Research Funding Organizations Research Articles

Transport research implementation: current issues and lessons learned from Europe and China

The implementation of the research results is seen as a crucial step in the development of innovation in the transport sector. Moving to such an implementation is not always easy or straightforward. It requires a suitable organizational framework both inside as well as outside research producing entities and a number of other facilitating factors that are usually found within an innovation ecosystem. The paper examines systematically the conditions and prevailing practices for transport research implementation in Europe (the European Union) and China and draws useful insights as to the factors that influence such implementation, the incentives, and other facilitating provisions that the research funding organizations can take. It also analyses the current practice and lessons learned for research implementation on the road to innovation production in four major areas of transport research namely: Automated Mobility, Intelligent Railways, Shared and Micromobility applications, and Electromobility.

Kenneth Dawson Bagshawe. 17 August 1925—27 December 2022

Kenneth Bagshawe was a physician, a scientist and an architect of modern oncology. He was first to show that combination chemotherapy can cure a non-haematological cancer, choriocarcinoma. He demonstrated how a tumour marker in blood and urine can give a quantitative representation of the total amount of tumour, providing a monitor of response to treatment or relapse and an indicator of prognosis. He enhanced understanding and treatment of gestational trophoblastic diseases (GTD), a group of which choriocarcinoma is the most lethal member. The most common form of GTD is hydatidiform mole and he developed a national system for management, resulting in a cure rate of virtually 100%. For choriocarcinoma, the figure is today approaching 98%. His system is used in many countries, and over several decades has contributed to the cure and preservation of fertility in hundreds of thousands of women who previously had little or no hope. He used the same principles to treat testicular and ovarian germ cell tumours, again achieving high levels of cure in patients whose disease had spread and would previously have been fatal. He innovated throughout his career, seeking improved tumour specificity in diagnosis and treatment of GTD and inventing antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy for more common cancers. He founded the first department of oncology in the UK and devoted much time to developing the speciality, directing research funding organizations and supporting the development of the speciality worldwide. He was a dedicated, original and hugely productive pioneer of oncology.

EUPRO - A reference database on project-based R&D collaboration networks

The EUPRO database enables the analysis of participation patterns of organisations in and across different European R&D funding initiatives and the investigation of resulting collaborative R&D network structures and dynamics. The perimeter of EUPRO is currently more than 600,000 R&D projects funded by European (EU, transnational or national) research funding organisations, comprising systematic information about contents of the R&D projects, their participating organizations (including organisation type and location), and a number of additional characteristics (e.g. underlying policy instrument and programme). This scientific data descriptor serves as illustrative information source for users, both from science as well as from policy. It discusses the conceptual background and derives respective analytical opportunities for different actual, highly relevant debates in innovation studies and related fields. Moreover, the data collection process is described in a compact manner, as well as how the collected data are harmonized and aggregated into a suitable data model for analytical purposes. Finally, we put forward issues of technical validation, data quality and enrichment, and usage notes on how to access EUPRO.

A New Blockchain-Based Medical Model for Smart Hospital Integrity Management of the Drug Supply Chain

Counterfeit medications are currently one of the biggest issues in pharmacology. According to a research from the Health Research Funding organization, between 10–30% of pharmaceuticals in underdeveloped nations are counterfeit. The primary problem is not in counterfeiting per such, but rather in the fact that these pharmaceuticals have distinct adverse consequences on human health when compared to regular drugs. The WHO estimates that over 30% of all medications sold in Latin America, Asia, and Africa are fake. This is the main issue facing the entire world, and things become worse in underdeveloped nations where one in ten medications are either counterfeit or do not adhere to drug standards. It is becoming increasingly challenging to standardize drug safety due to the growth of online pharmacies. It is challenging to identify fakes. The safety of the pharmaceutical supply chain is becoming a serious public health concern, a process that affects all of us. In this work, we present a new approach to medication supply chain management that handles safe drug supply chain data using Hyperledger Fabric, a blockchain-based platform. By implementing drug record transactions on a blockchain, a drug supply chain and smart healthcare ecosystem may be constructed. The suggested method addresses this issue. To allow for time-limited access to patient health information and electronic prescription records, a smart contract has been introduced.

Advocating for Generalizability: Accepting Inherent Variability in Translation of Animal Research Outcomes.

