Category / Research Integritiy

BU Integrity Week: 16th to the 20th May 2022

PG research, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

Unlock greater potential by maximising your awareness and understanding of Integrity! 

The ability to utilise integrity in research, writing and teaching is vital for academic success. However, continuing to retain your integrity is fundamental but this can only be achieved by maintaining an ability to keep up-to date with the rules constituting academic dishonesty. Not so unlike technology rules and guidelines are continually changing. How then do you develop and maximise your understanding of honesty and dishonesty and continue to retain Integrity?  BU’s Integrity Week will give you the skills and resources to do just that! 

The importance of Academic Integrity will be highlighted at Bournemouth University’s Integrity Week. 

Organised by cross faculty departments for students, staff and faculty, the week will comprise of a combination of interesting workshops, cross faculty and professional presentations where experts will share their knowledge on differing aspects of honesty and dishonesty. Panel discussions, open to all, will provide a lively forum for the sharing of experiences. 

Reasons to attend! 

  • Unlock and achieve greater success through integrity
  • Discover Integrity resources 
  • Acquire skills to utilise integrity in research, writing and teaching
  • Learn how to maintain integrity in an evolving world of change

This will be an unparalleled week of opportunity for students, staff and faculty to ensure that through awareness and understanding BU stays at the forefront of everything that Integrity represents.  

 

Check out the programme and book here

Equality Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) toolkit – NIHR webinar

NHS, Post-award, Research Integritiy

  

Dear colleagues

– Are you an NIHR funded researcher?
– Are you planning to submit a grant application to NIHR?

NIHR Research Design Service East Midlands are hosting a webinar introducing the new EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity) toolkit and is a valuable starting point for researchers seeking to develop more inclusive research proposals.

The NIHR Research Design Service (RDS) has developed an EDI toolkit to support researchers to consider and embed EDI at each stage of their research project, from inception through to dissemination, implementation and impact.

The 90 minute webinar is on 30th March 2022 at 13.30.

More information and link to book here.

Your local branch of the NIHR RDS (Research Design Service) is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU)

We can help with your application. We advise on all aspects of developing an application and can review application drafts as well as put them to a mock funding panel (run by RDS South West) known as Project Review Committee, which is a fantastic opportunity for researchers to obtain a critical review of a proposed grant application before this is sent to a funding body.

Contact us as early as possible to benefit fully from the advice

Feel free to call us on 01202 961939 or send us an email.

Speaking to a journalist

international, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, writing

In late 2021 I was contacted by an Indonesian science journalist, Dyna Rochmyaningsih, who was investigating the ethics around international studies on human population genetics to build expand genomic libraries of people in the Global South.  She highlights that “these international studies, often led by Western scientists, have contributed to a more global understanding of ancient patterns of human migration and evolution. But on some occasions, they’ve also sidestepped local regulatory agencies in the developing world, and ventured into murky research ethics terrain as a result”.   The reason for contacting me was because we had published several papers here at Bournemouth University about the need for applying for ethical approval for research in developing countries [1-3].  I had a long Skype conversation with her about the various perspectives on the matter she was investigating.

Today she emailed me that her piece ‘Opinion: Genomics’ Ethical Gray Areas Are Harming the Developing World. A recent controversy in the Philippines illustrates the pitfalls and pressure points of international genomics research‘ has been published online.  In the email she made a really nice comment: “It was nice talking to you even though you might see that I disagree at some of your points. However, the discussion gave me insights that there is a wide disagreement on what considers ethical research.”  I think that is what science should be all about, disagreements, discussions, disputes, etc. and, at the same time, learning from these disputes and gaining greater insight.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen E.R., Simkhada P.P. (2012)    Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(7):428-30. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100123. Epub 2012 Feb 16.PMID: 22345548 
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2015). Failure to Apply for Ethical Approval for Health Studies in Low-Income Countries. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 5(3), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v5i3.13609

  3. Regmi, P. R., Aryal, N., Kurmi, O., Pant, P. R., van Teijlingen, E., & Wasti, S. P. (2017). Informed Consent in Health Research: Challenges and Barriers in Low-and Middle-Income Countries with Specific Reference to Nepal. Developing World Bioethics, 17(2), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12123

Research Integrity and Institutional Support

Research Integritiy

Integrity should be integral throughout the whole project life cycle, from planning (design/proposal), study set up (methods, collaborations, data management), project management (finance, compliance, data collection), reporting (publication, impact & public engagement) to data sharing (closing your project).

