Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists' perspective

Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study

INTRODUCTION

The focus on quantitative indicators-number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index-has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable 'publish or perish' culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities.

RESULTS

In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/.

Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Methods: Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Results: Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Conclusion: Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.

Socio-technical scales in socio-environmental modeling: Managing a system-of-systems modeling approach

System-of-systems approaches for integrated assessments have become prevalent in recent years. Such approaches integrate a variety of models from different disciplines and modeling paradigms to represent a socio-environmental (or social-ecological) system aiming to holistically inform policy and decision-making processes. Central to the system-of-systems approaches is the representation of systems in a multi-tier framework with nested scales. Current modeling paradigms, however, have disciplinary-specific lineage, leading to inconsistencies in the conceptualization and integration of socio-environmental systems. In this paper, a multidisciplinary team of researchers, from engineering, natural and social sciences, have come together to detail socio-technical practices and challenges that arise in the consideration of scale throughout the socio-environmental modeling process. We identify key paths forward, focused on explicit consideration of scale and uncertainty, strengthening interdisciplinary communication, and improvement of the documentation process. We call for a grand vision (and commensurate funding) for holistic system-of-systems research that engages researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers in a multi-tiered process for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions to major socio-environmental problems.

A Strategy for International Cooperation in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Focusing on National Scientific Funding Data

The coronavirus crisis may lead to a deeper understanding of international collaborations for developing antivirals and vaccines that are essential to protect us from current and future health security threats. Beyond technical solutions, the government of South Korea needs to establish a timely strategic investment in coronavirus-related research and development (R&D) in order to enhance the capabilities for managing this new uncertainty in regard to the domestic health crisis. Thus, this study aims to provide useful information about the status of global coronavirus-related research from the South Korean government's perspective. National funded projects stemmed from leading nations such as the United States, countries of the European Union, and Japan between 2012 and 2018. Six research fields were derived by clustering analysis and an expert-based approach, and then matched to those of South Korea. The comparative analysis among them allowed for the identification of the nations' strengths and weaknesses, thereby laying the groundwork for strategic international research collaborations.

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists' perspective

In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.