Advancing scientific discovery requires investigators to embrace research practices that increase transparency and disclosure about materials, methods, and outcomes. Several research advocacy and funding organizations have produced guidelines and recommended practices to enhance reproducibility through detailed and rigorous research approaches; however, confusion around vocabulary terms and a lack of adoption of suggested practices have stymied successful implementation. Although reproducibility of research findings cannot be guaranteed due to extensive inherent variables in attempts at experimental repetition, the scientific community can advocate for generalizability in the application of data outcomes to ensure a broad and effective impact on the comparison of animals to translation within human research. This report reviews suggestions, based upon work with National Institutes of Health advisory groups, for improving rigor and transparency in animal research through aspects of experimental design, statistical assessment, and reporting factors to advocate for generalizability in the application of comparative outcomes between animals and humans.

Towards a sustainable and responsible model for monitoring open science and research—analysis of the Finnish model for monitoring open science and research

Abstract Advancing and supporting the development of open science practices is of global interest, and subsequently also the monitoring of the ongoing developments is more and more on the agenda. In Finland, monitoring open science has a relatively long history, and the first evaluation of research performing and research funding organisations took place already in 2015. The system has evolved over the years, and in 2019 the responsibility for monitoring was transferred from the Ministry of Education and Culture to the research community. This article looks at the latest monitoring, conducted in Spring 2022 from the point of view of its compliance with the principles of responsible research assessment. To structure the analysis we have used the SCOPE framework designed to enable planning and conducting evaluations responsibly. As a conclusion we find there are four main challenges in the current model for monitoring open science in Finland: 1) the model leaves very little room for internal discussion or decision-making within organisations, 2) the model focuses too much on organizational developments and largely ignores national and international developments, 3) the model essentially reduces very complex issues into numbers, and 4) the organisations are monitored against a set of objectives without giving them enough time to realize expected reforms.

The role of Open Science in our research

This editorial considers Open Science, what it is, what are its potential benefits, what are the pillars of engagement upon which it rests, and what are some of the main challenges facing its further adoption by research communities. At its core, Open Science involves sharing not only the contents of a traditional research article, but also of any source data and methodologies upon which the reported findings are based. Though some extra work may be required, usually without anyone providing additional resources to do that work, continuous developments in digital technology are making Open Science easier to implement. While not all data is suitable to be shared, Open Science practices are widely supported within the wider research community and funding organizations.

‘A commitment to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’: a conceptual framework for equality of opportunity in Patient and Public Involvement in research

Many research institutions and funders have recently stated their commitment to actively support and promote ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’ (EDI) in various aspects of health research including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). However, translating this commitment into specific research projects presents significant challenges that existing approaches, practical guidelines and initiatives have not adequately addressed. In this paper, we explore how the lack of clear justifications for the EDI commitment in existing guidelines inadvertently complicates the work of those involved with PPI and we stress the need for conceptual clarity for any EDI effort to yield meaningful results. Our focus centres on the first principle of the EDI discourse, ‘equality’, particularly in the form of ‘equality of opportunity’ as outlined in current guidance provided by the National Institute of Health Research in the United Kingdom. We examine challenges related to justifying and implementing a general, unspecified commitment to equality of opportunity and explain that this reflects a lack of consensus regarding the moral value of PPI in research – a profound problem that remains unaddressed. We then discuss how the presence of several opposing moral perspectives on PPI, makes determining the most appropriate way of addressing barriers to involvement complex and controversial, raising ethical implications for the work of health researchers, PPI specialists and coordinators. Finally we make suggestions on how future research can enrich the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’ in PPI and improve practice. While our primary focus is on the NIHR, a strong advocate of PPI in research, this analysis will point to normative and ethical considerations that may be relevant to other research institutions and funding organisations aiming to promote equality of opportunity in their public and patient involvement strategies.

Supporting diamond open access journals

As Article Processing Charges (APC) has been a growing concern in academia and policy making, the need for a model where both authors and readers do not pay – the so-called Diamond, or non-APC model – is regularly called for. However, this call is often combined with questions about its sustainability, particularly in financial terms. To answer this concern, this article explores the practical conditions to implement a direct funding mechanism to Diamond open access journals, that is recurrent money provided by funders to support the publication process. Based on a questionnaire survey sent to more than 1,000 Diamond OA journals, it investigates their financial needs, as well as their capacity to interact with research funding organizations (RFOs). The results are structured around four issues regarding the implementation of a direct funding model. First, most Diamond OA journals already make use of money rather than exclusively relying on support and volunteering. Second, those needs would be fulfilled in the eventuality of a regular income from research funders. Third, under this hypothesis, a vast majority of Diamond OA journals can receive and spend money. Finally, most of these journals could develop funding acknowledgments for each article with the promise of regular income through a direct funding mechanism. The conclusion addresses the challenges that such a recurrent financial stream would spur.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