BU is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity in all aspects of its research.  To support Researchers in this endeavour we provide our research community with relevant policies & processes to appropriate codes of practice, robust review processes (compliance) and training opportunities.

We also provide contacts for those who might need confidential advice on concerns relating to research integrity.

Polices & Procedures

Navigating through the project life cycle can bring up many challenges and to support the research community we have a number of policies & guidance documents available.  These documents should be referred to at the very start, not just when a problem arises or for a particular milestone such as an ethics review.

For example….

Research data management is very important, particularly if you intend to collect personal information from a research participant.  You need to have a clear idea on the type of data do you intend to collect.  In this case, a data management plan is an invaluable tool which ensures the integrity of the data you want to collect.  There is a BU template available for you to use (see DMP online – link below).

Publication and authorship e.g. recognition of contributors, authorship, declaration of any conflicts of interest, meeting requirements for open access should also be considered early.  Having an open dialogue can prevent issues later down the line.

Ethics Review Process

Another way the University demonstrates a commitment to promoting and upholding the highest quality academic and ethical standards is to ensure we have a robust ethics review process in place.

The ethical design and management of research is the responsibility of the researcher and the task of the Reviewers/central research ethics panels is to ensure that the researcher (staff or student) has met their responsibilities and research will be conducted ethically.

More about the research ethics and why it matters next week!

Training Opportunities

There are numerous training opportunities via the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework. Workshops are available to all academics and researchers.

For postgraduate research students, there are training opportunities available via the Research Development Programme.  See introductory video to the Programme and Researcher Development website for further details.

There are also a number of online resources via the Research Skills Toolkit which is available via the Research Governance & Integrity Website (training opportunities).

As different disciplines will have different issues of integrity, do check with your department as there may be discipline specific guidance on good research practice also available.

Resources

More details about the Concordats can be found on the Research Concordats website, specifically research integrity at  https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/research-environment/research-concordat/concordat-support-research-integrity

Coming later this year

We are planning Integrity Week 2022, when keynote speakers and interactive workshops will be available, giving you the opportunity to find out more about research integrity, how it might impact your research and the opportunity to discuss with others when dealing with issues which can come up in the field or working within your Teams.  This will include both non-clinical and clinical research settings.

So, watch this space for more details.

Concordat to Support Research Integrity

Research Integritiy

This week we focus on research integrity, and specifically on the Concordat to Support Research Integrity and why it matters.

Why is it important?

Integrity includes principles about the conduct of researchers, such as the practices of authorship, publication practices, peer review practices and the way in which research data is managed. It also includes the informed consent process. Good research practice instils public trust in our outputs and helps prevent research misconduct.

BU has adopted the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2019) as a framework.  The Concordat contains basic commitments that underpin a research environment where best practice can thrive, and our Code of Good Research Practice interprets this in a practical way to highlight issues a Researcher may come across as part of the project life cycle.

The framework is top level, as good research practice can mean different things in different disciplines but by adopting these principles, it means the same standards apply across the board, but with freedom of implementation.

Definition of Research Integrity (as described in the concordat)

Honesty in all aspects of research, including in the presentation of research goals, intentions and findings; in reporting on research methods and procedures; in gathering data; in using and acknowledging the work of other researchers; and in conveying valid interpretations and making justifiable claims based on research findings.

Rigour, in line with prevailing disciplinary norms and standards, and in performing research and using appropriate methods; in adhering to an agreed protocol where appropriate; in drawing interpretations and conclusions from the research; and in communicating the results.

Transparency and open communication in declaring potential competing interests; in the reporting of research data collection methods; in the analysis and interpretation of data; in making research findings widely available, which includes publishing or otherwise sharing negative or null results to recognise their value as part of the research process; and in presenting the work to other researchers and to the public

Care and respect for all participants in research, and for the subjects, users and beneficiaries of research, including humans, animals, the environment and cultural objects. Those engaged with research must also show care and respect for the integrity of the research record.

Accountability of funders, employers and researchers to collectively create a research environment in which individuals and organisations are empowered and enabled to own the research process. Those engaged with research must also ensure that individuals and organisations are held to account when behaviour falls short of the standards set by this concordat.

