Why Stating Hypotheses in Grant Applications Is Unnecessary.

This Viewpoint argues that a hypothesis-centric approach to writing grant applications is problematic and instead suggests that funding applications should be evaluated by their relevance and methodological quality rather than by qualitative assertions before the study is conducted.

The Policies for the Disclosure of Funding and Conflict of Interest in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Industry through its funding of research and through its relationships with study authors can influence the results of research. Most journals have policies for reporting funding and disclosing conflict of interest (COI) to mitigate the influence of industry on research. The objective of this study is to assess the policies of surgery journals for the reporting of funding and the disclosure of COI. METHODS: We described the prevalence and characteristics of funding and COI policies of journals indexed under "Surgery" in the Journal Citation Reports. We extracted data from publicly available information and through simulation of manuscript submission. RESULTS: Of the 186 eligible journals, 171 (92%) had policies for reporting of funding. None of the policies described procedures to deal with non-reporting or underreporting of funding. Of the 186 journals, 183 (99%) had a policy for disclosure of COI. All journals with a COI policy required disclosure of financial interest, while 96 (52%) required the disclosure of non-financial interests. Only 24 (13%) policies described how non-disclosure of COI affects the editorial process, and none described procedures to verify COI disclosure. Of the policies that required disclosing COI, 94 (51%) also required reporting the source of financial COI. CONCLUSIONS: Most journals have policies for reporting of funding and disclosure of financial COI. However, many do not have clear policies for disclosing non-financial COI. Major limitations in the policies include the lack of processes for the verification of disclosed interests and for dealing with underreporting of funding and of COI.

Replication of influential studies on biomedical, social, behavioural and structural interventions for HIV prevention and treatment.

Replication is an important tool to promote high quality research and ensure policy makers can rely on studies in making guidelines or funding programs. By ensuring influential studies are replicable we provide assurance that the policies based on these studies are well-founded and the conclusions and recommendations are robust-to different estimation models or different choices. In this paper, we argue that replication is not only useful but necessary to ensure that an author's choice in how to analyse data is not the only factor that determines whether an intervention is effective or not. We also show that while most research is done well and provides robust results, small differences can lead to different interpretations and these differences need to be acknowledged. This special issue highlights 5 such replication studies, which are replications of influential studies on biomedical, social, behavioural and structural interventions for HIV prevention and treatment. We reflect on their findings. Four out of five studies, which conduct push button replication and pure replication, were able to reproduce the results of the original studies with minor differences, mainly due to minor typographical errors or rounding differences. The analysis of the measurement and estimation analyses conducted in these five studies reveals that the original results are not very robust to alternative analytical approaches, especially when these results rely on a small number of observations. In these cases, the original results are weakened. Furthermore, in contrast to the original papers, two of the five included replication studies conducted a theory of change analysis-to explore how or why the interventions work (or do not) not just whether the intervention works or not. These two analyses indicate that the estimated impacts of the interventions are drawn from few mediators. In addition, they demonstrate that, in some cases, a lack of effect may be related to lack of adequate exposure to the intervention rather than inefficacy of the intervention per se. However, overall, the included replication studies show that the results presented in the original papers are trustworthy and robust, especially when based on larger sample sizes. Replication studies can not only verify the results of a study, they can also provide additional insights on the published results, such as how and why an intervention was effective or less effective than expected. They can thus be a tool to inform the research community and/ or policymakers about whether and how interventions could be adopted, which need to be tested further, and which should be discontinued because of their ineffectiveness. Thus, publishing these replication studies in peer-reviewed journals makes the work public and publicized. The work advances knowledge, and publication should be encouraged, as it is for other types of research.

Is research in peril in Nepal? Publication trend and research quality from projects funded by the University Grants Commission-Nepal.

