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.

Assessment (DORA) 10 ; development of 10 principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics 11 ; establishment of the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA) 12 ; and the HuMetricsHSS Initiative. 13 response to concerns about the experience of working in research, the Wellcome Trust undertook work in the UK to better understand research culture, which has enabled initiatives from the Russell Group and the Royal Society to actively work towards enabling researchers to 'flourish'. 14A survey conducted by the Wellcome Trust, focused on the experience of researchers, revealed that poor research culture is leading to unhealthy competition, bullying and harassment, mental health issues, and a system that favours quantity over quality. 15Unfortunately, these experiences mirror previous findings, and show the longevity of the issues as the research environment continues to be pressured, competitive and uncertain for many researchers. 168][19][20][21] Funding organisations such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) enhanced its 2021-2022 allocation of research culture funding to Higher Education Providers (HEPs) to further explore research processes and experiences of working in research, through piloting new initiatives or enhancing existing activities. 22riving for excellence and changing research culture is a collective responsibility, requiring action from research institutions, funding organisations and researchers. 14Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem.As highlighted by the Wellcome Trust and others, there remains a tendency for quantity over quality, assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. 5,15,23,24Any attempts on reform requires commitment from everyone (e.g., publishers, research institutions, funders, researchers etc.) so that diversity, impact, teamwork, open research, and assessment systems are valued.In turn, we may begin to see enhancements for the promotion of transparency, open access, knowledge mobilisation and collaborative networking practices.
The consequences and challenges associated to an inadequate research culture is well evidenced across the research ecosystem and several reports, from funding organisations to independent providers, demonstrating the extent of the problem (for whom and in what context) and the need for a cultural change in research. 14,15,25,26[29] The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the evidence on what constitutes a good research culture and how open research, career research paths (recognition and awards) and equality, diversity, and inclusion interplay to enhance and promote a more sustainable research culture environment.The scoping review was intended to inform future practice within a specific research organisation (the University of Southampton, UK), recognising the broader interest in and application of the findings.The scoping review was conducted to address the following question: What does the evidence say about the 'problem' (barriers, challenges, consequences etc.) with 'poor' research culture, and what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does it look like?Participants: Academic, administrative, and technical staff and students of all levels, grades, disciplines, and professions.To be inclusive of academic and non-academic staff to ensure an inclusive approach and incorporating the principles of 'team science' and organisational culture.
Inclusion criteria: Evidence from research institutions only (considering Education, Enterprise and Research, the triple helix approach 33,34 ) for both academic and grey literature were included.All disciplines within the academic environment were included.
Exclusion criteria: Anyone undertaking or supporting research outside of a research institution/Higher Education Institutes environment (for example in the health and social care field the National Health Service (NHS) Trusts, hospital settings, primary health care settings, allied health professional settings).Industry and non-academic businesses (including consultancies) were not included as they were not considered to have an academic focus.Non-English articles were excluded if no translation was available for the full article.
The database searches and grey literature did not have any limitations on country of origin, apart from news items that were restricted to the UK, Europe, North America, and Australasia.

Types of sources
The scoping review considered all types of study designs for inclusion (e.g., randomised controlled trials, nonrandomised controlled trials, before and after studies and interrupted time-series studies, analytical observational studies including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, descriptive observational study designs including case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies).
Qualitative studies were also considered that focused on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitative description, action research and feminist research.In addition, systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were considered, depending on the research question.Editorials and opinion papers were also considered for inclusion in the scoping review.
A range of data were required to be as inclusive as possible due to the diverse nature of how research culture is reported and discussed in the public domain (and its associated parts in Open Access (OA), Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) and career paths).Therefore, the review included published material from academic outputs (e.g., Journal articles, commentaries, editorials, perspectives, opinion letters) and from grey literature (e.g., reports, blogs, web-based articles, and newsletters including associated webpages of relevance).

Search strategy
The search strategy aimed to locate both published and unpublished citations.An initial limited search of Medline and Web of Science (WoS) was undertaken to identify articles on the topic, to develop and pilot the search strategy.6][37][38] The search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, were adapted for each included database and/or information source.
There were no study or language limits applied in the information retrieval process.The search strategy was limited from 2017 to 2022 but a preliminary search of citations during 2015-2022 was initially screened for relevance.Preliminary scoping and piloting of the search terms and strategies suggested that five years was sufficient for literature to be relevant, current, and broad (including relevant citations on the reporting of initiatives such as DORA, and any changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic).The review included UK and international literature (including grey literature, although see below for pragmatic restrictions for news items).
Databases: Six databases were searched (Medline, Engineering village, Scopus, JSTOR, ProQuest and WoS) during the period 29 April to 18 May 2022.A range of databases enabled the reviewers to capture several disciplines and to be as inclusive as possible.
Grey literature searches: A pragmatic systematic search was undertaken of the Lexis-Nexis Academic database concentrating on newspapers and news items.The scoping and piloting of the search terms in the database suggested that geographical exclusions were needed due to the scale of results from the searches.As part of discussions with team members as well as an experienced librarian, the results were filtered to only include news outlets and organisations based in UK, Europe, North America, and Australasia.To augment the news searches, purposive sampling of relevant research websites was documented in an Excel spreadsheet to record all platforms and webpages visited.The sampling of websites was drawn from discussions with team members as well as an experienced librarian.Examples of research websites explored include: The Conversation, Nature, Science, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and Research on Research Institute (RoRi).Relevant citations were identified from Wellcome Trust 14,15 as well as snowballing.The key references of the included articles and/or reports were screened for additional citations to be included as part of the overall screening process (including grey literature).

Data extraction and evidence selection
Following the searches, all identified articles were collated and uploaded into Endnote version 20 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA, https://endnote.com/)(a free alternative is Mendeley: https://www.mendeley.com/)and duplicates were removed.Following a pilot test, all titles and abstracts were screened, by two independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion criteria for the review using Rayyan.Potentially relevant articles were then retrieved for full extraction.At the full citation screening stage, reasons for exclusion were noted independently by both reviewers.Where the independent reviewer was unsure, the article was discussed, and a decision was made by consensus.Screening at both stages (title and abstract and full extraction) was piloted using Rayyan and labels were applied to categorise the focus of the articles based on four areas: -Security (including career paths, career progression, stability contracts/careers, issues affecting early career researchers etc.) -Wellbeing and equality of opportunity (including equality, diversity and inclusion, mental health, and wellbeing, bullying and harassment) -Teamwork (including team science, recognition of broad contribution to research, incentives) -Research quality and accountability (including research integrity, reproducibility, policy, and governance).
These focus areas were reported in the Wellcome Trust report and formed the basis of the current scoping review, to enable the University of Southampton to build on activity already undertaken, activity underway and enable alignment for future consideration. 14,15e list of included articles for full extraction were then exported to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using the labelling of articles from Rayyan (these categories were grouped together under the four focused areas).The results of the search and the study inclusion process are reported in full using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), including the flow diagram reported in Figure 1.
Both reviewers extracted data from the full text articles using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers to address the research question.This included the focus of the article, issues and/or problems reported in the article, solutions and/or recommendations provided in the article and details about whether the article related to more than one topic area.
No risk of bias or assessment on quality was conducted due to using a scoping review methodological approach.All the evidence was mapped and categorised into the four areas, which were discussed and agreed between team members at various stages of data extraction and during the write-up of the findings.

