Archives des mots-clés : research funding

Publishers, funders and institutions: who is supporting UKRI-funded researchers to share data?

Posté le par

Authors : Beth Montague-Hellen, Kate Montague-Hellen

Researchers are increasingly being asked by funders, publishers and their institutions to share research data alongside written publications, and to include data availability statements to support their readers in finding this data.

In the UK, UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) is one of the largest funding bodies and has had data-sharing policies for several years. This article investigates the reasons why a researcher may or may not share their data and assesses whether funders, publishers and institutions are supporting data-sharing behaviour through their policies and actions.

A survey with 166 responses gave an indicative assessment of researcher opinions around data sharing, and a corpus of 3,277 journal articles retrieved from four UK institutions was analysed using multivariate logistic regression models to provide empirical evidence as to researcher behaviour around data sharing.

The regression models provide insight into how this is affected by the funder, institution and publisher of the research. This study identifies that those publishers and funders who give clear guidance in their policies as to which data should be shared, and where this data should be shared, are most likely to encourage good practice in researchers.

URL : Publishers, funders and institutions: who is supporting UKRI-funded researchers to share data?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.602

Policy seduction and governance resistance? Examining public funding agencies and academic institutions on decarbonisation research

Posté le par

Author : Abbas AbdulRafiu

Public research funding is a critical instrument in technology and social innovation. This paper explores the emerging themes and topical trends that commonly influence interdisciplinary research within a sample of global research projects, including reviewing a recent study of 1,000 projects used in the selection of expert interview participants (n = 15).

It examines the extent to which research funding agencies and academic institutions are shifting research priorities in the energy and climate change domain. It asks: What challenges does interdisciplinary research raise?

The study reveals how cross-disciplinary research funding focuses on or fails to address the themes of sustainable development goals. In addition, it emphasises policy seduction and difficulty (resistance) in understanding cross-disciplinary methods in research and how research collaborations promote (or fail to promote) global South institutions and topics.

Finally, the paper recommends that research funding needs involve a broader array of stakeholders in industrial decarbonisation research, including policymakers, industries, and citizens.

URL : Policy seduction and governance resistance? Examining public funding agencies and academic institutions on decarbonisation research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac051

Analysis of U.S. Federal Funding Agency Data Sharing Policies 2020 Highlights and Key Observations

Posté le par

Authors : Reid I. Boehm, Hannah Calkins, Patricia B. Condon, Jonathan Petters, Rachel Woodbrook

Federal funding agencies in the United States (U.S.) continue to work towards implementing their plans to increase public access to funded research and comply with the 2013 Office of Science and Technology memo Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research.

In this article we report on an analysis of research data sharing policy documents from 17 U.S. federal funding agencies as of February 2021. Our analysis is guided by two questions: 1.) What do the findings suggest about the current state of and trends in U.S. federal funding agency data sharing requirements? 2.) In what ways are universities, institutions, associations, and researchers affected by and responding to these policies?

Over the past five years, policy updates were common among these agencies and several themes have been thoroughly developed in that time; however, uncertainty remains around how funded researchers are expected to satisfy these policy requirements.

URL : Analysis of U.S. Federal Funding Agency Data Sharing Policies 2020 Highlights and Key Observations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v17i1.791

How can funders promote the use of research? Three converging views on relational research

Posté le par

Authors : Vivian Tseng, Angela Bednarek, Kristy Faccer

Although funders are generally acknowledged as important actors in the evidence ecosystem, there has been insufficient analysis of the how and why behind funders’ decisions. This article examines the decision-making of three funders in their support of relational approaches to improve the usefulness and use of research evidence.

They compare their work across the disparate policy sectors of education and environmental sustainability in order to bridge the silos that have caused unnecessary duplication of work and obstructed advancements in research utilization.

The authors (1) provide individual narratives of their funding experiences including why they prioritized relational approaches and how they supported them; (2) discuss their lessons learned for supporting and promoting relational approaches; and (3) offer recommendations to the broader funding community for strengthening and expanding these approaches.

The authors hope the paper provides useful insights into ways funders and their partners can build a stronger and better coordinated evidence ecosystem in which research regularly contributes to improved societal outcomes.

URL : How can funders promote the use of research? Three converging views on relational research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01157-w

Gender diversity of research consortia contributes to funding decisions in a multi-stage grant peer-review process

Posté le par

Authors : Stefano Bianchini, Patrick Llerena, Sıla Öcalan-Öze, Emre Özel

This study seeks to draw connections between the grant proposal peer-review and the gender representation in research consortia.

We examined the implementation of a multi-disciplinary, pan-European funding scheme—EUROpean COllaborative RESearch Scheme (2003–2015)—and the reviewers’ materials that this generated. EUROCORES promoted investigator-driven, multinational collaborative research in multiple scientific areas and brought together 9158 Principal Investigators (PI) who teamed up in 1347 international consortia that were sequentially evaluated by 467 expert panel members and 1862 external reviewers.

We found systematically unfavourable evaluations for consortia with a higher proportion of female PIs. This gender effect was evident in the evaluation outcomes of both panel members and reviewers: applications from consortia with a higher share of female scientists were less successful in panel selection and received lower scores from external reviewers.

Interestingly, we found a systematic discrepancy between the evaluative language of written review reports and the scores assigned by reviewers that works against consortia with a higher share of female participants.

Reviewers did not perceive female scientists as being less competent in their comments, but they were negatively sensitive to a high female ratio within a consortium when scoring the proposed research project.

URL : Gender diversity of research consortia contributes to funding decisions in a multi-stage grant peer-review process

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01204-6

Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences

Posté le par

Authors : Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau, Ana Wheelock, Tushna Vandrevala, Priscilla Harris

Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently.

This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences.

Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process.

These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics’ area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution.

In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs—varying in length and complexity.

However, their interpretation of what was ‘right’ was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder’s guidelines and priorities.

As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers’ views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes.

The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process.

We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this “invisible work” to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process.

URL : Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01050-6

Evolution and Features of China’s Central Government Funding System for Basic Research

Posté le par

Authors : Aruhan Bai, Cong Wu, Kejia Yang

Basic research is believed to be a crucial factor for building national innovation capacity and therefore was perceived as a key battleground for national technological and economic competition. Since the economic reform and opening up in the late 1970s, China has made great achievements in building up its national research system.

However, the lacking capabilities to conduct ground-breaking scientific work remain one of the daunting challenges for the country. How to restructure its funding system for basic research so to reinvigorate its indigenous innovation capacity has been one of the main concerns for the Chinese government in recent years.

To address this, the paper proposes a conceptual framework to analyze how China’s central government funding system for basic research has evolved since 1985. The paper concludes with a discussion of the identified problems and challenges that China is facing in its current funding system for basic research.

URL : Evolution and Features of China’s Central Government Funding System for Basic Research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.751497