Perceptions and behavior of clinical researchers and research support staff regarding data FAIRification.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kersloot MG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9142513 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Perceptions and behavior of clinical researchers and research support staff regarding data FAIRification.
Kersloot Martijn G MG Abu-Hanna Ameen A Cornet Ronald R Arts Derk L DL
Scientific data 20220527 1
The FAIR Data Principles are being rapidly adopted by many research institutes and funders worldwide. This study aimed to assess the awareness and attitudes of clinical researchers and research support staff regarding data FAIRification. A questionnaire was distributed to researchers and support staff in six Dutch University Medical Centers and Electronic Data Capture platform users. 164 researchers and 21 support staff members completed the questionnaire. 62.8% of the researchers and 81.0% of t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The article describes the results of the online survey on open science (OS) carried out on researchers affiliated with universities and Spanish research centres and focused on open access to scientific publications, the publication process, the management of research data and the review of open articles. The main objective was to identify the perception and habits of researchers with regard to practices closely linked to open science and the scientific value added is that offers an in-depth picture of researchers as one of the main actors to whom this transformation and implementation of open science will fall. It focuses on the different aspects of OS: open access, open data, publication process and open review in order to identify habits and perceptions. This is to make possible an implementation of the OS movement. The survey was carried out among researchers who had published in the years 2020-2021, according to data obtained from WoS. It was emailed to a total of 8,188 researchers and obtained a total of 666 responses, of which 554 were complete, the rest being forms with some questions unanswered. The main results showed that open access still requires the diffusion of practices and services provided by the institution, as well as training (library or equivalent service) and institutional support from the competent authorities (vice rectors or equivalent) in specific aspects such as data management. In the case of data, around 50% of respondents stated they had stored data in a repository, and of all the options, the most frequently given was that of an institutional repository, followed by a discipline repository. Among the main reasons for doing this, we found transparency, visibility of data and the ability to validate results. For those who stated they had never stored data, the most frequent reasons for not having done so were privacy and confidentiality, the lack of a mandated data policy or a lack of knowledge of how to do it. In terms of open peer review, participants mentioned a certain reticence to the opening of evaluations due to potential conflicts of interest that may arise or because lower-quality content might be accepted in order to avoid conflicts. In addition, the hierarchical structure of senior researcher versus junior researcher might affect reviews. The main conclusions indicate a need for persuasion of OA to take place; APCs are an economic barrier rather than the main criterion for journal selection; OPR practices may seem innovative and emerging; scientific and evaluation policies seem to have a clear effect on the behaviour of researchers; researchers state that they share research data more for reasons of persuasion than out of obligation. Researchers do question the pathways or difficulties that may arise on a day-to-day basis and seem aware that we are undergoing change, where academic evaluation or policies related to open science, its implementation and habits among researchers may change. In this sense, more and better support is needed on the part of institutions and faculty support services.
| S-EPMC10343031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.MethodsWe used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental.ResultsIn total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher.ConclusionWe found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.