Results
A total of 3,042 articles were retrieved from the six databases.With 1,376 duplications that were removed, 1666 titles and abstracts and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility.Of these 924 full text articles, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion.
A total of 341 documents were retrieved (Lexis-Nexis) or identified across all the sources based on the titles.These were assessed for eligibility of which 102 met the criteria for inclusion.
Figure 1 provides a full account of the records of identification flow diagram, including the reasons for the excluded articles.

Characteristics of the included studies
From the evidence there was a steady rise in the number of published articles over the last five years, with a notable increase from 2019.Table 1 shows that from the 253 included articles, there were 135 original research articles (this included qualitative and quantitative studies), 20 review articles (using a range of methodological review approaches), 86 perspective articles and 10 conference proceedings.
The location of the study generation was captured for the included articles (based on location of the research and/or authors location).The included articles covered a global perspective with 71 articles from USA and Canada, 73 from international locations such as Africa (n=13), China (n=7), Australia (n=7) and Pakistan (n=4), 36 from Europe and 17 from the UK.
The grey literature provided 102 additional materials, 40 perspective articles reported in journals, 29 newspaper articles, 17 webpages (including educational webpages such as The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/uk) and including 10 reports.The remaining six were either a podcast, blog or case study.A majority of the grey literature material could not be grouped by location due to the nature of the material (76.5%, 78/102).

Summarising the evidence
The evidence found in the database searches and grey literature was grouped according to the four focused areas, based on the key concepts developed during the full screening of the articles (based on the Wellcome Trust report). 15Several included articles were relevant to more than one focus area, which showed the breadth of the topic but also how these areas are overlapping and mutually reinforcing.For example, evidence reported under security was also closely linked to wellbeing and equality of opportunity (especially for early career researchers (ECRs) and Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM)).
The sections below provide a summary of the evidence based on the four focused areas, with particular attention on security, wellbeing, equality of opportunity and teamwork, and research quality and accountability. 14,15(see Figure 2) The quality or assessment of these initiatives were not explored as part of this scoping review and the key considerations arising from the evidence are not presented in order of priority.

Security and career progression
From the evidence it was clear that there is a global drive to expose the challenges and barriers in academic research culture.It was evident that these factors were not exclusive to specific countries, disciplines, or research institutions and the challenge is at a system level.0][41][42] The evidence reflects the range of research careers, roles, skills and expertise that are involved in research activity.7][48] These issues affect all research institution staff but the evidence suggests they are particularly acute for several groups such as ECRs, STEMM, people on Fixed Term Contracts (FTC), people with caring responsibilities, and people with disabilities 46-48 (see Table 2 for a summary of the key considerations associated to security and career progression).
The review suggests that the problem is reinforced by a culture where researchers are incentivized to produce many funding applications and academic publications where high rejection rates. 47A related issue identified was the risk of evaluating academic performance based on the use of inadequate proxies (e.g., publication productivity, impact factor and citations). 3,49[51] The concept of research culture and job security was broad and included (but is not limited to) career paths; stability of contracts and careers; and issues affecting ECRs and students. 57,141,145A wide range of initiatives were explored in the literature covering a broad spectrum of factors (as detailed in Table 2).The evidence showed how, where, and why changes are needed to establish a global cultural change to the research ecosystem to enable fair and transparent progression for all research staff 99,104,161 ; cultivate a culture that fosters diversity across career pathways 17,55 and; initiate deeper integration of knowledge to ensure institutional stability. 57,153e evidence suggests that offering potential solutions or supportive actions for academic institutions and the research community may enhance and stabilise career paths, particularly those in the early career stage, including those in technical and managerial roles.Although these solutions and supportive actions are by no way exhaustive, they do provide a summary of the range of factors that could go some way in promoting a better research culture. 54,138,154,1624][165][166] The impact of these disparities are preventing or slowing down initiatives to seek for a cultural change in the academic environment.1][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179] However, as Lee (2022) pointed out, although underrepresented groups and junior staff are more likely to experience these challenges, including microaggression (and being victimised regardless of their role or position), anyone can, at some point in their academic career experience some form of microaggression (e.g., bullying, patronage power, exploitation, discrimination). 20This also extends to the notion of imposter syndrome as noted by Hagan (2020). 169Moreover, the way disciplines are taught at university means that curricula focusing on traditional perspectives may not be inclusive to everyone.The review revealed that the risks associated with a lack of diversity and inclusion often result in individuals leaving academia, low job satisfaction, increased stress, burnout and mental health problems, and decreased productivity. 18,44,74he evidence suggests that these issues have an impact not only at the institutional level such as having a lack of diversity in organisational leaderships, 73,97,180 but also for individuals, leading to a lack of role models and peer mentors 163 skills shortages in particular disciplines, sectors and roles, 44,92,181 and drives off talent. 8Moreover, the increasing demands of heavy workloads and the risk of perpetuating a culture of academic rejection can impact an individual's wellbeing. 18,46,47,106,182Table 3 provides a summary of the key considerations associated to wellbeing and equality of opportunity.
The review illustrates that over the last three years, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted some important challenges to this already highly pressured working environment, with mixed effects. 18,44,74Although, the pandemic has brought about challenges to the research workforce, there is also emerging evidence over the last two years showing the potential benefits and opportunities as a result of COVID-19. 18,44,64,73,74,97,177,194For example, use of online platforms for training and teaching purposes has opened up opportunities to bring together specific communities and countries.The pandemic also initiated 'kindness in research' where empathy replaced the usual expectations on work-life balance. 73,97,180he review also identified clear efforts to improve and raise awareness of the need for academia to embrace the EDI agenda through several initiatives, movements, and policy implementations (as detailed in Table 3).Most prominently, focusing on efforts to improve individuals' opportunities through networking, collaborations, mentoring and peer-to-peer support, balancing career, and family aspirations can help to guide inclusivity and strengthen infrastructure and local capacity. 171,177,183,205amwork and supportive working relationships Collaboration, openness, and transparency were highlighted in the evidence as key indicators of success for driving forward a positive cultural change.he evidence pointed to a range of barriers that have repercussions on the notion of teamwork, such as the ongoing tradition of first and last authors taking most or all of the credit for the work, 220 the use of 'gift authorship' to enhance research publication of academics with poor research performance, 5 and the pressures to have global impact on the scientific community through high-quality scientific writing. 164Researchers are incentivized to attain research excellence, which can often result in hyper-competitiveness and unfair working practices. 4,19,24,50,59,88,89,206The evidence further suggested that the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the UK has been criticised as promoting competition between departmental colleagues rather than collaboration due to criteria on contributors and the increased demand on publications. 49,89ese practices can have a detrimental impact for the promotion of research integrity and team science, especially for ECRs.Research careers encompass a range of roles, skills, and expertise but as the evidence suggests this is not universal, with some universities separating research active staff from colleagues such as research managers, technicians, administrators, and librarians, some of whom have research-level qualifications and experience. 41,99,158Separation in this way could lead to inequality of how staff are included (or not), trained, mentored and perceived by fellow colleagues (see Table 4 for a summary of the key considerations associated to teamwork and supportive working relationships).
As the evidence has shown, working relationship challenges in research culture require structural changes by transforming people, places, and practices. 247Any steps to reform will require accessibility to opportunities and resources that collectively bring research staff together in a unified and cohesive way to promote and create trust (rather than having intensive competitive pressures to achieve based on individual merit). 51,164,247e evidence reveals multiple layers of complexity around the notion of 'teamwork' and the interrelated social and environmental factors that unfortunately reinforce a status quo.For change to occur there needs to be synergy for collaboration to ensure individuals, Research Performing Organisations (RPOs), Research Funding Organisations (RFOs) and society share a unified approach to move beyond solitary, isolated teams to a deeper integration of multidisciplinary/inter-disciplinary culture. 7,57An inclusive, representative, and collaborative research environment contributes to improvement in researchers' sense of belonging and to positive cultural change. 206e identified evidence suggests that there is a need to take a holistic and integrated view of the intrinsic (those within disciplines) and extrinsic factors (those outside of disciplines) that affect the research environment to come up with novel ways to tackle the challenges with teamwork and collaboration to ensure openness and a cultural shift in the right As the evidence suggests, practices should be evaluated to assess whether change has been of value, enhancing the research pathway and algin to be evidence informed, therefore avoiding any unintended consequences. 5,7,135,261,272eta research (e.g., research on research, meta science) is one way to evaluate and evidence any innovation taking place, and therefore determine the impact and tangible benefit of these changes to promote and enhance the research ecosystem. 7,24,36,247,261,281,329,341e evidence found several initiatives such as the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN), Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and the European Network of Research Integrity (ENRI) to promote, encourage and prioritise the facilitation and creation of open research practices. 7,22,281,285,325Adopting such initiatives enhances innovation across all aspects of the research ecosystem but there is variation on how far they have been implemented (including what stage of the development) and the acceptance level from researchers, RPOs and RFOs. 303,322,325,330

