Research funding during COVID-19 inflated gender differences: systematic analysis of nationwide data from Denmark

Decision-making approaches to grant funding allocation: insights from a realist synthesis

Open research can (soon) become the norm in language sciences. Major funders and journals have begun to encourage or require more open and transparent research practices, from making materials and data available to disseminating results. Marsden and Morgan-Short closed their review article by suggesting that open research practices are the future. As junior researchers (an early-career scholar and two graduate students), we, too, are sometimes referred to as the future of the field. For some of us as junior researchers, there are no nonopen research practices to abandon because we have already CRediT author statement -Bronson Hui: conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); writing -original draft preparation (equal); writing -review & editing (equal). Joanne Koh: conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); writing -original draft preparation (equal); writing -review & editing (equal). Sanshiroh Ogawa: conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); writing -original draft preparation (equal); writing -review & editing (equal). We would like to thank Dr. Meng Liu, Matt Coss, and Jonathan Malone for their valuable comments and input on an earlier draft of these comments; nevertheless, all errors are ours.

Global competition for talented researchers has intensified in recent years, and increasing organisations, such as Google and Microsoft, are growing rapidly by attracting talented researchers. In the computer science field in particular, more young researchers have been engaged in research. From the researcher perspective, they want to move to an organisation that will allow them to experience more career growth; however, existing organisational metrics equate organisational growth with individual growth and do not quantify whether a researcher can really grow after moving. In this study, we clarify researcher growth from organisational movement using 5.6 million articles published between 1970 and 2018 via Scopus. By analysing the characteristics of the influx of researchers to growing organisations in recent years by career stage, we identify the differences in the impact of research organisations on junior and senior researchers and consider the current strategies of various organisation. The findings show that, while they move to similar organisations, the organisational environments in which junior researchers and senior researchers can experience career growth differ. This analysis contributes to a better understanding of researchers’ career trajectories and organisational strategies for scientific innovation.

Researchers are spending an increasing fraction of their time on applying for funding; however, the current funding system has considerable deficiencies in reliably evaluating the merit of research proposals, despite extensive efforts on the sides of applicants, grant reviewers and decision committees. For some funding schemes, the systemic costs of the application process as a whole can even outweigh the granted resources-a phenomenon that could be considered as predatory funding. We present five recommendations to remedy this unsatisfactory situation.

How should we rate research?

Background The 1954 Nobel Laureate for physics Max Born said: “There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.” Science is a quest with many uncertainties. Society demands from scientists that they pursue this quest in an responsible way. Responsible conduct in science (RCR) is/ought to be on every researchers' agenda. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/) for example is the reference document for research integrity for all EU-funded research projects and as a model for organisations and researchers across Europe. RCR however is not only about referring to a code, it is also about acting on it, and raising awareness. Education is pivotal. Two pitfalls definitely need to be avoided in teaching RCR: 1. making it a highly theoretical endeavor that in most cases will not result in the internalization of the principles of RCR; 2. limiting the teaching to a small staff, thus not involving a large group of researchers as role models. Therefore, it is necessary to design RCR courses in which students feel challenged to discover the underlying principles and moral issues in responsible research themselves whilst at the same time sharing this discovery with their role models. For senior researchers (role models, teachers) the challenge is not to impose rules and regulations but to foster an environment in which junior researchers feel free to discuss the decisions and questions they have in upholding principles of responsible research. Very often, senior researchers are unaware of the dilemma's young researchers encounter. Consequently, courses in RCR can remain highly theoretical. Objectives In this skills building seminar, both junior and senior researchers will be offered an engaging and interactive method for starting effective RCR education. Aim 1 experiencing collaborative designing of RCR education Aim 2 Empowering junior and senior researchers in addressing RCR. Method Participants will be introduced to the “7 minutes - 7 people = RCR education programme” as developed by the seminar leader. Programme Short introduction: DIY RCR education (15 minutes)Interactive session: Acquiring the skill of “7 minutes - 7 people = RCR education programme” (35 minutes)Experiences, successes and limitations of this method (20 minutes)Discussion - wrap up -lessons learned (20 minutes) Key messages The driving force of Responsible Conduct in Research courses is taking the process of discovery of junior researchers as starting point. The seminar will teach students (junior researchers) and teachers (senior researchers) how to draft a challenging programme for RCR-education in 30 minutes.

