Keywords
research culture, research institutions, funding organisations, academia, open research, early career researchers, transparency, research integrity
-
Views
-
Downloads
How to cite this article
Blatch-Jones AJ, Lakin K and Thomas S. A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147599.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Systematic Review
Revised
A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture
[version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 09 Jul 2024
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.
Abstract
Corresponding author:
Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information:
This research was funded through a Research England QR fund to the University of Southampton as part of a programme of activity on Research Culture. The views and opinions expressed in the discussion are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Southampton.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:
© 2024 Blatch-Jones AJ et al.
This is an open access article 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.
How to cite: Blatch-Jones AJ, Lakin K and Thomas S. A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147599.2)
First published: 23 Apr 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147599.1)
Latest published: 14 Oct 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147599.3)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Revised Amendments from Version 1
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and detailed comments. We have addressed the comments and feedback received from the reviewers, which we feel has improved the manuscript and its overarching content. We have amended and updated the tables, correcting errors and carefully considered the statements (made amendments where required). The PRISMA flow diagram has been updated to include exclusions (with reasons) for the grey literature as suggested by one reviewer.
We have fully addressed and responded to each of the reviewers feedback and we feel that Version 2 of the paper provides a more coherent and readable version.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Stephen Curry
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Elizabeth Gadd
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Elisabeth Grey
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Steven De Peuter
There is a newer version
of this article available.
of this article available.
Background
Concerns about the pressures of working in research and the potential negative impact of a poor research culture are well documented in academic literature across diverse disciplines.1,2 The impact is felt by all individuals working in a research environment (e.g., researchers, research-enabling staff), putting a strain on, not only the health and wellbeing of staff, but also career progression, job security, team science, innovation, and research integrity. There is also a strong connection between concerns about research culture and the inappropriate use of metrics and indicators that drive both institutional and individual researcher behavior, assessment and reward.3–5 In response to these particular concerns, several actions have emerged to enable and encourage the adoption of a healthier research culture by developing frameworks to support strategic planning to embed research integrity, good governance and best practice.6–8 International action to address some of the underlying drivers of poor research culture (e.g., lack of diversity, career paths, and recognition and reward) include INORMS SCOPE framework for responsible research evaluation9; Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)10; development of 10 principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics11; establishment of the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA)12; and the HuMetricsHSS Initiative.13
In 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’.14 A 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.15 Unfortunately, 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.16
The consequences of poor research culture does not only effect researchers, it also affects research-enabling staff (e.g., technicians, librarians, research managers and administrative staff), the production and quality of research, reduces innovation in research and affects public trust in research.17–21 Research England’s funding to English Higher Education Providers (HEPs) has enabled greater exploration into research processes and experiences of working in research, through piloting new initiatives or enhancing existing activities.22,23
Striving for excellence and changing research culture is a collective responsibility, requiring action from research institutions, funding organisations and researchers.14 Higher 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.5,15,24,25 Any 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 with an inadequate research culture are well evidenced across the research ecosystem. Several reports, from funding organisations to independent providers have demonstrated the extent of the problem and the need for a cultural change in research.14,15,26,27 However, the evidence very much focuses on the challenges and barriers, with limited evidence on solutions or how to implement change, initiate opportunities, or what works for whom and in what context (inclusive of all research and research-enabling staff in an academic environment).28–30
The purpose of this scoping review was to therefore explore the evidence on what constitutes a good research culture as outlined in the Wellcome Trust survey across four areas: security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and research quality and accountability, to enhance and promote a more sustainable research culture environment.31 The barriers and challenges with a ‘poor’ culture were explored within the context of four areas, outlined in the Wellcome Trust published work, but were not the main focus of the review. The scoping review was intended to inform future practice within a specific research organisation (the University of Southampton, UK), however the findings here will have relevance and application to a wider audience. 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?
Methods
Scoping reviews are relevant to addressing research questions that seek to identify priorities for research, clarification on concepts and definitions, identifying research frameworks, or locating background information in preparation for a systematic review. Scoping reviews aim to understand ‘What has been done previously?’ and ‘What does the literature say?’ compared to systematic reviews that ask the question ‘Does this intervention work for this group of individuals?’ The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the current evidence and body of relevant literature using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance/approach to guide the development, analysis and write up of the scoping review.32–34 Using this approach enabled the reviewers to map the evidence to four key areas highlighted from existing published work from the Wellcome Trust (outlined under section ‘data extraction and evidence selection’), to ensure consistency and continuity to predefined areas already established by the research community (through a survey, interviews and workshops).15 Although the review was guided by the outcomes of the Wellcome Trust, the purpose was to further explore the literature in terms of key areas, initiatives and considerations to ‘what does a good research culture look like’.