Discussion
From the evidence, it was clear that there were several initiatives to seek a cultural change across the research institutions/ Higher Education Institutions.Although this was promising to see, the commitment is complex considering the multifaceted structures and processes governing the research ecosystem.Adding to the complexity, is the acknowledgement from research institutions that they too have a role to play in not only supporting research staff, at all levels, but also recognise the role and function of research management staff. 76,85,114,137,156,229As noted in the recent Research and Development report on people and culture strategy, high quality research and innovation requires an acknowledgment of the full range of people needed. 8An inclusive, representative and collaborative research environment contributes to improvement in researchers' sense of belonging and to positive cultural change. 206e increasing competitiveness within the research environment, with research funding organisations (RFOs) placing greater focus on impact rather than creativity and innovation, is causing a global initiative for cultural change.The health of the research group and those that lead them has been identified as an area that universities need to pay more attention to, rather than centering on individual researchers, particularly in the context of preventing research misconduct. 43Team leaders play an important role in creating trustful environments, which support knowledge exchange processes and open research 164 and crucially they act as mentors and role models for research integrity and working practices. 43,92ere was a strong sense and recognition of the value and importance of research capacity building, and the evidence clearly provided a wealth of initiatives to embark on.Interestingly, models, approaches and initiatives for capacity building have been reported by several countries. 57,70,90,103,130,133,159,223,310,352Initiatives taking place in many countries, emphasising the benefits of learning from experiences in other countries was encouraging to report from the literature.Factoring some of these initiatives, it is evident that academia is confronting the challenges 'head on' to build a more sustainable and credible research environment. 20,162,216Although this is promising, the evidence suggests that research institutions must not assume that 'one size fits all'.There is diversity across disciplines, research staff (research, education, enterprise, and professional services) and several types of research institutions.To enhance research culture, different solutions will require different approaches at individual, institutional and systemic levels.
Over the last five years, and particularly the last two years (i.e., post the COVID-19 pandemic), there is a surge of evidence to capture the effects of these challenges and barriers and how these failings in our research ecosystem can be mitigated.
Much of the literature focusing on career stability, job security and career progression suggested the need to build research capacity that spans across research, education, enterprise, and professional services.uidance on how to create a global long-term sustainable model that has representation at all levels is going to take time, and the COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated this already challenging and highly pressured working environment. 18,44,73,74The COVID 19 pandemic may have perhaps initiated more transparency on obtaining a work/life balance, particularly at a time when many parents across the world were not only managing increasing work demands but also having to manage home life and home schooling simultaneously.The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic has started to emerge in the literature, particularly how additional burden placed on women reduced their productivity far more than men with women having 'borne the brunt of the pandemic in academic settings.' 177There has been a steady increase in mental health distress arising from COVID-19 pandemic reported, which added to the existing strain in academia can often feel detrimental to an individual's career. 18wever, despite the pandemic causing global disruption and concern, it has initiated new opportunities to bring communities and countries together using digital tools. 194,241,245,257,264,332,342,344Research, training and teaching took place online, and the evidence seemed to suggest that offering greater accessibility through virtual platforms goes some way to reform the connectivity and diversity of the research environment.A good example of this is virtual conferences, as those with accessibility issues, family commitments, funding limitations and research communities from Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) now can attend, where they could not before. 208,245Any changes will inevitably take time, but small improvements over time can have an impact, affecting both research institutions and funding organisations. 180In addition, the pandemic provided the impetus to embed kindness in research where empathy replaced the usual expectations on work-life balance, 97 and researchers who felt supported during the pandemic tended to have better indicators of well-being. 73,74ven the growing evidence that success in research and innovation requires diversity in roles, knowledge, and skills, embedding a research culture of inequality between career types within the same research team discourages a culture of collaboration and appreciation of a diversity of roles, specialisations and contributions. 41,164With increasing demands to incentivise and promote change it is necessary to acknowledge that both funding organisations and research institutions have responsibility to transform and shape best practice in research.Providing opportunities for research staff to combine their academic research with work in other sectors could bring more value to academia and strengthen the synergies for cultural change in the long-term. 153

Study strengths and limitations
The main strength of the review was using several systematic database literature searches, which was complemented with additional grey literature searches of known online education articles and websites.However, a limitation is that scoping reviews only map the evidence and do not assess the quality of the articles or risk of bias.Most of the database articles had an international focus, with most of them from USA, Canada (28.0%) and other international countries (27.2%).For a large proportion of the grey literature, it was not possible to ascertain the articles countries region.Moreover, on a pragmatic basis, news items from news organisations based outside of UK, Europe, Norther America, and Australia were excluded, which along with the exclusion of non-English language documents means that other initiatives being used to improve research culture may well have been missed.On this basis, there could have been international and regional biases, but it could also be that there is a lack of evidence from these regions rather than missing articles from the systematic searches.
The review found more than 200 articles from the systematic database searches (n=253) and more than 100 from the grey literature searches (n=102) which suggested that there is growing literature around what constitutes a 'good' research culture and what this could look like.However, as the literature has shown, progress has been slow and although the evidence provided several examples of established initiatives and networking opportunities, the evidence was more anecdotal, and opinion focused.