A Framework for Assessing the Climate Impacts of Research and Innovation Projects and Programmes

Public spending on research and innovation (R&I) to tackle grand societal challenges, such as climate change, is increasing. Consequently, research funding organisations face an ever-growing demand to demonstrate the social return of their investments. However, tools and frameworks that facilitate the description and assessment of the climate impacts of R&I activities are largely lacking. The present paper addresses this gap by conducting a comparative case analysis of corporate R&I projects co-funded by a thematically open R&I funding programme with the aim of identifying the key impact pathways. Data for the cases were collected through document analysis and video interviews. The results show that assessments of the climate impacts of R&I need to take into account the expected change in technology maturity and the impacts that are caused up- and downstream in a company’s value chain. The results serve as a basis for the development of a framework for the ex-ante assessment of climate impacts of public R&I programmes. A series of workshops with research funders, companies, and evaluation experts helped refine and validate the framework and ensure its real-world applicability. The framework provides proposal writers and evaluators with a pragmatic and easy-to-use orientation tool for describing and assessing the climate impacts of a planned R&I activity during the proposal evaluation stage. It therefore supports a more systematic and systemic assessment of R&I impacts that can help funding organisations better address the challenges of climate change.

OpenOrgs

Building a connected open scholarly communication system requires unambiguously identifying research-related entities. It is not a simple task: for example, the same organization can have a range of names (eg. legal name, a shortened version, an abbreviation, in national language or in English), as well as varied metadata in other sources. Additionally, persistent IDs might not be helpful when several data sources (eg. ROR, ISNI, EC PIC) utilize various PID schemas to identify organizations. Due to this ambiguity, there are efficiency issues with information sharing, discoverability of research outputs, keeping track of activities, and ultimately building an integrated open scholarly communication system and OS services (Artini et al., 2022).A new tool called OpenOrgs was developed to address this old issue: the disambiguation of organizations engaged in the research process (Pavone, 2021) as well as the parentchild relationships between departments and organizations. OpenOrgs tackles the ambiguity in the data that OpenAIRE collects from several research organization registries (eg. ROR), as well as other sources including institutional repositories, scientific journals, and CRIS systems, and aggregates them to populate the OpenAIRE Graph (OpenAIRE Graph, n.d.). To make up for the lack of information and increase the organization's discoverability and recognition, OpenOrgs combines automated processes with human curation. Numerous data sources are used to gather and merge information on organizations. Their metadata are automatically compared and combined, then these suggested identities are manually checked by data curators assigned at a national or multi-national level.These two steps work as follows:1. The deduplication algorithm (De Bonis, 2022) suggests a similarity between organizations that emerge in various sources by comparing their metadata (eg. the organization name, URL, country).2. The automatic procedure is then verified by a manual curation process. By indicating whether two or more entities pertain to the same organization or not, data curators can clear up any ambiguity surrounding duplicates detected using the automated approach. Furthermore, they can themselves suggest new duplicates unidentified by the algorithm and make up for the information shortage by editing metadata description of the organization, compensating the lack of information from sources and enhancing the organization records' completeness and discoverability, for example by adding a persistent identifier, an alternative name (OpenAIRE, 2023), or establishing parent- child relationships (eg. university and departments). As of now, there are more than 70 registered data curators from over 40 countries, with more than 100,000 curated organizations.OpenOrgs offers a number of advantages for researchers, Research Performing Organizations (RPOs), Research Funding Organizations (RFOs), and all other stakeholders of Open Science services. It improves the findability of digital objects for academics and provides RPOs with a consistent showcase of the overall scientific production. It offers RFOs consistent data on the impact of resources. Finally, OpenOrgs offers functional and up-to-date services to all parties involved in Open Science.In the OpenAIRE ecosystem, OpenOrgs plays an important role. For example, OpenAIRE Explore displays the curated metadata from OpenOrgs, giving researchers quick and easy access to details about the organizations involved in the research process (OpenAIRE EXPLORE, n.d.). These data are also used by the OpenAIRE Monitor service, which tracks and monitors research activities and Open Science trends of organizations (OpenAIRE MONITOR, n.d.). This integration improves these organizations’ discoverability and recognition even more, fostering a more open and cooperative research environment. Therefore, rather than just a tool, OpenOrgs is a game-changer for the research community, and we believe it will contribute positively to build and maintain an integrated open scholarly communication system in the years to come.