How to Promote Career Advancement and Gender Equity for Women in Gastroenterology: A Multifaceted Approach

Several divergent standpoints are hosted under the umbrella of Peer Review. Authors, who wish to see the results of scrupulous work published, in the anticipation of career promotion or secure funding. Editors, who are under pressure to identify sound and novel research. Reviewers, who try to fit a thoughtful and time-consuming process within busy schedules, often receiving no credit for it. And Publishers competing in a transforming landscape of fast and abundant science publishing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Performance-based research funding systems have become popular over the last decades. One of the main reasons for these funding systems is to allow funding bodies to allocate public research funds more effectively based on the assessed quality. However, the performance-based research funding received by higher education institutes (HEIs) not only depends on the quality of research activity carried out but also on the funding formula used by funding bodies. This article examines the funding formula used by Research England (RE) and assesses the effect of this formula on quality-related research (QR) funding allocation using data of mainstream QR funding allocation for the 2017–18 period. RE’s funding formula includes some value judgements by policymakers such as allocation of fourfold QR funding to ‘world-leading’ research compared to ‘internationally-excellent’ research, and the use of different subject cost weights. These value judgements play an important role in the allocation of QR funding beyond the assessed quality of research. This article finds that changes in some of these value judgments such as allocation of threefold (rather than fourfold) QR funding to world-leading research compared to internationally excellent research, or the use of alternative subject cost weights lead to major changes in the allocation of QR funding to different subject areas and HEIs. Results suggest that these value judgments are also important beyond the assessed quality of research, and that consultation of different subject areas and HEIs about these decisions and re-evaluation of some of these value judgements are needed for a more accountable distribution of QR funding.

Our model examines the allocation of medical research funds at the National Institutes of Health using public interest theory, incremental budgeting theory, and special interest group theory. We use the allocation of research funds among various diseases and measures of the burden of disease on the population to test the hypothesis that the N.I.H. is allocating funds on a pure public interest basis, to test for incremental budgeting effects, and to test for the influence of lobbying and other political variables representing special interest groups. We use pooled cross-sectional, time-series data in a one-way fixed effects model, and also use separate cross-sectional data in a standard multiple regression model. We also evaluate the effect of political variables on the distribution of research funds among the states. We find evidence to support the public interest, incremental budgeting, and special interest group theories of regulation in the operation of the N.I.H. Using the pooled data sets, we find that the N.I.H. does not respond to changes in death patterns over time, but does consider death patterns in the initial allocation of funding across diseases. Funding increases primarily as a result of incremental budgeting. However, using the more recent and more inclusive cross-sectional disease data, we find that the burden of disease, whether measured by deaths, years of life lost, or hospital stays, does matter in the allocation of funding among diseases, which is evidence that the N.I.H. does consider the public interest when making funding decisions. We also find, however, that the allocation among diseases is impacted by lobbying dollars, and that the allocation across states is influenced by political factors, both of which provide support for the special interest group theory of regulation.

Resource Utilization Early after Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cell Infusion for Hematologic Malignancies

Brentuximab Vedotin with Chemotherapy for Stage 3/4 Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): 4-Year Update of the Echelon-1 Study

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the distribution of European Union (EU) healthcare research grants across EU countries, and to study the effect of the potential influencing factors on grant allocation.MethodsWe analysed publicly available data on healthcare research grants from the 7th Framework Programme and the Horizon 2020 Programme allocated to beneficiaries between 2007 and 2016. Grant allocation was analysed at the beneficiary-, country-, and country group-level (EU-15 versus newer Member States, defined as EU-13). The investigated country-level explanatory variables included GDP per capita, population size, overall disease burden, and healthcare research excellence. Grant amounts per 100,000 inhabitants were used as an outcome variable in the regression analyses.ResultsResearch funds were disproportionally allocated to EU-15 versus the EU-13, as 96.9% of total healthcare grants were assigned to EU-15 countries. At the beneficiary level, EU funding was positively influenced by participating in previous grants. The average grant amount per beneficiary was higher for EU-15 organizations. In the multiple regression analysis GDP per capita (p = 0.002) and research excellence (p<0.001) had a significant positive association with EU funding. Population size had an inverted U-shaped relationship with EU funding for healthcare research, having the largest per capita funding in second and the third quartiles (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02).ConclusionThe uneven allocation of healthcare research funds across EU countries was influenced by GDP per capita, medical research excellence and population size. Wealthier countries with an average population size and strong research excellence in healthcare had more EU funding for healthcare research. Higher disease burden apparently was not associated with more EU research funding. While our findings are in line with analyses on previous periods, they suggest that the EU did not implement any effective policy measures to improve the unfair allocation of research grants.