More about the Concordat to Support Research Integrity

The Concordat (published by the Universities UK (UUK) provides the principles and commitments to ensure that research produced by, or in collaboration with, UK universities, research institutes and others undertaking research is underpinned by the highest standards of rigour and integrity. The Concordat was first published in 2012 and revised in 2019 in response to the recommendations set out in the Science and Technology Committee’s report on research integrity.

The Commitments

By acting in accordance with this concordat, members of the research community can demonstrate that they[1]:

  1. uphold the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research
  2. ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards
  3. support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice, and support for the development of researchers
  4. use transparent, timely, robust and fair processes to handle allegations of research misconduct when they arise
  5. work together to strengthen the integrity of research

During this week the spotlight will also focus on:

  • BU’s Commitment to creating an environment that promotes an understanding of responsible conduct
  • Researchers’ responsibilities
  • Integrity as it relates to Clinical Research
  • Research Misconduct

 

[1] Concordat to Support Research Integrity

UK Government policy week on the Blog: UKRI and Research England

Research assessment, Research Integritiy

This week on the BU Research Blog we are taking a close look at the UK Government’s policies and mechanisms to support research. We will look at the R&D Roadmap, the Advanced Research & Invention Agency (ARIA), the levelling-up agenda, the UK Innovation Strategy, and the R&D People & Culture Strategy. Today, we’re looking at UKRI and Research England and considering their missions and plans.

UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) was launched in April 2018, following a recommendation by Sir Paul Nurse’s review of the research councils and aims to increase integrative cross-disciplinary research. It is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). It brings together the seven disciplinary research councils (including ESRC, AHRC and NERC), Research England and UK Innovation. UKRI, which is led by Chief Executive Officer Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, brings these nine councils together to deliver an ambitious agenda. The UKRI Corporate Plan sets out UKRI’s goals, ambitions and objectives, as well as providing examples of how UKRI is working in partnership to tackle local, national and global challenges. The plan sets out the four elements of how UKRI will deliver on its mission, these are:

  • to convene and catalyse by listening to and connecting diverse communities to create new combinations, and working in partnership with others
  • to incentivise the development of a research and innovation system that realises its vision via its choices, policies and behaviour
  • to invest in people, ideas and infrastructure
  • to conduct high-quality research and innovation

The UKRI Corporate Plan is delivered through the nine councils, each of which has a Delivery Plan. These are summarised in the UKRI Corporate Plan; however, if you are applying for funding from one of the councils (such as AHRC or EPSRC) then it is important to read that council’s delivery plan as that will explain what the council’s priorities and what research they want to invest in. You can access all the Delivery Plans here: https://www.ukri.org/about-us/what-we-do/delivery-plans/#contents-list.

 

Research England is one of the nine councils brought together by UKRI. It oversees the functions of UKRI in relation to university research and KE in England. This includes: research and KE grant funding in England (e.g. QR and HEIF); developing and implementing the Research Excellence Framework (REF); overseeing the sustainability of the higher education research base; managing the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund; and administering HEIF and the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF).

Research England’s Delivery Plan set out its mission as to “create and sustain the conditions for a healthy and dynamic research and KE system in universities, while driving the transformation in university capacity and capability that will deliver the government’s target of 2.4% of GDP invested in R&D by 2027.” The approach is to understand and support university success and use this information to create a more healthy and dynamic university system in England and to deliver strong outcomes for the economy and society.

Research excellence is a key focus of Research England (and UKRI). Universities are encouraged to cultivate and implement an open research agenda; foster the development of early-career research talent; promote equality, diversity and inclusion; and broaden the skills of the next generation. Research England’s work in terms of research excellence is split into three areas:

  1. Research assessment (e.g. the REF; the Future Research Assessment Programme).
  2. Research culture (e.g. research metrics; open access; research integrity; interdisciplinary research; high-performing research; public engagement).
  3. People (e.g. equality, diversity and inclusion; postgraduate researchers).

You can read more about Research England’s work in each of these areas of research excellence here: https://re.ukri.org/research/.