Enabling successful science‐policy knowledge exchange between marine biodiversity research and management: An Australian case study

AbstractKnowledge exchange (KE) between research and decision‐making is increasingly demanded for tackling environmental challenges, yet there is still much to learn about how to enable that effectively. Here, we analyze a distributor of research funding (i.e., the Australian National Environmental Science Program Marine Biodiversity Hub (‘the hub’)) which actively coordinated KE between researchers and state‐ and Commonwealth Government end‐users. Through 30 in‐depth qualitative interviews with researchers, hub executives and end‐users we identify enablers of KE engagement, compare what researchers and decision‐makers found most important, and highlight what research programs and funding organizations can learn from this case study. Through an evolution of programs, the hub had a strong governance structure, co‐identified priority setting, and funding for emerging priorities. Additional enablers were a legacy of longstanding interpersonal working relationships, regular engagement, knowledge brokering roles, and the nationally trusted role of the hub. Researchers more so than end‐users found trust, the focus on clear end‐user needs as well as the hub's governance and progress‐monitoring key to success. End‐users more often indicated the early engagement, collaborative nature, and flexibility to adjust as important assets to effective interaction. Visions for future KE included better engagement of Traditional Owners, streamlining direct access to expertise, more accessible outputs, and earlier involvement of researchers in policy development. In sum, we find that time (e.g., pre‐story, early engagement) and boundary roles (e.g., knowledge brokering individuals, engaged research funders or coordinators) are key to success underlining that there are substantial components to KE success that can be nurtured and planned for.

Barriers, motivators, and opportunities influencing skilled volunteerism and financial donations to non-governmental organizations in urban forestry

Volunteers comprise an important part of arboriculture and urban forestry organizations. While attention is often paid to community members’ motivations, comparatively less attention is given to the skilled professionals who engage or donate to arboriculture and urban forestry committees, chapters, and organizations. Focusing on Canadian and American arborists and urban foresters, we used an online survey which received 1048 responses. In asking about the perceived benefits of volunteering and donating to organizations, the most frequently identified benefit was the ability to contribute to the future of the industry (n = 616), followed by good public relations for one’s company or institution (n = 513) and the ability to influence research and educational endeavourers in arboriculture and urban forestry (n = 496). Job position, industry sector, educational level, and other professional demographics were often significantly associated with the selection of these benefits. We coded qualitative responses about respondents’ perceptions of volunteering and donating time to industry and found three major themes. (1) Constraints to involvement or donations, including limited funds or available time, lack of awareness of opportunities, insurance challenges, or exclusive/unwelcoming environments. (2) Characteristics of worthwhile organizations and programs, including transparency, local and community-oriented events, meaningful and unique events, environmentally and socially beneficial objectives, and opportunities to develop skills. And (3) hesitancies to donate to research-funding organizations, based largely on lack of research dissemination and applicable research. These findings provide helpful guidance for organizations seeking to engage skilled professionals in the many opportunities for volunteerism or donations within urban greening.

Sharing Qualitative Interview Data in Dialogue with Research Participants

ABSTRACTResearch data sharing is embedded in policies, guidelines and requirements commonly promoted by research funding organizations that demand data to be “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” and FAIR. This paper discusses the challenges of balancing privacy protection with data sharing in a PhD project involving long‐tail, small‐sized qualitative human subjects' data. Based on experiences and feedback from project participants, we argue that privacy protection is about respecting the participants and their self‐image. This can be achieved through dialogue and involvement of the participants building on the principles of shared stewardship. Further, we suggest that de‐identification and plain language consent materials are better at protecting privacy than anonymisation, which in a digital data environment is difficult to achieve and not necessarily a sensible approach for qualitative data, where the gold is in the details. The literature indicates that it matters to participants whether data are reused for research or other purposes, and that they trust the institutions. This supports our claim that research data services must find better solutions for restricted sharing when necessary.