With rising health care costs, often health research is viewed as a major cost driver, calling to question the role and value of provincial funding of health research. Most agree that the quality of healthcare provided is directly linked to our ability to conduct quality research; however currently there is little empirical evidence supporting the link between engagement in health research and healthcare performance. In Canada this has resulted in funding for health research that varies over time and between provinces. While medical knowledge is a public good, we hypothesize there are local benefits from health research, such as the attraction of a specialized human capital workforce, which fosters a culture of innovation in clinical practice. To address this question, we look at whether health outcomes are impacted by changes in provincial research funding in Alberta compared to other provinces. Provincial funding for medical research, which varies greatly over time and among provinces, is used as a proxy for medical treatment inputs. Trend rates of reduction in mortality from potentially avoidable causes (MPAC) (comprised of mortality from preventable causes (MPC) and mortality from treatable causes (MTC)), are used as a proxy health outcome measure sensitive to the contributions of technological progress in medical treatment. Our analysis suggests that investment in health research has payback in health outcomes, with greater improvements in the province where the research occurs. The trend declines seen in age standardized MPAC rates in different Canadian provinces may be impacted by shifts in provincial research funding investment, suggesting that knowledge is not transferred without cost between provinces. Up until the mid-1980s, Alberta had the most rapid rate of decline in MPAC compared to the other provinces. This is striking given the large and unique investment in medical research funding in Alberta in the early 1980s through AHFMR, the only provincial health research funding agency at the time. However in recent years, Alberta’s rate of decrease in MPAC has occurred at a rate slower than the other provinces (British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec) with provincial medical research funding. This is striking at a population level, where Alberta’s failure to achieve a reduction in age standardized rates of MTC comparable to British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec after 1985 represents 240 unnecessary deaths in 2011 and 48,250 Potential Life Years Lost worth around $4.8 billion. The findings from our study suggest that some of the divergence in the rates of reduction in MPAC between provinces may be due to beneficial changes in institutional structure and human capital, resulting in differences across provinces in the capacity to adopt new effective healthcare innovations. While health indicators such as MPAC are the result of complex interactions between the patient, treatment and the healthcare system, as well as socioeconomic and demographic factors, this analysis suggests that a different capacity for health research within the provinces impacts health outcomes. The findings from this analysis are limited by the lack of data related to research funding and the health research workforces within provinces. This analysis has important implications for health research policy and funding allocations, suggesting that decision makers should consider the long-term impact provincial funding for health research has on health outcomes. This study also highlights the lack of longitudinal public data available for provincial health research funding. This information is critical to inform future health research policy.

&lt;div&gt;&lt;table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" valign="top"&gt;&lt;h1 align="center"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 2em;"&gt;This study examines local government revenue in the 2016 fiscal year. The study makes use of local budget allocation documents to analyse problems with local public finance from the Department of Local Administration and employs data collected from four groups, namely government officials, experts, local politicians, and local government officials. This study reveals several findings. First, revenue structure of local government does not reflect self-reliance and fiscal autonomy. Instead the revenue of all types of local administrative organizations (LAOs) rely mostly on grants rather than on their self-collected revenues. Second, local administration organizations’ revenue between regions is unequal. LAOs in the Northeastern region show the lowest revenues per head from all revenue sources, and grant allocation is not academic-based. The fact that the Northeastern revenue and tax collection is lower than other regions, and that this region is allocated the smallest and fewest grants by the government, is evidence of this. Fourth, finance laws, especially regarding local finance, are outdated. There is no specific legislation on the identification of revenue sources of local administrative organizations, nor is there legislation on the regulation and practice of seeking new revenue sources for these organizations. And fifth, local administrative organizations are incapable of improving the local financial system that includes financial management, staff, and taxpayers.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&lt;h1&gt; &lt;/h1&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;