Eligibility criteria
Context: The context included UK and international settings within the academic environment (research ecosystem).
Participants: Academic, administrative, and technical staff and students of all levels, grades, disciplines, and professions. To be inclusive of academic and research-enabling staff (e.g., research managers, technicians, administrators, and librarians) 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 approach35,36) for both academic and grey literature were included. All disciplines within the academic environment were included. All initiatives aimed, partly or wholly, at enhancing or assessing research culture 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 professional service 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
Several types of contributions were used for the scoping review, which included articles, reports, blogs and web-based articles from both empirical studies and grey literature.
The scoping review considered all types of study designs for inclusion (e.g., randomised controlled trials, non-randomised 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 references. 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. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles and reports, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy.15,37–40 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 initial retrieval process. The search strategy was limited from 2017 to 2022 but a preliminary search of references 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 references 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 references were identified from Wellcome Trust14,15 as well as snowballing. The key references of the included articles and/or reports were screened for additional references 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 (rayyan, https://www.rayyan.ai/ freely available for 3 active reviews). 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 (https://www.rayyan.ai/) 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).
Both reviewers applied the articles under one of the four areas during extraction, based on the content and context of the article. Some articles were relevant to more than one category, which was reflected in the data extraction table. The reviewers independently checked the included articles to ensure that they were included appropriately across the four areas.
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.14,15
The 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 Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), including the flow diagram reported in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
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 papers.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
| Characteristics | N=253 (%) Databases | N=102 (%) Grey literature |
|---|---|---|
| Areas of focus:* | ||
| Security | 72 | 69 |
| Wellbeing and equality of opportunity | 52 | 50 |
| Teamwork | 64 | 40 |
| Research quality and accountability | 133 | 52 |
| Year of publication: | ||
| 2017 | 20 (7.9) | 12 (11.7) |
| 2018 | 18 (7.1) | 30 (29.4) |
| 2019 | 47 (18.6) | 15 (14.7) |
| 2020 | 61 (24.1) | 11 (10.8) |
| 2021 | 85 (33.6) | 27 (26.5) |
| 2022** | 22 (8.7) | 7 (6.9) |
| NA | 20 (7.9) | |
| Country: | ||
| Europe | 43 (17.0) | 2 (1.9) |
| USA and Canada | 71 (28.1) | 4 (3.9) |
| International | 73 (28.8) | 11 (10.8) |
| NA | 66 (26.1) | 78 (76.5) |
| Article type: | ||
| Journal – Original research (including panel discussions) | 135 (53.5) | 0 |
| Journal – Review | 20 (7.9) | 0 |
| Journal – Perspective*** | 86 (33.9) | 40 (39.3) |
| Conference papers | 10 (3.9) | 0 |
| Book | 2 (0.8) | 0 |
| Blog | 0 | 2 (1.9) |
| Case study | 0 | 2 (1.9) |
| Newspaper | 0 | 29 (28.5) |
| Podcast | 0 | 2 (1.9) |
| Report | 0 | 10 (9.8) |
| Webpages/Educational webpages | 0 | 17 (16.7) |
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), 43 from Europe and of these 17 were 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).15 Several 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 accountability14,15 (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.
Figure 2. Summary of the evidence base on the four focused areas.
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. Concerns over job security, career progression and sustainability were particularly experienced by PhD students, ECRs and junior researchers from a range of academic environments.41–44 The evidence reflects the range of research careers, roles, skills and expertise that are involved in research activity and therefore affected by poor research culture. Research institutions often separate staff into job families such as research, education, technical, clinical, and managerial roles titles reflecting different career pathways.17,45–47
Despite the range and diverse roles within academic environments, the evidence suggests there are concerns that research institutions are not managing career progression expectations or providing ways to develop and train staff, across career levels or job families, which can result in inequalities with regard to job security and career pathways.17,45–47 This can accumulate in feelings of failure by staff, or staff feeling pressured to be successful, which ultimately could promote unhealthy working practices such as excessive workloads and working long hours to meet expectations.48–50 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 disabilities48–50 (see Table 2 for a summary of the key considerations associated to security and career progression).
