A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture.

Background: The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?' Aims: To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results: 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions: There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Exploring virtual funding committee practices in the allocation of National Institute for Health and Care Research funding: A netnographic study.

Background: Funding committees, comprising members with a range of knowledge, skills, and experience, are considered integral to the decision-making process of funding organisations for recommending or allocating research funding. However, there is limited research investigating the decision-making processes, the role of members and their social interactions during funding committee meetings conducted both virtually and face-to-face. Methods: Using a mixed-methods design and following netnography principles, the study observed nine National Institute for Health and Care Research programmes funding committee meetings conducted virtually during October 2020 to December 2021; complemented by interviews with committee chairs and members (18 interviews) and NIHR staff (12 interviews); an online survey (50 responses); and documentary analysis. Personal reflections through immersive journals also formed part of the analysis. Results: Three main themes were identified from the observations, interviews, and online survey: efficiency of virtual committee meetings (importance of preparation, and the role of formality, process, and structure); understanding the effect of virtual committee meetings on well-being (effects of fatigue and apprehension, and the importance of work life balance); understanding social interactions and engagement (levels of engagement, contribution and inclusivity, awareness of unconscious bias and the value of social networking). Conclusions: Examining the decision-making practices of one funding organisation across several research programmes, across multiple committee meetings over one year has generated new insights around funding committee practices that previous studies have not been able to explore or investigate. Overall, it was observed that fair and transparent funding recommendations and outcomes can be achieved through virtual funding committees. However, whilst virtual funding committees have many benefits and opportunities, such as the potential to increase membership diversity and inclusivity, and be more environmentally sustainable, more evidence is needed to evaluate their effectiveness, with particular focus on issues of fatigue, engagement, and committee cohesion, especially when new committee members join.

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). RESULTS: 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). CONCLUSIONS: Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

Role of feasibility and pilot studies in randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of pilot and feasibility studies to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. To explore the methodological components of pilot/feasibility studies and how they inform full RCTs. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Both groups included NIHR HTA programme funded studies in the period 1 January 2010-31 December 2014 (decision date). Group 1: stand-alone pilot/feasibility studies published in the HTA Journal or accepted for publication. Group 2: all funded RCT applications funded by the HTA programme, including reference to an internal and/or external pilot/feasibility study. The methodological components were assessed using an adapted framework from a previous study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of stand-alone pilot and feasibility studies which recommended proceeding to full trial and what study elements were assessed. The proportion of 'HTA funded' trials which used internal and external pilot and feasibility studies to inform the design of the trial. RESULTS: Group 1 identified 15 stand-alone pilot/feasibility studies. Study elements most commonly assessed were testing recruitment (100% in both groups), feasibility (83%, 100%) and suggestions for further study/investigation (83%, 100%). Group 2 identified 161 'HTA funded' applications: 59 cited an external pilot/feasibility study where testing recruitment (50%, 73%) and feasibility (42%, 73%) were the most commonly reported study elements: 92 reported an internal pilot/feasibility study where testing recruitment (93%, 100%) and feasibility (44%, 92%) were the most common study elements reported. CONCLUSIONS: 'HTA funded' research which includes pilot and feasibility studies assesses a variety of study elements. Pilot and feasibility studies serve an important role when determining the most appropriate trial design. However, how they are reported and in what context requires caution when interpreting the findings and delivering a definitive trial.