Conclusions
The review has shown that there is a wealth of evidence suggesting how and where changes are needed to establish a global cultural change to the research ecosystem.However, research organisations cannot act in isolation.Individuals, research organisation and funding organisations need to be responsible and work together; to uphold and ensure fair and transparent policies and governance.Change will not happen overnight, but by working together in a collaborative and diverse way to ensure all views, opinions and expectations are fully inclusive that strengthen and enhance research culture for the better.
The barriers to a sustainable research culture are complex and underneath linger more multi-faceted challenges, such as the impact on the wellbeing of research staff, resistance to innovation, equity for research institution staff and career progression. 28,62,64,85,195,260,336Adding to the complexity is the increasing pressure for academic institutions, research groups, disciplines, and researchers to demonstrate impact.The growing focus on performance measures has undoubtedly caused unintended consequences for the whole research ecosystem.This model is not sustainable, not only for the quality of research and trust in research, but also for the next generation of talented researchers.Researchers are leaving academia, leaving behind a career that should be fostering innovation and building research capacity at its core.
Removing such barriers and adopting best research practice and enhancing the diversity of opportunities for all is ultimately down to everyone working within the research environment.

Ethics and consent
Ethical approval and written consent statement were not required.
• S1 The review is systematic in its consideration of the literature published between 2017 and 2022 and certainly addresses an important and topical area.However, I have a number of concerns about the design and execution of the study.
First, the aims lack focus.As stated, they are to "explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards and EDI".This maps out an extremely broad range of issues and doesn't clearly articulate the desired endpoints.
A second concern is the fact that the literature surveyed is confined to a 5-year period that ended over two years ago.Given the topicality of the subject, I find this a strange limitation.What reassurance can the authors offer that their review is not already out of date?
Third, and perhaps most critically, the report is largely descriptive and lacks an analytical edge that I think would add considerably to the value and impact of the piece.I was left wondering who is going to read this and what will they take away?The main conclusion in the abstract is that research institutions and funders need to work together, a finding that seems obvious given the systemic nature of the issues under discussion.What is new here that we didn't know before the review was conducted?
I suspect the lack of analysis may reflect the fact that the interactions between open research, EDI etc and research culture are extremely difficult to isolate and distinguish and that there have been relatively few efforts to evaluate whether interventions have had positive or negative effects on research culture.The problem is made more difficult because of the existence of external influences (e.g.funder policies, league tables, international competition) on institutional culture.Nevertheless, even to highlight the absence of such evaluation efforts would be a valuable point to make -and I hope that the authors might address this question in a revised version of the paper.
I have a few additional comments: In the first paragraph of the introduction, I think it would be more appropriate to present the 'actions' that have been taken in chronological order.
Later in the introduction, it is stated that "attempts on reform requires commitment from everyone".While I agree with this claim, it sits oddly with the study design, which is focused only on research institutions.This is one of several instances where I lost sight of the coherence of the arguments being presented.
In the first paragraph of the section on Security and Career Progression, the authors identify "concerns over job security, career progression and sustainability…" but it is not clear to me what is meant by sustainability in this context.
Later in this section it is stated that "The evidence suggests that offering potential solutions or supportive actions for academic institutions and the research community may enhance and stabilise career paths, particularly those in the early career stage, including those in technical and managerial roles."This is a rather vague and weak statement.What solutions have been identified?Who is responsible for them and how effective are they?What does it mean to enhance a career path?
On page 19 it is stated (with regard to the replication crisis) that "Determining where effort is most needed and what changes are required, not only provides opportunity for the research ecosystem but also how RPOs and RFOs can mandate open research practices, and therefore coordinate change at both research integrity and researcher integrity level…".This is another rather vague claim where analysis is lacking.What specific changes might be made?Could the authors also address the very live debates around the merits and demerits of using mandates?
In the Discussion, the sentence "The increasing competitiveness within the research environment, with research funding organisations (RFOs) placing greater focus on impact rather than creativity and innovation, is causing a global initiative for cultural change" doesn't make sense to me.Is it not increasing awareness of the harmful impacts of research competition that is leading many stakeholders across the world to focus attention on improving research culture.This is just one example of what I find to be a rather fuzzy style of writing.This sense is compounded by the repetition of the phrase "the evidence suggests".As noted above, I would like to see the authors doing a better job of sifting and weighing the evidence.
The last paragraph of the Conclusions is not really a conclusion.It is to my mind a description of a situation that was evident before reading this review.The first paragraph begins with the statement that "The review has shown that there is a wealth of evidence suggesting how and where changes are needed to establish a global cultural change to the research ecosystem." I think it would add a great deal of value to the review if the authors could identify what they think are the most important changes.This would have the potential to focus the attention of the sector on the most urgent actions to be undertaken.

Elizabeth Gadd
Loughborough University, Loughborough, England, UK Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture, and thank you to the authors for taking the time to share their review with a wider audience through this piece.
I make a number of minor comments against some of the article's headings below, however I think there are some more fundamental issues that it would be helpful to address to secure the scientific soundness of this article and therefore its contribution to the literature.The research questions are not referred back to in the findings, discussion or conclusions, which leads to a loss of structure and clarity.
3) Superficial and incomplete analyses of the literature reviewed Some of the evidence summaries feel superficial and possibly incomplete.Take as an example the sentence: "Evidence suggests that this [evaluating academic performance based on the use of inadequate proxies] can result in a lack of workload oversight, a culture discouraging of appreciation, that in turn makes researchers feel pressured to be successful, often resulting in a significant amount of time in pursuit of success at the cost of their wellbeing."I know this literature quite well, and I don't think a lack of workload oversight and a culture of discouraging appreciation are the key issues with the overuse of publication metrics.
Again, in the Wellbeing & equality of opportunity section the authors write: 'Researchers are incentivized to attain research excellence, which can often result in hyper-competitiveness and unfair working practices.'However, it's generally agreed that the problem lies not so much in the pursuit of excellence so much as how narrowly excellence is defined.
I provide some other examples below but this is not a complete list.

4) Poor phraseology
The findings of the review are often obscured by somewhat tortuous phrasing and unclear writing.For example, in the research quality and accountability statements

Elisabeth Grey
Bristol Medical School and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK Thank you for asking me to review this interesting scoping review on research culture in research institutions.The manuscript is well-written and comprehensive, providing clear details on the methods and supplementary materials to enable other researchers to replicate the searches.I only have a few very minor suggestions that I think would help clarify a few things in the text: In the Abstract, there are two stated aims, one under Background and one under Aims -these are not quite the same and I think it would be better to stick with one or the other (the first matches what is in the main text).
Inclusion criteria or Types of sources -I think this needs a statement on the types of initiative that were studied e.g., 'all initiatives aimed, partly or wholly, at improving research culture were included'.Or this may need to broader if reports were included about initiatives that did not specifically aim to improve research culture, but the impact on this was measured.
In the PRISMA flow diagram, the reasons for exclusion are only provided for the academic records -could they be added for the grey records too?
You mention that many of the articles were relevant to more than one of the four focus areascould you add a little to the Methods to explain how you decided which area to categorise a report under in these cases?Or were they included in the synthesis for each category they related to (would be good to state this)?
There is a typo in the fourth paragraph under 'Research quality and accountability' -'algin'?I applaud the authors for their work and I want to emphasize that I consider this a relevant, solid, and quite exhaustive review.I have, however, a number of (minor) comments that I list below.Their purpose is solely to improve the relevance and reach of the paper, which I believe deserves a wide audience.