Institutions of higher learning are critical in promoting a knowledge-driven economy through research and training. Nepali universities receive funding from the University Grants Commission, Nepal (UGC-N) to support for impactful research. UGC-N requires grantees to publish research results as journal articles. We reviewed papers published through UGC-N funded research projects over a 10-year period (2008-2018) to assess the trends of article publication in terms of frequency and quality (based on journal impact factor and SCImago journal ranking). At most, 17% projects (n = 325) had publications and the majority of articles were published in journals that had neither SJR rank (74%, n = 240) nor impact factor (86%, n = 279). Most importantly, 10% of articles (n = 23) published in the non-ranked journals appeared in predatory journals. Although there were increasing trends of grants and research article publications in the last 10 years, journal-level quality metrics showed no improvements and suggested decreasing trends during the last half decade. The publication output varied among grant categories. Master research grants and PhD research grants performed better than those of faculty research grants in terms of publication in quality journals. We call for an increased commitment from political and academic leadership to promote quality research in Nepal.

Governance of health research funding institutions: an integrated conceptual framework and actionable functions of governance.

BACKGROUND: Health research has scientific, social and political impacts. To achieve such impacts, several institutions need to participate; however, health research funding institutions are seldom nominated in the literature as essential players. The attention they have received has so far focused mainly on their role in knowledge translation, informing policy-making and the need to organise health research systems. In this article, we will focus solely on the governance of national health research funding institutions. Our objectives are to identify the main functions of governance for such institutions and actionable governance functions. This research should be useful in several ways, including in highlighting, tracking and measuring the governance trends in a given funding institution, and to forestall low-level governance. METHODS: First, we reviewed existing frameworks in the grey literature, selecting seven relevant documents. Second, we developed an integrated framework for health research funding institution governance and management. Third, we extracted actionable information for governance by selecting a mix of North American, European and Asian institutions that had documentation available in English (e.g. annual report, legal status, strategy). RESULTS: The framework contains 13 functions - 5 dedicated to governance (intelligence acquisition, resourcing and instrumentation, relationships management, accountability and performance, and strategy formulation), 3 dedicated to management (priority-setting, financing and knowledge transfer), and 5 dedicated to transversal logics that apply to both governance and management (ethics, transparency, capacity reinforcement, monitoring and evaluation, and public engagement). CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we provide a conceptual contribution for scholars in the field of governance and health research as well as a practical contribution, with actionable functions for high-level managers in charge of the governance of health research funding institutions.

What Is Human Research For? Reflections on the Omission of Scientific Integrity from the Belmont Report.

The Belmont Report has provided a useful and virtually universal framework for protecting human subjects from research abuses. However, it provides little to no guidance on the substance of human research. In an environment where major decisions concerning health-care access, funding, and regulation hinge on human research, this omission leaves downstream users of human research virtually unprotected and with few tools or frameworks to protect against a variety of practices that compromise the social value of human research. This essay advocates for the addition of a fourth principle to the Belmont three: "scientific integrity." Such a principle would seek to train human research on important social objectives while maximizing the accessibility, credibility, and generalizability of findings.

Analysis of the technical-scientific production of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) productivity fellows in Pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the technical-scientific production of research productivity fellows of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, in Pediatrics, from 2013 to 2016. METHODS: First, data were obtained identifying fellowship researchers using the Lattes Platform, and subsequently calculating the indicators present in their Lattes curricula using scriptLattes software v8.10. RESULTS: In the period studied, 17 fellowship researchers were identified. They published a total of 524 articles in journals, most of them ranked as high and intermediate Qualis. In addition, fellowship researchers conducted 158 supervisions during the period, published 119 books or chapters and 465 papers in conference proceedings. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian scientific production in Pediatrics has shown to be significant and of good impact, both nationally and internationally. However, the distribution of research groups is concentrated in specific regions of Brazil.

Analysis of the technical-scientific production of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) productivity fellows in Pediatrics / Análise da produção técnico-científica de bolsistas de produtividade do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) na área da Pediatria

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the technical-scientific production of research productivity fellows of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, in Pediatrics, from 2013 to 2016. Methods: First, data were obtained identifying fellowship researchers using the Lattes Platform, and subsequently calculating the indicators present in their Lattes curricula using scriptLattes software v8.10. Results: In the period studied, 17 fellowship researchers were identified. They published a total of 524 articles in journals, most of them ranked as high and intermediate Qualis. In addition, fellowship researchers conducted 158 supervisions during the period, published 119 books or chapters and 465 papers in conference proceedings. Conclusion: The Brazilian scientific production in Pediatrics has shown to be significant and of good impact, both nationally and internationally. However, the distribution of research groups is concentrated in specific regions of Brazil.