Table 2. Key concepts, areas and considerations associated to security and career progression.
| Key themes | No | Key areas and considerations associated to security and career progression. | No. refs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support and train established researchers to be leaders, managers, and mentors | 1 | Consider evaluating supervisors and mentor support by including impact statements of projects and career progression, including encouraging multiple career paths, benefits of collaboration across disciplinary boundaries and pooling scarce resources8,14,25,46–49,53–85 | 40 |
| 2 | Provide all staff with access to flexible approaches and methods to mentoring and peer coaching schemes, enabling self-learning, innovation and productivity6,17,48,49,54,55,57,58,60,63,64,66,68–71,73–75,77,78,80,83,84,86–100 | 39 | |
| 3 | Consider feedback initiatives to support continued professional development for supervisors and team leaders or collate benchmarking data focused on the culture of the research team between supervisor-student24,25,44,45,50,56,59,61,62,64,66,68,72,82,94,100–113 | 29 | |
| 4 | Explore opportunities for leadership and management training (including project management) for all staff, levels, stages, and position within academia25,45,56,59,62,64,66,68,69,72,92,97,98,102,105,106,109,114–123 | 27 | |
| 5 | Provide those who supervise PhDs, counsel researchers (including ECRs/junior staff) with clear guidelines on best practice and mechanisms for support (including benefits of networking), encouraging an open mind about career progression27,47,53,54,59,61–64,68,71,76,81,83,85,87,106,116,124–131 | 26 | |
| 6 | Seek ways to reduce the administrative burden for those involved in leading and managing research, including innovative tools to support meaningful networking connections (e.g., MyNRMN, National Research Mentoring Network, Kaupapa Māori Frameworks)8,25,48,55,57,63,64,68,69,73,75,80,83,84,87,92,94,109,128,131 | 22 | |
| 7 | Explore ways to support staff with line management skills including appraisal and inclusive management practices and motivate managers to prioritise these duties, including the upskilling of all staff45,56,71,120,127,132 | 6 | |
| Reduce hyper competition and provide a culture of kindness | 1 | Recognise and incentivize all staff for developing equitable practices and partnerships (e.g., capacity building with Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs) as collaborators and beneficiaries) and focus less on publication numbers and citations (including the number of grant awards)4,17,39,43,59,70,72,82,96,104–108,110,111,118,119,132–141 | 28 |
| 2 | Provide regular opportunities for informal, open, safe and honest conversations (and ways to optimise the role of networking), including environmental tensions between research, education, enterprise, and teaching etc.44,49,50,54,59,63,65,69,71,83,97,106,115,124,127,134,138,139,142–146 | 23 | |
| 3 | Consider ways to demonstrate support for researchers to secure funding as part of progression (and review current reward systems), ensuring education, teaching and research are equally prioritised39,50,57,62,63,90,96,98,116,126,134,139,142–145,147 | 17 | |
| 4 | Encourage staff to provide positive feedback and praise to each other, making the working environment friendly, productive and conducive for learning6,50,64,65,86,88–90,93,97,99,100,141,143,147–149 | 17 | |
| 5 | Raise awareness on the value of sharing science outreach goals, promoting mutual learning for all (including academic induction and orientation practices) to help with retention and progression17,42,56,57,61,65,68,70,97,117,124,139,140,145,146,150,151 | 17 | |
| 6 | Provide opportunities for shared learning and to develop from failure in funding applications and publishing, avoiding the stresses of perceived failure49,61,70,116,124,132,152 | 7 | |
| Promote fair and transparent process for career progression | 1 | Ensure greater alignment between individual and institutional values that encourages teamwork (team science), collective leadership and shared decision-making, building a more supportive research culture, and facilitating institutional and departmental recognition in faculty career development17,24,25,27,39,43,45–47,49,50,53,56,57,59,62,64,65,67–71,74,76,81,85,89,91,93,95,100–109,111,112,114,116,119,125,127,132,135,136,139,140,142,143,145,151,153–156 | 61 |
| 2 | Consider approaches to award and recognition of performance that is not solely based on academic publications that is fair and transparent for all staff, differentiating key performance areas, as well as the workload of academics in various career stages and positions4,17,24,47,49,54,56,57,59,65,70,81,103,105,116,118,125,127,134,137–139,141,144,146,147,153,154,156 | 29 | |
| 3 | Raise awareness about using research metrics responsibly and appropriately. For example, do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring and promotion3,4,20,27,39,52,58,63,70,86,126,128,141,157,158 | 15 | |
| 4 | Consider and optimise how academic CVs are used. Provide instructions for researchers and evaluators; prioritise actual achievements; focus on recent achievements, relevant activities and outputs; acknowledge the broad range of contributions; balance and control incentives; use academic age not biological age; encourage narratives (e.g., narrative CV, Résumé for Research); and use metrics cautiously (Open Researcher and Contributor ID organization (ORCID) as a spin-off from ORCID’s Reducing Burden and Improving Transparency (ORBIT) project to foster exchange and pool expertise, to optimise the responsible use of contributions and metrics)3,4,20,27,52,57,58,86,116,128,157,158 | 12 | |