○
The Background section is very much to the point.For readers who are familiar with the topic of research culture, it is sufficient to have the high-level overview of the main points that the paper currently provides.For interested readers who are less familiar with the topic the background section may be too high-level.The overview remains abstract and could benefit from more specific information and examples.For example, what is "the potential negative impact of a poor research culture / the consequences and challenges associated to an inadequate research culture"?What are some recommendations from the "international actions to address the underlying drivers of poor research culture"?(Which drivers are there?) Related to this, I think the Dicussion section would benefit from a brief recap of the main findings in the first paragraph(s), instead of just stating "From the evidence, it was clear that there were several initiatives to seek a cultural change across the research institutions/Higher Education Institutions."The same applies to the conclusions.The authors correctly and rightfully emphasize the fact that "research institutions cannot act in isolation", but in my opinion some of the findings deserve equal emphasis -and therefore being mentioned in the conclusions.In general, I think one of the conclusions could also be that there is a lot that can be done and that the evidence base for promoting a good research culture is substantial.
When reading the paper, it felt a bit like I was reading a -very well written -internal report for policy makers who are knowledgeable of the potential problems with(in) research culture.I think it can be leveraged to also appeal to a broader audience.

○
The Types of sources section confused me when I first read it, leading me to think that only empirical papers ("studies") were included.Further on, it became evident that the authors included a wide variety of contributions.I suggest adding a first sentence to this section describing this, then continue by detailing the various types of studies and data that were included as it is currently documented.

○
The PRIMSA flow diagram (Figure 1) is incorrect.The total of the "Full-text articles excluded, with reasons (n = 513)" differs from the sum of the specific reasons (sum = 670).It appears that the latter is correct, because 924 papers screened -670 excluded equals 254 included.Please note that there is still one paper that seems to have disappeared: Figure 1 and the main text mention 253 included papers, not 254.
Unfortunately, in spite of the impressive amount of information that is confined in the Tables and despite my admiration for the work the authors must have put into presenting the evidence this way, there are inconsistencies between the number of references that are mentioned with the statements and the last column of the tables.You could consider this comment as an obsessive form of nitpicking from my part.I am aware of that.However, I believe that having a complete overview of the evidence associated with each statement will allow future readers to consult the relevant sources.Security and career progression 3d paragraph: "The review suggests that the problem is reinforced by a culture where researchers are incentivized to produce many funding applications and academic publications where high rejection rates" this sentence seems to be missing a verb.
Research quality and accountability -open and trustworthy research 4th paragraph: change "algin" into "align" Tables In Table 2, under theme Cultivate a culture of support that fosters a diverse set of skills and career pathway the references of Statement 8 are not included as links (they are also between brackets).This may be a formatting problem beyond the authors' control, though.
In Table 3 comment as an obsessive form of nitpicking from my part.I am aware of that.However, I believe that having a complete overview of the evidence associated with each statement will allow future readers to consult the relevant sources.Thank you for pointing this out on the PRISMA flow diagram.Having gone back to the reference manager the error has been corrected.The number of exclusions were 671 and the missing article was not recorded.This has now been amended.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and paying particular attention to the mismatch between the number of references cited for each statement and the count of these references in the tables.We really appreciate your attention to detail and have made the relevant changes and have double checked these for consistency.Study strengths and limitations: First paragraph: I would suggest to also include the percentage of articles from the USA, analogous to Canada and other international countries.These figures and sentence has been adjusted to reflect the accuracy of the percentages in table 1.
General comments: Some of the sentences feel odd.For example, in Wellbeing and equality of opportunity, second paragraph, "The evidence suggests that these issues have an impact not only at the institutional level such as having a lack of diversity in organisational leaderships, but also for individuals, leading to a lack of role models and peer mentors skills shortages in particular disciplines, sectors and roles, and drives off talent." is a run-on and feels like a collation of several sentences.Please check.(1) Some of the Statements in the tables are also long and may better be divided into several shorter sentences.Some examples: Thank you for your general comments on some of the sentences in the manuscript.We have amended these, which hopefully makes more sense for the reader.
"The evidence suggests that these wellbeing issues can have an impact at an institutional level, resulting in a lack of diversity across leadership roles, a shortage of role models and peer mentors, and driving off talent due to staff leaving academia." 1.
'other' has been taken out as that was a typo error.Thank you for drawing us to this statement.

2.
Due to the structure of the statements and how they emerged as part of the synthesis, it would be challenging to go back and re-evaluate these statements.We understand that some of them are longer than others, as we attempted to capture sufficient information to enable the reader to understand the content and context.Typo's: Abbreviations list COPE is the "Committee on Publication Ethics", not "of" -the same typo is in Security and career progression 3d paragraph: "The review suggests that the problem is reinforced by a culture where researchers are incentivized to produce many funding applications and academic publications where high rejection rates" this sentence seems to be missing a verb.
Research quality and accountability -open and trustworthy research 4th paragraph: change "algin" into "align" Tables In Table 2, under theme Cultivate a culture of support that fosters a diverse set of skills and career pathway the references of Statement 8 are not included as links (they are also between brackets).This may be a formatting problem beyond the authors' control, though.In Table 3 Seeing "life-work balance" mentioned in Table 3 made me smile.However, in the section Wellbeing and equality of opportunity and in the Discussion section the authors shift to worklife balance, also using "work/life balance" in the discussion.Please be consistent.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Summary of the evidence base on the four focused areas.
Leuven, Flanders, Belgium I have read this scoping review with interest.The authors have compiled and synthesized an impressive collection of works, both from academic sources and from popular sources.I was pleasantly surprised to see that they even included two podcasts.The authors not only review aspects of the research culture that are problematic.They also search the literature for evidence of what constitutes a good research culture and what can be done to promote it.That they limit their search to recently published material is not problematic: only recently has the shift been made from "codification and compliance" and from preventing the bad from happening towards promoting a healthy climate.It allows researchers and policy makers to get a better view on what is currently known about good research culture.The paper's recommendations are clear and impressively complete, excellently summarizing the collected evidence, both in the text and in the clearly structured and comprehensive tables.The structure of the themes is also intuitive.

Statement 2
has been amended "Actively encouraging researchers to make their research more accessible and open through sharing protocols and data openly and transparently, could foster greater knowledge exchange opportunities."Statement 7 has also been amended "Become a signatory of initiatives such as DORA and seek to engage with local and international networks such as the Reproducibility Network."

Table 1 .
Characteristics of the included studies.
*Note that some articles reported under more than one area of focus.The total number does not equal to the number of articles included in the scoping review.**Jan-Aprilinclusive, searches were conducted during April-May 2022.***Includes,editorial, commentaries, news features, correspondence, and perspective articles in journals.oftenseparate staff into job families such as research, education, technical, clinical, and managerial and professional roles titles reflecting different career pathways.

