Cargando…
Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement
The adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686561/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34930427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05883-3 |
_version_ | 1784618040220975104 |
---|---|
author | Stewart, Andrew J. Farran, Emily K. Grange, James A. Macleod, Malcolm Munafò, Marcus Newton, Phil Shanks, David R. |
author_facet | Stewart, Andrew J. Farran, Emily K. Grange, James A. Macleod, Malcolm Munafò, Marcus Newton, Phil Shanks, David R. |
author_sort | Stewart, Andrew J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8686561 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86865612021-12-20 Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement Stewart, Andrew J. Farran, Emily K. Grange, James A. Macleod, Malcolm Munafò, Marcus Newton, Phil Shanks, David R. BMC Res Notes Commentary The adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery. BioMed Central 2021-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8686561/ /pubmed/34930427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05883-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Stewart, Andrew J. Farran, Emily K. Grange, James A. Macleod, Malcolm Munafò, Marcus Newton, Phil Shanks, David R. Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement |
title | Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement |
title_full | Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement |
title_fullStr | Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement |
title_short | Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement |
title_sort | improving research quality: the view from the uk reproducibility network institutional leads for research improvement |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686561/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34930427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05883-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stewartandrewj improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement AT farranemilyk improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement AT grangejamesa improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement AT macleodmalcolm improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement AT munafomarcus improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement AT newtonphil improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement AT shanksdavidr improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement AT improvingresearchqualitytheviewfromtheukreproducibilitynetworkinstitutionalleadsforresearchimprovement |