life cycle of a research project and contrasts these new capabilities with the relatively stable system of scholarly communication, which remains based on publishing in journals, books, and conference proceedings. No framework for the impending data deluge exists comparable to that for publishing. Analyzing scholarly practices in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, Borgman compares each discipline's approach to infrastructure issues. In the process, she challenges the many stakeholders in the scholarly infrastructurescholars, publishers, libraries, funding agencies, and othersto look beyond their own domains to address the interaction of technical, legal, economic, social, political, and disciplinary concerns. Scholarship in the Digital Age will provoke a stimulating conversation among all who depend on a rich and robust scholarly environment.

In recent years, the growing complexity of ICT projects and the increasing need for effective multi-stakeholder collaboration have prompted the search for innovative methods to enhance project outcomes. This paper proposes a structured methodology for integrating hackathons into the life-cycle of ICT collaborative multi-partner research projects. Drawing on our experience with the ECSEL Joint Undertaking AIDOaRt project, we demonstrate how a series of internally organized hackathons can serve as effective tools for fostering stakeholder engagement, accelerating innovation, and aligning project activities with strategic objectives. Our approach involves a clearly defined process comprising a pre-hackathon phase for challenge definition, intensive hackathon sessions for collaborative solution development, and a post-hackathon phase for iterative refinement. Quantitative analysis of challenge evolution and participant engagement, together with qualitative feedback from a questionnaire survey, reveals that iterative hackathon cycles not only enhance technical outcomes, such as rapid prototyping and tool integration, but also promote sustained collaboration among industry and academic partners. The paper concludes with risks, lessons learned, and practical guidelines to support the adoption of our hackathon-based methodology in multi-partner research projects, highlighting their potential to manage complexity, drive innovation in the ICT ecosystem, and foster continuous and effective collaboration among stakeholders.

BackgroundCross-institutional cross-disciplinary collaboration has become a trend as researchers move toward building more productive and innovative teams for scientific research. Research collaboration is significantly changing the organizational structure and strategies used in the clinical and translational science domain. However, due to the obstacles of diverse administrative structures, differences in area of expertise, and communication barriers, establishing and managing a cross-institutional research project is still a challenging task. We address these challenges by creating an integrated informatics platform to reduce the barriers to biomedical research collaboration.ResultsThe Request Management System (RMS) is an informatics infrastructure designed to transform a patchwork of expertise and resources into an integrated support network. The RMS facilitates investigators’ initiation of new collaborative projects and supports the management of the collaboration process. In RMS, experts and their knowledge areas are categorized and managed structurally to provide consistent service. A role-based collaborative workflow is tightly integrated with domain experts and services to streamline and monitor the life-cycle of a research project. The RMS has so far tracked over 1,500 investigators with over 4,800 tasks. The research network based on the data collected in RMS illustrated that the investigators’ collaborative projects increased close to 3 times from 2009 to 2012. Our experience with RMS indicates that the platform reduces barriers for cross-institutional collaboration of biomedical research projects.ConclusionBuilding a new generation of infrastructure to enhance cross-disciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration has become an important yet challenging task. In this paper, we share the experience of developing and utilizing a collaborative project management system. The results of this study demonstrate that a web-based integrated informatics platform can facilitate and increase research interactions among investigators.

This paper reviews the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on civil engineering. It explores AI's fundamental concepts and its applications across structural analysis, construction management, transportation, geotechnical engineering, and sustainability. The review highlights AI's role in automating tasks, predicting outcomes, and optimizing designs throughout project lifecycles. Recent advancements in AI-driven technologies for structural health monitoring, predictive maintenance, and risk assessment are discussed, along with challenges like data quality and model interpretability. Future trends such as autonomous construction and digital twins are examined, emphasizing the need for continued research and interdisciplinary collaboration. In conclusion, this paper offers insights for leveraging AI to address evolving challenges and opportunities in civil engineering, fostering innovation, sustainability, and resilience in infrastructure development.

Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research

Early life is an important window of opportunity to improve health across the full lifecycle. An accumulating body of evidence suggests that exposure to adverse stressors during early life leads to developmental adaptations, which subsequently affect disease risk in later life. Also, geographical, socio-economic, and ethnic differences are related to health inequalities from early life onwards. To address these important public health challenges, many European pregnancy and childhood cohorts have been established over the last 30 years. The enormous wealth of data of these cohorts has led to important new biological insights and important impact for health from early life onwards. The impact of these cohorts and their data could be further increased by combining data from different cohorts. Combining data will lead to the possibility of identifying smaller effect estimates, and the opportunity to better identify risk groups and risk factors leading to disease across the lifecycle across countries. Also, it enables research on better causal understanding and modelling of life course health trajectories. The EU Child Cohort Network, established by the Horizon2020-funded LifeCycle Project, brings together nineteen pregnancy and childhood cohorts, together including more than 250,000 children and their parents. A large set of variables has been harmonised and standardized across these cohorts. The harmonized data are kept within each institution and can be accessed by external researchers through a shared federated data analysis platform using the R-based platform DataSHIELD, which takes relevant national and international data regulations into account. The EU Child Cohort Network has an open character. All protocols for data harmonization and setting up the data analysis platform are available online. The EU Child Cohort Network creates great opportunities for researchers to use data from different cohorts, during and beyond the LifeCycle Project duration. It also provides a novel model for collaborative research in large research infrastructures with individual-level data. The LifeCycle Project will translate results from research using the EU Child Cohort Network into recommendations for targeted prevention strategies to improve health trajectories for current and future generations by optimizing their earliest phases of life.

Collective storytelling is a narrative form that has cultural, cognitive, and organizational applications. Built on existing research in group collaboration, this short paper examines how certain game mechanics can be used to encourage and structure collaboration in StoryJam, a multi-player online game for collective storytelling.KeywordsGame MechanicComplete StoryOrganizational ApplicationInteractive NarrativeInteractive StorytellingThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

New Public Management helps universities and research institutions to perform in a highly competitive research environment. Evaluating publicly financed research improves transparency, helps in reflection and self-assessment, and provides information for strategic decision making. In this paper we provide empirical evidence using data from a Collaborative Research Center (CRC) on financial inputs and research output from 2005 to 2016. After selecting performance indicators suitable for a CRC, we describe main properties of the data using visualization techniques. To study the relationship between the dimensions of research performance, we use a time fixed effects panel data model and fixed effects Poisson model. With the help of year dummy variables, we show how the pattern of research productivity changes over time after controlling for staff and travel costs. The joint depiction of the time fixed effects and the research project's life cycle allows a better understanding of the development of the number of discussion papers over time.