Table 2 .
Key concepts and statements associated to security and career progression.

Table 3 .
Key concepts and statements associated to wellbeing and equality of opportunity.

Table 3 .
Continued Encourage faculties to support collaborations and networks that provide a sense of mutual support and culture of team effort rather than individual competition, through interactive learning environments and faculty members as supporters and mentors 5,19,23,26,41,43,45,46,49,59,60,69,72,73,87-89,92,95,98,99,101,107,109,130,141,164,172,177,178,181,193,206,212,220-236 Encourage transformative interdisciplinary research to diversify teams, deepen integration of knowledge and move beyond separate disciplinary research 19,23,26,41,46,49,57,69,73,87-89,101,109,164,206,220,222,224,235,236,241,242 23 4 Bring researchers together under a common goal to address specific research issues through a challenge-led (problemled) research approach (including the health of labs) 19,45,46,57,69,73,88,89,92,98,101,158,178,224,229,239,241 Ensure that the term research excellence is understood and qualified within assessment processes to minimise opportunities to reward individualism at the expense of the collaborative, and create environments that assess the performance of the collective rather than only individuals (e.g., performance-based research funding systems PBRFS, and productivity) 3,5,6,8,21,23,26,50,57,84,87-89,91,92,94,97,98,107,109,130,139,153,158,212,221,223,227,233-236,242,250-255 26 2 Encourage/signpost staff to peer groups to enable and encourage networking and shared understanding including critically reflect on cultural identity(e.g., Blackett Lab Family, Black Heroes of Mathematics, Africans in STEM) 69,122,146,164,166,170,171,175,207,214,217 11 3 Implement and encourage staff development opportunities (e.g., StellarHE) that are inclusive to and for everyone, regardless of characteristics, career stage or job role, including Learn from networks and initiatives such as the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), Athena Swan (UK based), sign up to UK's Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers 53,69,123,162,163,179,189,194,197,203 10 4 Consider adopting PRESS, an evidence-based framework for achieving racial equity; as well as using well-designed metrics that can help to manage discrimination 'blind spots' and encourage a 'sense of belonging' (e.g., Challenged Sense of Belonging Scale) 166,169,173,180,204-206,217 8 5 Seek to safeguard the physical and emotional well-being of PEER trainees, by equipping STEM allies with tools to combat discrimination (e.g., Allyship for PEER trainees (Persons Excluded from science because of Ethnicity and Race (PEERs)) 69,122,146,166,169,171,180,214 8 6 Increase uptake of digital tools and inclusion-sensitive pedagogy to support equal participation in Higher Education programmes, including promotional materials and promote open knowledge institutions (OKIs) in diversity, communications and coordination, support opportunities for virtual conferences to increase access for researcher participation in training, symposia, and conferences 162,168,180,185,187,194,208 7 7 Consider the use of Authentic Interrogation, Acknowledgment, and Accountability that requires SciCommers to explicitly articulate the ways in which STEM and SciComm have been used as systems of oppression 69,146,169,171,183 5 Support for a balanced and flexible working pattern 1 Ensure staff contracts can accommodate better pathways for flexible working so there are no unintended consequences on career for focusing on care-giver responsibilities or changing circumstances 69,78,92,96,118,122,146,147,162,165,167,169,177,179,196,203,213 17 2 Put in place options that help staff to return to work after a period of absence to improve transition back to work and promote life-work balance (for students and staff) 18,69,96,118,120,123,146,162,165,167,177,196,198,203 14 3 Commit to the ring-fencing of research-time and ensure researchers confirm time against other duties (i.e., teaching, administration, marking and preparation), including leaders model healthy working practices 46,48,78,122,146,162,212 7 4 Include working hours as a standing item on appraisals and manage expectations around working hours, breaks and holidays to reduce excessive working hours, including use more inclusive job descriptions in hiring processes 46,48,96,122,156 5 Table 4. Key concepts and statements associated to Teamwork and supportive working relationships.51 2 Consider incentives and mechanisms to share open data and empower multi-disciplinary teams to reuse data, and adopt incentives that are transparent across funding agencies, journals and institutions (including replication research) 23,26,41,43,48,49,87,89,98,99,101,109,141,154,215,218,220,232,233,235-240 24 3 17 5 Provide greater opportunities and capacity for technical and library staff to improve their own research skills through networking, collaborative partnerships and being contributors to research, including raising accessibility for multidisciplinary teams and interaction 45,90,95,107,130,158,215,224,234,243-245 12 6 Ensure that those in research management and technical roles have adequate routes to continued professional development through inhouse or formal training (including ethical considerations and issues) 95,99,152,158,178,224,227,244,246-249 12 7 Recognise and value the diverse skillset of research management and technical staff (and early career researchers), and provide opportunities for them to host and supervise researchers, apply for research grants and undertake research 41,45,59,95,158,227,231,239,246 39 2 Reward multidisciplinary work through separate evaluation structures to encourage team science initiatives (consider including data sharing and collegiality as part of employment evaluation criteria) 23,24,26,41,43,49,87,89,98,99,101,109,154,164,206,215,220,222,226,235,236,242 22 3 Review how research is recognised, incentivised and rewarded (subjective and objective measures of quantity, quality and impact), including Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and whether monitoring systems are contributing to optimum solutions (including financial support and elevating barriers) 3,8,23,26,50,84,92,98,109,178,217,221,232,237,239,241,243,252,254 19 4 Review, consider and evaluate the value, role, and purpose of incentives.Consider questions such as 'Do they foster scientific knowledge?' and 'Are large collaboratives, open science practices innovative enough?' 8,19,23,24,57,98,107,108,130,164,212,218,237,250 14 5 Reward credible research practices that are addressing problems with credibility, rigour, and reproducibility in grant guidelines (e.g., incorporating Registered Reports in two stage funding model).Seek to encourage practice across publishers and institutions to not disadvantage researchers who engage in open practices (consider frameworks to improve quality publication practices (QPPs)) 8,23,24,45,98,108,227,233,237,240,247,250,256 13 6 Consider 'human-oriented' knowledge practices over 'output-oriented' practices so that researchers and educators are evaluated based on value, quality and contribution, including early career researchers 4,45,145,177,193,221,231,241,247 9