| Cultivate a culture of support that fosters a diverse set of skills and career pathways | 1 | Raise awareness of the issues surrounding research culture amongst ECRs so they can contribute to the University, their departments or research teams by: facilitating membership of formal networks, provide opportunities to connect with colleagues for social and work-related activities, and review policies around office attendance that support integration and innovation6,24,27,42,43,48,50,56–59,63,65,71,89–91,95,100,101,103,106–108,111,121,128–130,139,151,152,156 | 33 |
| 2 | Consider ways to embed ‘career optimism’ to teach, prepare and respect the diversity of career pathways of PhD students/early career researchers within and beyond the University (and finding a research niche)17,24,44,46–48,53,54,56,57,61,65,85,98,103,104,113,117,121,125,129,130,144–146,153,155,156,159 | 29 | |
| 3 | Provide opportunities to encourage ECRs to join and engage in conversations that affect them, such as research assessment, career progression, awards system (including sabbatical leave)3,6,27,46,56,57,62,63,65,76,85,90,98,103,106,107,117,119,121,126,128–130,147,151,153,157–159 | 29 | |
| 4 | Recognise and value the diverse skill-set of research managerial and technical staff and provide opportunities for them to host and supervise researchers, apply for research grants and undertake research by promoting the benefits of collaboration4,8,17,39,43,46,47,61,65,70,82,93,96,97,106,108,111,112,120,144,149,151,155,156,159,160 | 26 | |
| 5 | Offer opportunities to build hybrid careers by offering different and multiple pathways and opportunities in research, including alignment with the private sector and employment outside of academia for when long-term academic employment is not viable6,47,54,57,67,76,81,85,104,115,117,119,124,126,144,151,153,155,156 | 19 | |
| 6 | Consider how to develop a career development mindset that supports people in all aspects of research not just research projects, therefore attracting a diverse workforce and provide greater career stability (e.g., type of contract)46,47,54–57,65,75,85,102,103,105,127,147,153,156,159,161 | 18 | |
| 7 | Offer or provide opportunities for writing retreats, boot camps, away days and mentoring including cross disciplinary training, enabling informed decisions such as choosing your own mentor17,48,54,55,60,66,71,73–75,77,78,84,91,98,119,162 | 17 | |
| 8 | Consider how those in research management and technical roles (including librarians) have adequate routes to continued professional development through inhouse or formal training (examples from University of California Curation Center, part of the CDL, and the Digital Curation Centre in Edinburgh, UK)42,45,72,97,98,110,115,119,121–123,144,149,151,155,160 | 16 | |
| 9 | Explore ways to implement a ‘culture of structure’ for graduate students where expectations are clear and students have contact with multiple faculty members, including focus on sources that support all students, faculty, and staff24,42,44,47,57,61,93,94,104,112,113,124,146,154,156 | 15 |
The review suggests that the problem is reinforced by a culture where researchers are incentivized to produce many funding applications and academic publications despite there being high rejection rates.49 The evidence suggests that this can result in a lack of workload oversight, a culture discouraging of appreciation, that in turn can make researchers feel pressured to be successful, often resulting in a significant amount of time in pursuit of success at the cost of their wellbeing.44,48,49,51–53
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.59,143,147 To improve job security, research institutions and funding organisations need to readdress how research positions are funded, particularly in the early career stage. A 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 staff101,106,163; cultivate a culture that fosters diversity across career pathways17,57 and; initiate deeper integration of knowledge to ensure institutional stability and innovation.59,155
The evidence suggests that offering potential solutions or supportive actions for research 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.56,140,156,164
Wellbeing and equality of opportunity
A key consideration from the evidence suggests that there are disparities across the research ecosystem, which are in turn influencing individuals’ wellbeing.41,42,45,72,94,98,101,120,165–168 The impact of these disparities are preventing or slowing down initiatives to seek for a cultural change in the academic environment. Although there has been some progress, the evidence suggests progress is slow and continues to be a challenge, especially for under-represented groups.168–171 The disparities highlighted in the literature suggests that under-represented groups are less likely to be promoted or receive funding and have a higher risk of decreased well-being.18,66,85,91,172–181 However, as Lee (2022) pointed out, although underrepresented groups and junior staff are more likely to experience these challenges anyone can, at some point in their academic career experience some form of microaggression (e.g., bullying, patronage power, exploitation, discrimination, imposter syndrome).20 Moreover, the way disciplines are taught at university means that curricula focusing on traditional perspectives may not be inclusive to everyone.125,178
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.18,46,76 Moreover, the increasing demands of heavy workloads and the risk of perpetuating a culture of academic rejection can impact an individual’s wellbeing.18,48,49,108,182 The evidence suggests that these wellbeing issues can have an impact at an institutional level, resulting in a lack of diversity across leadership roles,75,99,183 a shortage of role models and peer mentors,165,46,94,184 and driving off talent due to staff leaving academia.8 Table 3 provides a summary of the key considerations associated to wellbeing and equality of opportunity.