Non-singular Logics of Intellectual Property in Biomedical Innovation

Abstract The role of intellectual property in biomedical innovation is often construed by the source of its funding viz. public or private. While privately funded innovations are assumed to rely on intellectual property for monopolistic expansions and profit gains, publicly funded research is expected to serve the broader social good without proprietary constraints. In the light of the accumulating evidence over the last few decades, it is now understood that this causal narrative, appears simplistic. To gain a deeper understanding of innovation, whether profit-driven or socially oriented, it is crucial to examine the broader context of basic and translational research. This article investigates the management of intellectual property within two significant biomedical research funding organizations: the publicly funded United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the public-private-philanthropic partnership, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). The findings reveal that despite different claims about intellectual property strategies, these institutions exhibit similar practices influenced by the spectre of larger privatisation processes intrinsic to global market forces. This analysis suggests that a singular logic of one-size-fits-all approach to intellectual property is inadequate in promoting biomedical innovation for the greater public good.

The Global Biodata Coalition: Towards a sustainable biodata infrastructure

Progress in life and biomedical sciences depends absolutely on biodata resources—databases comprising biological data and services around those databases. Supporting scientists in data operations and spanning management, analysis and publication of newly generated data and access to pre-existing reference data, these biodata resources together comprise a critical infrastructure for life science and biomedical research. Familiar scientific infrastructures—for example the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN) or the Square Kilometer Array, are distinct, constructed, physical entities that are centrally funded and managed at one or more identifiable locations. By contrast, the primary infrastructure of the life sciences—comprised of databases and other biological data resources—is globally distributed, virtually connected, funded from multiple sources, and is not managed as a coordinated entity. While this configuration supports innovation, it lends itself poorly to the long-term sustainability of individual biodata resources and of the infrastructure as a whole. The Global Biodata Coalition (GBC) brings together life science research funding organisations that recognise these challenges and acknowledge the threat that the lack of sustainability poses. They agree to work together to find ways to improve sustainability. In the presentation, we will provide an overview of the global biodata resource infrastructure, focusing in particular on challenges to providing sustained long-term funding to the resources that comprise the infrastructure. This will provide a global context to other presentations in the session, which focus on biodata resources in Australia. Covering some of the work that GBC has carried out to understand and classify biodata resources and the entire biodata resource infrastructure, we will outline the Global Core Biodata Resource programme and Inventory project and also introduce the stakeholder consultation processes around approaches to sustainability and open data. Finally, we will lay out the path GBC is taking to engage researchers, informaticians, funding organisations and other stakeholders in moving towards greater sustainability for these critical resources

What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines’ publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.

Social responsibility in research and innovation practice and policy across global regions, institutional types, and fields: Interview data and qualitative content analysis outputs revealing the perspectives and experiences of professionals.

The European Commission-funded RRING (Responsible Research and Innovation Networked Globally) Horizon 2020 project aimed to deliver activities that promoted a global understanding of Socially Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). A necessary first step in this process was to understand how researchers (working across Global North and Global South contexts) implicitly understand and operationalise ideas relating to social responsibility within their day-to-day work. Here, we describe an empirical dataset that was gathered as part of the RRING project to investigate this topic. This Data Note explains the design and implementation of 113 structured qualitative interviews with a geographically diverse set of researchers (across 17 countries) focusing on their perspectives and experiences. Sample selection was aimed at maximising diversity. As well as spanning all five UNESCO world regions, these interview participants were drawn from a range of research fields (including energy; waste management; ICT/digital; bioeconomy) and institutional contexts (including research performing organisations; research funding organisations; industry and business; civil society organisations; policy bodies). This Data Note also indicates how and why a qualitative content analysis was implemented with this interview dataset, resulting in category counts available with the anonymised interview transcripts for public access.

It’s all about Priorities: Tips for Successfully Implementing Gender Equality Actions

The adoption of an inclusive Gender Equality Plan (iGEP) in Research Performing Organisations (RPO) and Research Funding Organisations (RFO) is a dynamic process that mobilises knowledge and skills, and at the same time creates challenges in each step. The Horizon 2020 CALIPER project supports seven RPOs and two RFOs across Europe in implementing iGEPs, focusing on the STEM fields. At this stage, CALIPER partners completed the first iteration phase of their iGEP implementation lasting 12 months. This work-in-progress paper presents practical examples from their GEP experience so far, focusing on the activities/steps an institution can put in place to adopt an inclusive approach to the GEP process. The “tips” are grounded in the formative evaluation reports, drafted by the CALIPER RPOs/RFOs after the end of the first implementation iteration. This action-oriented paper targets practitioners, active in Gender Equality (GE) in Research and Innovation (R&I).