| S-EPMC6886174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBiomedical research is overseen by numerous Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Singapore but there has been no research that examines how the research review process is perceived by the local research community nor is there any systematic data on perceptions regarding the review process or other research ethics processes and IRB characteristics. The aim of this study was to ascertain general views regarding the overall perceived value of ethics review processes; to measure perceptions about local IRB functions and characteristics; to identify IRB functions and characteristics viewed as important; and to compare these views with those of other international studies.MethodsAn online survey was used with the main component being the IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), a validated tool, to evaluate perceptions of ideal and actual IRB functions and characteristics held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff. Data were analysed descriptively first, with mean and SD of each item of IRB-RAT questionnaire reported, excluding the respondents whose answers were unknown or not applicable. The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was used to compare the ideal and actual ratings of each IRB-RAT item, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings of each IRB-RAT item between respondents with different characteristics. The Z-test was used to compare the mean ratings of our cohort with the mean ratings reported in the literature. The correlation between our mean ideal scores and those of two international studies also employing the IRB-RAT was examined.ResultsSeventy-one respondents completed the survey. This cohort generally held positive views of the impact of the ethics review process on: the quality of research; establishing and maintaining public trust in research; the protection of research participants; and on the scientific validity of research. The most important ideal IRB characteristics were timeliness, upholding participants' rights while also facilitating research, working with investigators to find solutions when there are disagreements, and not allowing biases to affect reviews. For almost all 45 IRB-RAT statements, the rating of the importance of the characteristic was higher than the rating of how much that characteristic was descriptive of IRBs the respondents were familiar with. There was a significant strong correlation between our study's scores on the ideal IRB characteristics and those of the first and largest published study that employed the IRB-RAT, the US National Validation (USNV) sample in Keith-Spiegel et al. [19].ConclusionsAn understanding of the perceptions held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff on the value that the ethics review process adds, their perceptions of actual IRB functions and characteristics as well as what they view as central to high functioning IRBs is the first step to considering the aspects of the review process that might benefit from improvements. This study provides insight into how our cohort compares to others internationally and highlights strengths and areas for improvement of Singapore IRBs as perceived by a small sample of the local research community. Such insights provide a springboard for additional research and may assist in further enhancing good relations so that both are working towards the same end.
| S-EPMC7774925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.
| S-EPMC6891155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the 2009 H1N1 immunization campaign, electronic and hybrid (comprising both electronic and paper components) systems were employed to collect client-level vaccination data in clinics across Canada. Because different systems were used across the country, the 2009 immunization campaign offered an opportunity to study the usability of the various data collection methods.MethodsA convenience sample of clinic staff working in public health agencies and hospitals in 9 provinces/territories across Canada completed a questionnaire in which they indicated their level of agreement with seven statements regarding the usability of the data collection system employed at their vaccination clinic. Questions included overall ease of use, effectiveness of the method utilized, efficiency at completing tasks, comfort using the method, ability to recover from mistakes, ease of learning the method and overall satisfaction with the method. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to measure responses.ResultsMost respondents (96%) were employed in sites run by public health. Respondents included 186 nurses and 114 administrative staff, among whom 90% and 47%, respectively, used a paper-based method for data collection. Approximately half the respondents had a year or less of experience with immunization-related tasks during seasonal influenza campaigns. Over 90% of all frontline staff found their data collection method easy to use, perceived it to be effective in helping them complete their tasks, felt quick and comfortable using the method, and found the method easy to learn, regardless of whether a hybrid or electronic system was used.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that there may be a greater willingness of frontline immunization staff to adapt to new technologies than previously perceived by decision-makers. The public health community should recognize that usability may not be a barrier to implementing electronic methods for collecting individual-level immunization data.
| S-EPMC3024979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The worldwide adoption of electronic health records (EHR) promises to accelerate clinical research, which lies at the heart of medical advances. However, the interrogation of such Big Data by clinical researchers can be laborious and error-prone, involving iterative and ineffective communication of data requests to data analysts. Research on this communication process is rare. There also exists no contemporary system that offers intelligent solutions to assist clinical researchers in their quest for clinical data. In this article, we first provide a detailed characterization of the challenges encountered in this communication space. Second, we identify promising synergies between fields studying human-to-human and human-machine communication that can shed light on biomedical data query mediation. We propose a mixed-initiative dialog-based approach to support autonomous clinical data access and recommend needed technology development and communication study for accelerating clinical research.
| S-EPMC5875984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meaningful engagement of Alaska Native (AN) tribes and tribal health organizations is essential in the conduct of socially responsible and ethical research. As genomics becomes increasingly important to advancements in medicine, there is a risk that populations not meaningfully included in genomic research will not benefit from the outcomes of that research. AN people have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research; AN underrepresentation in genomics research is compounded by mistrust based on past abuses, concerns about privacy and data ownership, and cultural considerations specific to this type of research. Working together, the National Human Genome Research Institute and two Alaska Native health organizations, Southcentral Foundation and the Alaska Native Health Board, cosponsored a workshop in July 2018 to engage key stakeholders in discussion, strengthen relationships, and facilitate partnership and consideration of participation of AN people in community-driven biomedical and genomic research. AN priorities related to translation of genomics research to health and health care, return of genomic results, design of research studies, and data sharing were discussed. This report summarizes the perspectives that emerged from the dialogue and offers considerations for effective and socially responsible genomic research partnerships with AN communities.