Table 3. Key concepts, areas and considerations associated to wellbeing and equality of opportunity.
| Key themes | No | Key areas and considerations associated to wellbeing and equality of opportunity | No. refs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Embed and support an inclusive culture | 1 | Create a climate for diversity and inclusivity by working collectively to reduce attitudes of hostility and competition that are pervasive, across all fields including STEM (e.g., SciComm, diversity programs)6,46,71,75,80,81,83–85,91,108,111,113,122,125,131,148,149,158,172,173,175,177,178,185–204 | 44 |
| 2 | Lead with data by moving from expert opinion and commentary on effective measures for advancing Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) to objective, validated, and evidence-based research and evaluation6,18,75,80,81,83–85,90,91,100,108,111,113,122,131,158,168,169,172,175,177–179,191–193,195–197,200–209 | 40 | |
| 3 | Enable honest conversations around the complexities, challenges and barriers to achieving diversity in leadership6,75,80,81,83–85,91,94,100,108,111,113,122,125,131,158,167,169,177,178,186–188,190,195,197,199–207 | 36 | |
| 4 | Diversify visible reporting routes to encourage institutions to move away from performative actions and acknowledge that institutional factors play a role in improving mental health for individuals (e.g., ‘Me Too’ movement, #STEMToo social media hashtag to share stories)6,18,20,44,48,53,71,76,77,81,82,91,93,99,103,109,113,148,149,173,181,191–193,199,204,210,211 | 28 | |
| 5 | Encourage and support staff and students to build support groups, to reach out for help, to talk openly about mental health, and to ask how others are doing6,20,44,48,53,76,77,81,82,91,93,98,99,103,109,113,122,125,175,200,204,211 | 22 | |
| 6 | Use institution-specific data to drive changes in policy and programming to improve the social culture and climate, including shifting institutional practice in a context-specific way63,91,100,103,111,164,169,171,172,179,181,186,188,199,212,213 | 16 | |
| 7 | Create greater emphasis on cultural competency, to enable the ability to understand, honor, appreciate, and respect the values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of those from cultures different to our own91,100,103,111,169,171,172,175,185,197,214 | 11 | |
| 8 | Enable conversations that shine a light on power imbalances within academia through initiatives (e.g., “Me Too” Movement)18,124,167,169,171,172,179,197,199,206,213 | 11 | |
| 9 | Explore avenues which will help to identify how disciplines could be taught through a more inclusive and ethical lens, ensuring that socio-economic data on employees is collected and monitored (as recommended by the Social Mobility Commission)125,191–194,196,197 | 7 | |
| 10 | Improve professional workplace mental health and access to services/support for mental health and ensure the use of these services do not stigmatize. Invest to improve mental health literacy across the institution, supporting those who provide assistance and training in mental health (particularly post COVID)18,48,53,98 | 4 | |
| Investing in people to reduce burden and improve wellbeing | 1 | Train leaders, principal investigators, staff and students in mental health and diversity, and dignity and respect6,20,44,48,53,76,77,80–84,91,93,99,103,109,111,122,125,131,158,166,177,178,186,187,189,192–195,200–204,207,211 | 39 |
| 2 | Enable access to childcare near or on campus, extend paid maternity/parental leaves, parttime options for work, a career pause during children’s formative childrearing years, greater access to administrative and research support, and the fundamental recognition of family status in policies and practices6,20,44,48,53,75–77,81,82,85,91,93,98,99,103,109,113,124,148,149,167,169,179,181,198,205,211,215 | 29 | |
| 3 | Provide or maximise mentorship, sponsorship and collaboration between academics and research-enabling staff at all stages of their career46,48,49,63,66,71,75,91,100,103,111,164–167,174,186,195,198,199,201,204,214,216 | 24 | |
| 4 | Consider courses aimed at underrepresented groups to improve confidence, assertiveness and to manage negative influences, such as imposter syndrome; empower staff through participation in decision-making and problem solving120,164,175,181,189,199,201,212–214,216 | 11 | |
| 5 | Consider pre-assessing research skills so that different types of mentor-mentee matching strategies can be formed in as many areas as needed, which can help new investigators, early-stage investigators and underrepresented minorities49,63,66,71,165,186,195,205,214 | 9 | |
| 6 | Reward or emphasize collaboration over competition46,82,91,100,103,111,217 | 7 | |
