Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices

Previous studies of the use of peer review for the allocation of competitive funding agencies have concentrated on questions of efficiency and how to make the 'best' decision, by ensuring that successful applicants are also the more productive or visible in the long term. This paper examines the components of feedback received from an unsuccessful grant application, is associated with motivating applicants career decisions to persist (reapply for funding at T1), or to switch (not to reapply, or else leave academia). This study combined data from interviews with unsuccessful ECR applicants (n = 19) to The Wellcome Trust 2009-19, and manual coding of reviewer comments received by applicants (n = 81). All applicants received feedback on their application at T0 with a large proportion of unsuccessful applicants reapplying for funding at T1. Here, peer-review-comments-as-feedback sends signals to applicants to encourage them to persist (continue) or switch (not continue) even when the initial application has failed. Feedback associated by unsuccessful applicants as motivating their decision to resubmit had three characteristics: actionable; targeted; and fair. The results lead to identification of standards of feedback for funding agencies and peer-reviewers to promote when providing reviewer feedback to applicants as part of their peer review process. The provision of quality reviewer-reports-as-feedback to applicants, ensures that peer review acts as a participatory research governance tool focused on supporting the development of individuals and their future research plans.

Doubly Marginalized: Addressing the Minority Stressors Experienced by LGBTQ+ Researchers Who Do LGBTQ+ Research

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and nonbinary, and queer people (LGBTQ+) experience significantly higher levels of stressors due to discrimination, stigma, and marginalization than do cisgender heterosexual people. These high levels of stressors have impacts on health and well-being as well as career impacts. Limited research suggests that within higher education LGBTQ+ faculty experience bullying, discrimination, and harassment within the workplace. There is also data to suggest that research on marginalized populations is perceived to be less objective and valuable than research on majority populations. Research on the challenges of being a member of a marginalized population who conducts research on the same population suggests potentially negative career and personal impacts. To my knowledge, there has been little to no research on the double marginalization related to being an LGBTQ+ researcher doing research within the LGBTQ+ community. To describe the potential impacts of being an LGBTQ+ researcher who does LGBTQ+ research, I apply the extant literature on marginalized researchers who do research among marginalized populations to LGBTQ+ researchers. I also describe the potential minority stressors that LGBTQ+ researchers may face and how that may impact careers. Finally, I offer multiple recommendations for improvements for our research community and argue that senior faculty, leadership, and mentors can take specific actions to lessen stressors for LGBTQ+ researchers studying LGBTQ-related topics.

Undergraduate research programs build skills for diverse students

While many professional societies, colleges, and universities offer undergraduate summer research experience (URE) programs for students, few have systematically evaluated their programs for impacts on the fellows. The American Physiological Society (APS) developed and administered multiple UREs with varying target groups: students with and without prior research experiences and students from disadvantaged groups, including underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities (URM), persons with disabilities, first generation college students, and persons with financial or social disadvantages. Each program had specific goals and measurable objectives. To assess the impact of these programs, APS both documented student completion of program tasks (e.g., designing experiments, analyzing data, writing abstracts) and developed reliable and valid survey instruments to quantify students' self-ratings on a variety of research and career planning skills related to the program objectives. Results indicate that fellows as a whole and for most individual programs gained skills and knowledge in numerous areas: experimental design, data management, lab safety, statistical analysis, data presentation, scientific writing, scientific presentation, professional networking, professional networking at scientific meetings, authorship attribution, animal use in research, human subjects in research, roles of lab mates and mentors, and research career training and planning. Furthermore, there were few differences within the diversity comparison groups (women vs. men, URM fellows vs. non-URM fellows, etc.). Suggestions for improvement of URE programs are proposed.

Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: a mixed methods study

Background: There is a growing global movement towards open science and ensuring that health research is more transparent. It is vital that the researchers are adequately prepared for this research environment from early in their careers. However, limited research has been conducted on the barriers and enablers to practicing open science for early career researchers. This study aimed to explore the views, experiences and factors influencing open science practices amongst ECRs working in health research. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of ECRs working in health research. Participants also completed surveys regarding the factors influencing open science practices. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive statistical analyses were used to analyse survey data. Results: 14 ECRs participated. Two main themes were identified from interview data; Valuing Open Science and Creating a Culture for Open Science. Within 'Valuing Open Science', participants spoke about the conceptualisation of open science to be open across the entire research cycle, and important for producing better and more impactful research for patients and the public. Within 'Creating a Culture of Open Science' participants spoke about a number of factors influencing their practice of open science. These included cultural and academic pressures, the positives and negatives of increased accountability and transparency, and the need for more training and supporting resources to facilitate open science practices. Conclusion: ECRs see the importance of open science for beneficially impacting patient and public health but many feel that they are not fully supported to practice open science. Resources and supports including education and training are needed, as are better incentives for open science activities. Crucially, tangible engagement from institutions, funders and researchers is needed to facilitate the development of an open science culture.

Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: a mixed methods study

Background: There is a growing global movement towards open science and ensuring that health research is more transparent. It is vital that the researchers are adequately prepared for this research environment from early in their careers. However, the barriers and enablers to practicing open science for early career researchers (ECRs) have been explored to a limited extent. This study aimed to explore the views, experiences and factors influencing open science practices amongst ECRs working in health research. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of ECRs working in health research. Participants also completed surveys regarding the factors influencing open science practices. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive statistical analyses were used to analyse survey data. Results: 14 ECRs participated. Two main themes were identified from interview data; Valuing Open Science and Creating a Culture for Open Science. Within 'Valuing Open Science', participants spoke about the conceptualisation of open science to be open across the entire research cycle, and important for producing better and more impactful research for patients and the public. Within 'Creating a Culture of Open Science' participants spoke about a number of factors influencing their practice of open science. These included cultural and academic pressures, the positives and negatives of increased accountability and transparency, and the need for more training and supporting resources to facilitate open science practices. Conclusion: ECRs see the importance of open science for beneficially impacting patient and public health but many feel that they are not fully supported to practice open science. Resources and supports including education and training are needed, as are better incentives for open science activities. Crucially, tangible engagement from institutions, funders and researchers is needed to facilitate the development of an open science culture.

Clinical and translational scientist career success: metrics for evaluation

Despite the increased emphasis on formal training in clinical and translational research and the growth in the number and scope of training programs over the past decade, the impact of training on research productivity and career success has yet to be fully evaluated at the institutional level. In this article, the Education Evaluation Working Group of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium introduces selected metrics and methods associated with the assessment of key factors that affect research career success. The goals in providing this information are to encourage more consistent data collection across training sites, to foster more rigorous and systematic exploration of factors associated with career success, and to help address previously identified difficulties in program evaluation.