Table 4 .
Continued Develop and reward cross-disciplinary training and mentoring aligned with development of on the job skills to promote interdisciplinary insight 19,46,60,69,72,73,88-90,92,95,98,101,152,154,172,181,193,217,222,228,232,247-249,257 R&S4D) 6,8,21,23,26,50,84,87,88,90-92,94,97,98,139,153,221,223,234,236,250-252,254,255,258 26 2 Invest capacity in fostering change for different specializations and teams to create a trusting environment for knowledgeexchange, particularly around inefficiencies and pressure on grant funding 23,26,41,43,45,49,59,87,89,98,99,101,109,164,177,220,222,223,226,235,236,243,258 23 3 Invest in leadership training and encourage a culture of knowledge sharing between senior leaders to foster a healthy work environment, in particular around Open Science, Open Research practice and competencies (including project management and oversight and training such as awareness and motivation) 8,19,23,24,60,98,108,152,164,172,178,222,228,230,243,247-250,257,259 21 4 Implement an Inclusive leadership programme, and promote the benefits of a collaborative rather than competitive research culture 19,57,59,60,107,130,154,158,172,225,227,229,230,241,259 15 5 Provide access to research capacity building activities that value research and provide access to resources 19,90,164,212,217,223,241,243,258 9 Make use of or build on existing tools and initiatives to advance innovation 1 Centralize computing and experimental infrastructure to engage core facilities to provide data services, including ways to enhance productivity through social media use (and digitalisation) 3,6,8,21,23,24,26,50,84,87,88,91,92,97,98,109,139,154,227,233,236,245,246,250-252,254,255 28 2 Consider implementing a Complementary Capacity Building (CCB) programme to improve the sustainability of research partnerships (including productivity), with particular focus on LMIC research capacity (and identifying synergies between research and services for development (27 3 Promote or encourage use of: the Open Science Framework platforms; project management tools designed to enhance transparency and foster collaborations; the Open Innovation Science (OIS) concept/framework; Network data centres and task forces (e.g., UK Reproducibility Network and developing framework/guidelines to enhance understanding); and implement and encourage use of contributorship approaches such as mandating the use of CRediT 7,24,107,130,178,215,233,260 8 4 Consider optimal models of collaboration which promote integration that is appropriate and relevant as different problems (including different countries) require different approaches 154,221,223,225,228,233 6

Table 5 .
261260,261,282,329255,25784,288,298,302,305eamwork and supportive working relationships.University Journals)21,23,43,76,85,98,106,108,110,119,121,127,151,208,236,262,278,280-282,285-287,289,292,303,304,323,326-330,334,338,340,344 38 4 Increasingly adopt and promote publicly available data sets shared through repositories (e.g., Figshare, Zenodo), data management techniques, open materials and open data badges through the Center for Open Science, increasingly being mandated by funders and journals (including networks such as the Open Traits Network and toolkits for open access, and self-assessment of digital research) 3,8,23,26,49,56,84,85,98,108,109,127,129,151,156,208,224,250,252,254,260,266,274,280,282,284-287,289,317,321,328,332,336,337,342 37 5Ensure scholarly outputs are credited using alternative contributorship models (e.g., CREDiT) and moving away from the traditional authorship models including becoming more preventative than reactive21,24,76,85,136,231,279,284,288,298,302,305Given the growing evidence that success in research and innovation requires diversity in roles, knowledge, and skills, an inclusive, representative, and collaborative research environment contributes to improvement in researchers' sense of belonging and to positive cultural change is required.206ResearchqualityandaccountabilityopenandtrustworthyresearchFromtheexistingevidenceitwasclearthattransparency, open research, and integrity requires collaboration from RPOs, RFOs, researchers, publishers, and other sectoral organisations such as industry.27,260,261Alargeproportion of the evidence (more than a quarter of articles (133/253) included from the database searches and half of the grey literature (52/102)) highlighted several issues inhibiting open research practices, which some have termed as a 'replication or reproducibility crisis'.24,86,216,235,237,257,262Theseincreasingpressures on researchers suggest that it is causing a 'publish or perish' practice, and has meant that researchers are prioritising 'getting it published' rather than 'getting it right'.24,86,235,237,254,255,257However,asnotedbyMunafo(2022),thereplication crisis could be regarded as an opportunity to promote motivation for improvements.Determining where effort is most needed and what changes are required, not only provides opportunity for the research ecosystem but also how RPOs and RFOs can mandate open research practices, and therefore coordinate change at both research integrity and researcher integrity level261(see Table5for a summary of the key considerations associated to teamwork and supportive working relationships)The existing evidence demonstrated that open research practices (e.g., research integrity, researcher integrity, open data, open access and transparency) requires a global effort, as well as involvement from all sectors of the research ecosystem (e.g., institutions, researchers, funding organisations, publishers, industry).However, more evidence is needed to demonstrate where and in what circumstances the change is having tangible benefit.43,260,261,282,329 and consideration of existing steps to promote open science practices such Center for Open Science and its pre-registration process (https://cos.io/prereg/);Editor's Code of Ethics (http://editorethics.uncc.edu/);Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/); Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines; Open Science Grid (http://opensciencegrid.org/); Open Knowledge institutions (OKIs); European Network of Research Integrity; SPACE (SPACE is a rubric for analyzing institutional progress indicators and conditions for success); Open Government Data Act; FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable); alternative repositories for open access publications ( Table database searches examples (search strategies used) • S2 Table database lit articles (complete list of included articles in the review) • S3 Table grey lit articles (complete list of included articles from the grey literature in the review) Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).Researchers facing 'shocking' levels of stress, survey reveals; Nearly two thirds of those who took part had witnessed bullying or harassment.The Guardian (London).2020 15/01/2020.India to train researchers in how to spot predatory journals.The Times Higher Education Supplement.2020 23/01/2020.122.Christian K, Johnstone C, Larkins JA, et al.: Why have eight researcher women in STEMM left academic research, and where did they go?Int.J. Acad.Dev.2021; 28: 31-44.Quality in higher education: what do students in Cambodia perceive?Tert.Educ.Manag.2022; 28(1): 43-59.Publisher Full Text 144.Wilson C, Hirtz M, Levkin PA, et al.: Facilitating an International Research Experience Focused on Applied Nanotechnology and Surface Chemistry for American Undergraduate Students Collaborating with Mentors at a German Educational and Research Institution.J. Chem.Educ.2019; 96(11): 2441-2449.Grahe JE, Cuccolo K, Leighton DC, et al.: Open Science Promotes Diverse, Just, and Sustainable Research and Educational Outcomes.Psychol.Learn.Teach.2020; 19(1): 5-20.Publisher Full Text 186.Gutierrez-Wu J, Lawrence C, Jamison S, et al.: An evaluation of programs designed to increase representation of diverse faculty at academic medical centers.J. Natl.Med.Assoc.2022; 114: 278-289.How to make universities more inclusive?Hire more working-class academics.The Conversation.2020.Reference Source 192.Lambert WM, Wells MT, Cipriano MF, et al.: Research culture: Career choices of underrepresented and female postdocs in the biomedical sciences.elife.2020; 9: 9.

have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1) Clarity & consistency around the dimensions of research culture being investigated
It's not clear how the particular lenses of open research, career research paths (recognition & awards) & EDI mentioned in the background section were chosen given the research question appears to put no boundaries around the elements of poor research culture & the benefits of a good culture and what it looks like.In the methods section, the dimensions of research culture under investigation appear to have changed to 'four key areas highlighted from existing published work from the Wellcome Trust'.The argument given is that it will ensure consistency and continuity to predefined areas already established by the research environment.'(I'm not sure to what the authors refer when they use the phrase 'the research environment' here.)It's unclear at this point what these four areas are, and why they were selected.Again, why be guided by the WT if the research question is to consider the problems and benefits of poor/good research cultures more broadly?It would be helpful if a stronger case was made for the dimensions of research culture being used to analyse the literature given the specific research questions of the study.