| S-EPMC7708301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research data is increasingly viewed as an important scholarly output. While a growing body of studies have investigated researcher practices and perceptions related to data sharing, information about data-related practices throughout the research process (including data collection and analysis) remains largely anecdotal. Building on our previous study of data practices in neuroimaging research, we conducted a survey of data management practices in the field of psychology. Our survey included questions about the type(s) of data collected, the tools used for data analysis, practices related to data organization, maintaining documentation, backup procedures, and long-term archiving of research materials. Our results demonstrate the complexity of managing and sharing data in psychology. Data is collected in multifarious forms from human participants, analyzed using a range of software tools, and archived in formats that may become obsolete. As individuals, our participants demonstrated relatively good data management practices, however they also indicated that there was little standardization within their research group. Participants generally indicated that they were willing to change their current practices in light of new technologies, opportunities, or requirements.
| S-EPMC8139478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the equipoise regarding alcohol's cardiovascular effects and absence of relevant rigorous controlled trials, the lay press frequently portrays alcohol as "heart healthy." The public perception of alcohol's heart effects, the sources of those perceptions, and how they may affect behavior are unknown. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data obtained from March 2013 to September 2014 from consecutive participants enrolled in the Health eHeart Study. Of 5,582 participants, 1,707 (30%) viewed alcohol as heart healthy, 2,157 (39%) viewed it as unhealthy, and 1,718 (31%) were unsure. Of those reporting alcohol as heart healthy, 80% cited lay press as a source of their knowledge. After adjustment, older age (odds ratio 1.11), higher education (odds ratio 1.37), higher income (odds ratio 1.07), US residence (odds ratio 1.63), and coronary artery disease (odds ratio 1.51) were associated with perception of alcohol as heart healthy (all p <0.003). Ever smokers (odds ratio 0.76, p = 0.004) and those with heart failure (odds ratio 0.5, p = 0.01) were less likely to cite alcohol as heart healthy. Those perceiving alcohol as heart healthy consumed on average 47% more alcohol on a regular basis (95% confidence interval 27% to 66%, p <0.001). In conclusion, of >5,000 consecutive Health eHeart participants, approximately 1/3 believed alcohol to be heart healthy, and the majority cited the lay press as the origin of that perception. Those with a perception of alcohol as heart healthy drink substantially more alcohol.
| S-EPMC4522219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The research climate plays a key role in fostering integrity in research. However, little is known about what constitutes a responsible research climate. We investigated academic researchers' perceptions on this through focus group interviews. We recruited researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center to participate in focus group discussions that consisted of researchers from similar academic ranks and disciplinary fields. We asked participants to reflect on the characteristics of a responsible research climate, the barriers they perceived and which interventions they thought fruitful to improve the research climate. Discussions were recorded and transcribed at verbatim. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the focus group transcripts. We conducted 12 focus groups with 61 researchers in total. We identified fair evaluation, openness, sufficient time, integrity, trust and freedom to be mentioned as important characteristics of a responsible research climate. Main perceived barriers were lack of support, unfair evaluation policies, normalization of overwork and insufficient supervision of early career researchers. Possible interventions suggested by the participants centered around improving support, discussing expectations and improving the quality of supervision. Some of the elements of a responsible research climate identified by participants are reflected in national and international codes of conduct, such as trust and openness. Although it may seem hard to change the research climate, we believe that the realisation that the research climate is suboptimal should provide the impetus for change informed by researchers' experiences and opinions.
| S-EPMC7755866 | biostudies-literature