Reflections on examining a hybrid PhD or PhD by Publication

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Publishing, Research Integritiy, writing

Writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals is increasingly recognised as important for postgraduate students’ career development.   To encourage PhD students to write and submit during their thesis research, more and more UK universities has formally started to accept PhD theses by publication, or a hybrid model of both academic papers and purposely written chapters in a PhD thesis.  For example, both the University of Bath and Bournemouth University offer a hybrid thesis [1-2], whilst Bournemouth University offers separately the opportunity to submit a PhD by Publication.   The papers included in such theses can be: (1) published; (2) accepted/published online first; (3) submitted; or (4) in final draft form for submission.  Published papers, due to the nature of journal word limits are usually much shorter and less detailed than traditional PhD chapter.  The specifically written chapters, such as the Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations chapter, and occasionally a Methods chapter will provide the reader (read ‘the examiner’) with further insights into the background of the research and offer details the student had to omit from published papers due to word limit restrictions.  Students may also opt to offer a short explanatory text before or after individual paper.  The overall Discussion chapter should aim to fully contextualise and integrate all papers into the thesis.

It is easy to see that these new format theses may require some adjustment from UK academics examining them.  Below I have listed some of the key issue a PhD examiner may want to consider in a PhD by Publication, such as the notion of integration and repetition, how the critique published papers, especially in quality peer-reviewed journals, and the nature and content of purposely written chapters.

Integration/duplication

Individual papers are free-standing, i.e. they must give enough information about the research question and methods to make sense to the reader.  This means that four papers from the same study in a thesis may appear as both disjointed and repetitive at the same time.  Moreover, details on background and methods are often minimal in papers presenting results.  This offers the examiner an opportunity to ask questions such as:

  • How do the included papers relate to each other in terms of subject matter or theoretical underpinning?
  • Do the included papers together result in a cohesive narrative?

It is worth looking at difference between the included papers.  One of my former students included two qualitative papers, both originating from the same dataset (i.e. the same interviewees) but each paper presented the data analysed in a different way.  The reviewers of the second paper had suggested a different approach to the analysis and the candidate had decided that it was worth the considerable amount of extra work.  This was obviously a topic for debate in the viva.

Peer-reviewed journal articles

It can be daunting for a less experienced examiner to critique an included paper that has been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious journal in one’s discipline.  Perhaps a starting point could be to ask the candidate what the peer reviewers said when the manuscript was first submitted.  Did you receive and conflicting comments from reviewers or the editor?  The examiner may want to ask for further details of published paper, e.g.  “I know you probably had word-length issues for paper X, but why didn’t you expand on the detailed analysis in the Discussion chapter you included in the thesis?”  Interestingly, the University of Bath states that “Examiners are entitled to specify corrections to any part of the thesis… including parts submitted for publication, or already published” [1].  The latter does not mean changing the published paper, but perhaps adding a comment or explanation to the Discussion chapter or to the text introducing that particular paper.

In many discipline academic papers as co-authored, hence you would expect co-authored papers in a PhD by Publication.  This offers to examiner the opportunity to ask about the candidate’s unique contribution to that paper.  Occasionally, one of the included papers may not list the candidate as first author.  If this is the case in one of the four or five included papers this is not problem per se, but worth asking the same question to the candidate: “What is your unique contribution to the paper?”

Another potential issue to look out for in a PhD by Publication is so-called salami-slicing [3], especially if the candidate has published several small parts of the thesis study in different small papers where a single paper would have been more appropriate.

Written chapters

The examiner may want to start by focusing on the candidate’s Introduction, Discussion, or Conclusion chapters.  Or the overall Methods chapter if there is one.  Typically, a PhD by Publication has an Introduction, four or more papers, an overarching Discussion perhaps a short Conclusion.  What is often missing is a Methodology and Methods chapter.  Since individual papers have only basic methods section of a few hundred words, there is little detail in each paper, let alone nuance in the methods. Often methodological issues and reflections are missed, as are more subtle aspects of research ethics.  These are key topics to raise in the viva.

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH (Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health)

 

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my colleague Dr. Ann Luce, Associate Professor in Journalism and Communication at Bournemouth University for her encouraging me to write this blog post.

 

References:

  1. University of Bath: https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/guidelines-for-research-examiners/attachments/Guidelines_for_Examiners_of_Doctoral_Degrees_Nov19.pdf
  2. Bournemouth University (2021-22) 8A Code of Practice for Research Degrees (Policy, Procedure and Guidelines). https://intranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/pandptest/8a-code-of-practice-for-research-degrees.pdf
  3. Tolsgaard, M.G., Ellaway, R., Woods, N., Norman, G. (2019) Salami-slicing and plagiarism: How should we respond?. Advance in Health Sciences Education 24: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09876-7

PGR Member Required – University Research Ethics Committee

PG research, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

A fantastic opportunity has arisen for a new PGR member of the Research Ethics Committee (REC).