The use of the research questions as a study frame
Having stated the research questions, they don't seem to provide a strong framework for the rest of the article.For example, Figure2summarises the evidence relating to 'what makes a good research culture' but not relating to the other elements of the research question (what are the problems with research culture and what benefits does it bring).If all three questions were being considered together, the heading of the figure could be changed.

of the included studies Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the 'living' method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? ('Living Systematic Review' or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)
table, one statement reads: 'Develop a coordinated approach to incentivize open access policies to optimise a positive cultural shift based on Government recognition of UK Research and Innovation's position on open access research practice, (including European and international position and status of progression/advancement in open research)'.It's not clear to me what this is saying, nor whether reference to one nation's policy position is meaningful.Again, in the Wellbeing & equality of opportunity section, one sentence reads: 'As the evidence has shown, working relationship challenges in research culture require structural changes by transforming people, places, and practices.'Iprovide some other examples below, but this is by no means a complete list.Finally, I find the discussion section rather unstructured and unclear.New points are introduced in the discussion that are not reported in the findings, e.g., reference to digital tools.The reader is not left with a clear sense as to what the authors proposed answers to the research questions are.Minor: the numbers in the PRISMA flow diagram don't add up.The authors should take another look at this. ○

have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Reviewer Report 28 May 2024 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r277499© 2024 Grey E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Table 4 and
Table 5 have the same title -I think Table 5 should be Key concepts and statements associated with research quality and accountability It struck me that none of the concepts under 'Security and career progression' seemed to relate to job security, only career progression.This would be worth highlighting -ultimately to improve job security, research institutions and funders need to rethink how research positions are funded.Innovation is needed here but this review suggests that nothing is happening on this front.

the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the 'living' method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? ('Living Systematic Review' or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.

have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
© 2024 De Peuter S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Table 2 Theme
Promote fair and transparent process for career progressionSome of the sentences feel odd.For example, in Wellbeing and equality of opportunity, second paragraph, "The evidence suggests that these issues have an impact not only at the institutional level such as having a lack of diversity in organisational leaderships, but also for individuals, leading to a lack of role models and peer mentors skills shortages in particular disciplines, sectors and roles, and drives off talent." is a run-on and feels like a collation of several sentences.Please check.Some of the Statements in the tables are also long and may better be divided into several shorter sentences.Some examples: ○

Table 2 ,
Statement 3 under theme Reduce hyper competition and provide a culture of kindness "Consider ways to demonstrate support for other researchers to secure funding as part of progression (and review current reward systems), ensuring education, teaching and research are equally prioritised": who is referred to by "other"?Table5, under theme Fostering transparency and visibility Statements 2 and 7 feel odd.It seems like parts of the statements are missing.Please reformulate.COPE is the "Committee on Publication Ethics", not "of" -the same typo is in Table 5 (theme "Fostering transparency and visibility" number 3 "Gain greater understanding…") ENRI: do the authors mean European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIOhttps://www.enrio.eu/),ormaybeENERI, the "European Network for Research Ethics and Integrity" (https://eneri.eu)?If corrected, please also correct the mention of ENRI in Table5(same place as COPE) and in the last paragraph before the Discussion section.KPI à capitalize "Performance" Background 3d paragraph: The consequences of poor research culture does (change into "do") not only impact researchers, it also effects (change into "affects") research support staff… Results ○Abbreviations list

the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the 'living' method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? ('Living Systematic Review' or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests:
, under theme Embed and support an inclusive culture Statement 6: …including shift (change into "shifting") institutional practice… In Table3, under theme Making use of and learning from existing tools and initiatives to support cultural change there is no space before the opening bracket in Statement 2 In Table5, under theme Incentives and innovation Statement 1 mentions (at the end) "open assess movement".Do the authors maybe mean "open access movement"?In Table5, under theme Fostering transparency and visibility Statement 5 please change "CREDiT" into "CRediT" Other Seeing "life-work balance" mentioned in Table3made me smile.However, in the section Wellbeing and equality of opportunity and in the Discussion section the authors shift to work-life balance, also using "work/life balance" in the discussion.Please be consistent.No competing interests were disclosed.

Table 2 Theme
Promote fair and transparent process for career progression Statement 2: number of references with statement = 39; last column = 35 Statement 3: number of references with statement = 29; last column = 30 Statement 6: number of references with statement = 20; last column = 21 Theme Reduce hyper competition and provide a culture of kindness Statement 2: number of references with statement = 23; last column = 24 Theme Cultivate a culture of support that fosters a diverse set of skills and career pathways Statement 1: number of references with statement = 33; last column = 34 Statement 4: number of references with statement = 26; last column = 27 Thank

Table 3 Theme
Embed and support an inclusive culture Statement 1: number of references with statement = 44; last column = 43 Statement 2: number of references with statement = 40; last column = 41 Theme Investing in people to reduce burden and improve wellbeing Statement 1: number of references with statement = 39; last column = 42 Statement 3: number of references with statement = 24; last column = 27 Thank you.

We have adjusted the frequencies and have doubled checked all the other statements for clarity.Table 4 Theme
Everyone feeling valued and having equality of opportunities to contributeStatement 2: number of references with statement = 25; last column = 24 Thank you.

Table 5 Theme
Creation and facilitation Statement 1: number of references with statement = 73; last column = 74 Statement 2: number of references with statement = 54 (!!!); last column = 71 Statement 3: number of references with statement = 45; last column = 46 Statement 4: number of references with statement = 43; last column = 44 Theme Fostering transparency and visibility Statement 2: number of references with statement = 49; last column = 51 Statement 3: number of references with statement = 37; last column = 38 Statement 6: number of references with statement = 12; last column = 13 Thank you.

Table 2 ,
Statement 3 under theme Reduce hyper competition and provide a culture of kindness "Consider ways to demonstrate support for other researchers to secure funding as part of progression (and review current reward systems), ensuring education, teaching and research are equally prioritised": who is referred to by "other"?(2) Table5, under theme Fostering transparency and visibility Statements 2 and 7 feel odd.It seems like parts of the statements are missing.Please reformulate.(3and 4) Table 5 (theme "Fostering transparency and visibility" number 3 "Gain greater understanding…") ENRI: do the authors mean European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIOhttps://www.enrio.eu/),or maybe ENERI, the "European Network for Research Ethics and Integrity" (https://eneri.eu)?If corrected, please also correct the mention of ENRI in Table 5 (same place as COPE) and in the last paragraph before the Discussion section.KPI à capitalize "Performance" Background 3d paragraph: The consequences of poor research culture does (change into "do") not only impact researchers, it also effects (change into "affects") research support staff… Results , under theme Embed and support an inclusive culture Statement 6: …including shift (change into "shifting") institutional practice… In Table3, under theme Making use of and learning from existing tools and initiatives to support cultural change there is no space before the opening bracket in Statement 2 In Table5, under theme Incentives and innovation Statement 1 mentions (at the end) "open assess movement".Do the authors maybe mean "open access movement"?In Table5, under theme Fostering transparency and visibility Statement 5 please change "CREDiT" into "CRediT" Other