RESUMO Objetivo: Analisar a produção técnico-científica de bolsistas de produtividade em pesquisa do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, na área de Pediatria, no período de 2013 a 2016. Métodos: Os dados foram obtidos identificando-se os bolsistas, por meio da Plataforma Lattes, e, posteriormente, contabilizando-se os indicadores presentes em seus currículos Lattes, pelo software scriptLattes v8.10. Resultados: No período, foram identificados 17 pesquisadores bolsistas, os quais publicaram 524 artigos em periódicos, em sua maioria classificados com Qualis elevado/intermediário. Ainda, os pesquisadores realizaram, no período, 158 orientações, publicaram 119 livros/capítulos e 465 trabalhos em anais de congressos. Conclusão: A produção científica brasileira na área de Pediatria mostrou-se expressiva e de impacto, em âmbito nacional e internacional. Entretanto, a distribuição dos grupos é concentrada em regiões específicas do Brasil.

Metrics and evaluation of scientific productivity: would it be useful to normalize the data taking in consideration the investments?

There has been in increasing interest in evaluating research production by means of "objective parameters" which should score the scientific impact of single articles and researchers' career. In contrast, the attention of the economic aspects of research production has been highly neglected. I suggest that introducing the assessment of the return of research investment would be useful for fair comparison among researchers and probably it would render more understandable to public opinion what are the criteria according to which research funds are distributed.

Congress of the United States, Ramazzini Institute and its affiliates, IARC: questions on scientific transparency.

SUMMARY: No abstract available.

Responsible Gambling Research and Industry Funding Biases.

This brief report examines whether there are differences in aspects of different characteristics, including design/methodologies of responsible gambling (RG), between studies funded by industry as compared to other sources. To investigate this, the authors used those studies included in a recent meta-analysis focusing on the empirical basis of RG initiatives (Ladouceur et al. in Addict Res Theory 25:225-235, 2017). We examined eight associations between funding sources, and different design/methodological characteristics of these studies; type of strategy, inclusion of comparison groups, measurement scales and repeated measures, publication source, number of inclusion criteria met, secondary sources of funding, publication year. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the funding source, and the index study characteristics. These results do not support claims that funding exerts influence on the design or methodologies of RG studies. However, the absence of statistically significant findings should not be used to assert the absence of a funding effect because there are many reasons for failing to find differences, or interpretation of findings. Unexpectedly, a third of the papers included in this study failed to disclose their funding sources. This finding highlights the need for more open and transparent disclosures.

Directing research funds to the right research projects: a review of criteria used by research organisations in Australia in prioritising health research projects for funding.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare budgets are limited, and therefore, research funds should be wisely allocated to ensure high-quality, useful and cost-effective research. We aimed to critically review the criteria considered by major Australian organisations in prioritising and selecting health research projects for funding. METHODS: We reviewed all grant schemes listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register that were health-related, active in 2017 and with publicly available selection criteria on the funders' websites. Data extracted included scheme name, funding organisation, selection criteria and the relative weight assigned to each criterion. Selection criteria were grouped into five representative domains: relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility (including team quality) and cost-effectiveness (ie, value for money). RESULTS: Thirty-six schemes were included from 158 identified. One-half of the schemes were under the National Health and Medical Research Council. The most commonly used criteria were research team quality and capability (94%), research plan clarity (94%), scientific quality (92%) and research impact (92%). Criteria considered less commonly were existing knowledge (22%), fostering collaboration (22%), research environment (19%), value for money (14%), disease burden (8%) and ethical/moral considerations (3%). In terms of representative domains, relevance was considered in 72% of the schemes, appropriateness in 92%, significance in 94%, feasibility in 100% and cost-effectiveness in 17%. The relative weights for the selection criteria varied across schemes with 5%-30% for relevance, 20%-60% for each appropriateness and significance, 20%-75% for feasibility and 15%-33% for cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In selecting research projects for funding, Australian research organisations focus largely on research appropriateness, significance and feasibility; however, value for money is most often overlooked. Research funding decisions should include an assessment of value for money in order to maximise return on research investment.