REC is responsible on behalf of Senate to promote best ethical practice in relation to research and research-related activities. Additionally, REC is responsible for the over-arching university-wide research ethics policies and procedures. REC considers ethical issues related to research and research-related activities brought to its attention by the Research Ethics Panels, researchers and the wider university community. REC is also responsible for constructing and maintaining the Research Ethics Code of Practice which informs local practices and procedures across the University, you can also view the REC Terms of Reference.

We are looking for someone to bring the student voice to this committee. The member must have a substantive understanding of research ethics, a keen interest and able to feed into the conversation of the committee. The committee meets 3 times per year of which it is expected that all members are present.

Next meeting dates: Wednesday 10 November, 2 March & 6 July; 2 pm – 3.30 pm and currently online.

If this is something you would like to be part of please email Natalie Stewart at pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk a short (~100 words) expression of interest (EoI) by Friday 15 October. If I receive more than 1 EoI we will go to a student vote where your EoI will be shared.

If you have any further questions about the committee please contact Sarah Bell or Suzy Wignall at researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk.

FMC Research Process Seminars. Upcoming sessions – all staff and research students welcome

PG research, Research Integritiy

Hi colleagues,

For the last three and a half years, we have been running regular research seminars in the Faculty of Media and Communication. These are 60 min research seminars focussed on the process of doing research – particularly research methods but also including publishing, writing, time management etc. The idea here is that the speaker takes us through the anatomy of the project focussing particularly on the data collection and method – the challenges, the successes, and the failures. For the audience, we walk away with a practical application of a method we may not be familiar with or may not have applied in this way before.

The schedule until the start of June is below, with links to each seminar. Each will be led by an external speaker, who are leading experts in these methods.

If you would like to give a talk on an aspect of method or research process, then drop us a line

Dan Jackson and Sae Oshima, FMC

 

11 May at 2pm

Re-designing focus groups for inclusion – by Filippo Trevisan at American University, Washington, DC

Focus groups provide important opportunities for putting participants’ voices at the center of social research. However, ensuring that every participant has a fair chance of being heard can be difficult. This seminar will discuss strategies to ensure that focus groups are as inclusive as possible, focusing in particular on the challenges faced by participants with communication disabilities and disorders, which account for over 10% of the world’s adult population. Inspired by the principles of universal design, a range of solutions will be discussed that constitutes a flexible framework to empower new voices in research.

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/87139699000?pwd=TjZKWnBMRnJtc0g3bDdoTEQ2RkNKQT09

Meeting ID: 871 3969 9000

Passcode: F+3iwB@Y

18th May at 2pm

Capturing incivility in online political spaces – by Rosalynd Southern and Emily Harmer at The University of Liverpool

Abstract TBA

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/89365837916?pwd=bnlua1ZnMWJxOWJwUGxaNld6eks5dz09

Meeting ID: 893 6583 7916

Passcode: Za@D3Csq

25th May at 2pm

Examining the Dirt Under Our Fingernails: Exploring the Role of Ethnographic Mixed-Methods Research in Digital Political Communication – by James Dennis (University of Portsmouth), Amy Smith (BU) and Nikki Soo (Cardiff University)

As political actors diversify into multimedia communication strategies and citizens embrace semi-public and private digital spaces for everyday political talk, research into this realm has become increasingly complex. Effective and accurate investigation into political communication processes, events, and outcomes that occur in hybrid media systems means scholars must employ methodological reflexivity. In this paper, we argue that in particular, ethnography, the close observation of the phenomenon of study, is critical for scholars seeking to connect observations of digital communication with an understanding of the motivations that drive them. Combining insights from three projects analysing MPs, parties, news media organisations, and acRPStivist organisations, we provide advice for scholars looking to draw upon this methodological toolset.

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/83798048442?pwd=TU56dG82dUpNV0ZUY3IyVFF4OVk1QT09

Meeting ID: 837 9804 8442

Passcode: p6x+Lb6A

1st June at 2pm

Thinking about epistemology – by Richard Thomas at Swansea University

This sort of philosophical thinking is often bypassed as we all dive into our research. But still worth pondering, I think. We will all find some particular approaches to our work are more suitable than others, and more suited to us as people and researchers. This talk sketches out a critical realist approach as particularly suitable to journalism/media research where we find out what the media does, how it does it, but most important of all – WHY they do it that way. Suitable perhaps for researchers, teachers and students.

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/89956403486?pwd=cC95YnhMV1RGQ1RGQi9zS2RBZ2Z0UT09

Meeting ID: 899 5640 3486

Passcode: 6#tSV+*y

 

New BU guides on leading research collaborations, costing projects and maximising value from RKE activity- available for download

Guidance, Knowledge Exchange, Research Integritiy

Three new guides are available to assist BU colleagues with initiating and managing Research and Knowledge Exchange (RKE) projects. The guides are downloadable from the below links by BU Staff, or from policy documents section of the BU Staff Intranet.

Costing and pricing guide for Research & Knowledge Exchange activity

This guide is intended to constitute pragmatic advice in shaping costs for research and knowledge exchange proposals. The guide provides some outline details on terminologies and concepts used in designing research projects at a UK university. Frequently occurring costs are listed as reminders of items that each Principal Investigator (PI) would be likely to require against type of Research and Knowledge Exchange activity. Examples of sample costs and the expectations on designing sustainable research projects are set out in the appendices against each activity type.

Maximising Income in Research & Knowledge Exchange activity

The intention of this guide is to help shape best practice for a sustainable research environment at BU. The intended audience is Principal Investigators (PI), staff in RDS who are responsible for supporting academics to design or manage projects, and RKE leaders overseeing a portfolio of projects at BU (such as Executive Deans, heads of RKE Centres, Institutes etc.).

Guidance on Leading an external research application.

This guide is intended to assist you through the application stage when you intend to lead on an RKE project. The details of the process may vary between funding bodies, but the basic principles are likely to be very similar.
Helpful advice, and a pro forma table, are available to assist with ensuring the integrity of any collaborative relationships.

If you would like to discuss how to make the best use of these guides, please contact Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk).

Missing out? The Early Career Researcher Network

Research Integritiy, Training, Women's Academic Network

I recently realised I had been missing out! Although I have worked at BU for 18 months there is so much about university life I still don’t understand. I find it hard to ask/disturb busy people and the temptation is to muddle through. Not being on campus – especially since the pandemic, makes it hard to get to know other researchers, potential collaborators, and share ideas or tips. Help is at hand though…

I have just discovered the Early Career Researcher Network. It is a relaxed, informal, safe place to ask questions and meet other researchers from across the university. (There are no demands!) Meetings are held once a month and run by two experienced academics Prof. Ann Hemingway and Dr. Sam Goodman who answer questions, discuss pertinent topics such as building your research profile, promotion and pay progression, networking, partnership and collaboration. You attend as you are able. There are no obligations, but a wealth of wisdom and support is on offer.

 

Dr. Rachel Arnold

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

COVID-19 affects research into other diseases

international, Publishing, Research Integritiy, Training, writing

A systematic review published late last week assesses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on on-going and new clinical trials and research on a range of diseases [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a series of public health policies, including lock down, that have crippled the healthcare systems of many countries. These measures hugely impact on study participants, care providers, researchers, trial sponsors, and research organizations conducting clinical trials. This pandemic has a substantial impact on the trial sites as they experience difficulty in the continuation of trial activities which eventually hampers the progress of the trial and delays study timelines. Most sites are struggling due to delayed subject enrolment, shortfalls in monitoring, and risks of compromised data integrity, and this situation also has a negative impact on the start of future. Researchers are also concerned regarding the delay or cancellations of trials in the pandemic, which will have financial consequences for research organizations/human resources.

According to one survey, about two-thirds of the respondents have stopped or will soon halt subject enrolment in ongoing clinical trials, one-third halted randomization, and fifty percent of respondents are delaying or planning to delay the studies.  Adopting new approaches and understanding the key risk indicators will help managers support trial sites with flexibility and ingenuity. For instance, switching patient site visits to new-trial virtualization, and telemedicine to interact with patients will help manage current clinical trials also beneficial for the post-pandemic era.

 

Reference:

  1. Sathian B, Asim M,  Banerjee I, Pizarro AB, Roy B, van Teijlingen ER, Borges do Nascimento IJ, Alhamad HK.  Impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials and clinical research: A systematic review. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2020;10(3); 878-887