| Making use of and learning from existing tools and initiatives to support cultural change | 1 | Consider adopting an inclusive and shared leadership model such as Networked Improvement Community (NIC) which focuses on shared leadership, inclusive practices in different contexts (e.g., for STEM, establishing a culture of equity and engagement) to strengthen infrastructure at local levels71,80,91,98,100,103,111,148,149,166,167,171,173,175,179,181,185,186,191,196,199,206–208,217,218 | 26 |
| 2 | Encourage and 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)71,124,148,166,168,172,173,177,209,216,219 | 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 learning from networks and initiatives such as the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), Athena Swan (UK based), UK’s Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers55,71,125,164,165,181,191,196,199,205 | 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)168,171,175,183,206–208,219 | 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))71,124,148,168,171,173,183,216 | 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 conferences164,170,183,187,189,196,210 | 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 oppression71,148,171,173,185 | 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 careers for focusing on care-giver responsibilities or changing circumstances71,80,94,98,120,124,148,149,164,167,169,171,179,181,198,205,215 | 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)18,71,98,120,122,125,148,164,167,169,179,198,200,205 | 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), and for leaders to demonstrate healthy working practices48,50,80,124,148,164,214 | 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 the use of more inclusive job descriptions in hiring processes48,50,98,124,158 | 5 |
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, particularly to those with caring responsibility.18,46,76 However, there is also emerging evidence showing the potential benefits and opportunities as a result of COVID-19.18,46,66,75,76,99,179,196 For example, use of online platforms for training and teaching purposes has opened up opportunities to bring together specific communities and countries. The pandemic led to calls for more ‘kindness in research’ where empathy replaced the usual expectations on life-work balance.75,99,183 In addition to opportunities emerging from the pandemic, the 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.173,179,185,207
Teamwork 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. However, the emerging evidence suggested that perverse incentives within the research ecosystem, a lack of training, opportunity, support, and infrastructure can undermine ambitions for change, which is further hampered by researcher perceptions of what an academic career entails.4,25,62,156,184,220,221
The 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,222 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.166 Researchers are incentivized to attain research excellence despite ‘excellence’ being narrowly defined, which can often lead to hyper-competitiveness and unfair working practices.4,19,25,52,61,90,91,208 The 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 who they can contribute with and the increased demand on publications.51,91
Practices that could restrict collaboration as a result of REF 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 staff from research-enabling colleagues such as research managers, technicians, administrators, and librarians, some of whom have research-level qualifications and experience.43,101,160 Separation 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).
Table 4. Key concepts, areas and considerations associated to teamwork and supportive working relationships.
| Key themes | No | Key areas and considerations associated to teamwork and supportive working relationships | No. refs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyone feeling valued and having equality of opportunities to contribute | 1 | 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 mentors5,19,24,27,43,45,47,48,51,61,62,71,74,75,89–91,94,97,100,101,103,109,111,132,143,166,174,179,180,184,195,208,214,222–238 | 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 and organisations, journals and research institutions (including replication research)24,27,43,45,50,51,89,91,100,101,103,111,143,156,217,220,222,234,235,237–242 | 25 | |
| 3 | Encourage transformative interdisciplinary research to diversify teams, deepen integration of knowledge and move beyond separate disciplinary research19,24,27,43,48,51,59,71,75,89–91,103,111,166,208,222,224,226,237,238,243,244 | 23 | |
| 4 | Bring researchers together under a common goal to address specific research issues through a challenge-led (problem-led) research approach (including the health of labs)19,47,48,59,71,75,90,91,94,100,103,160,180,226,231,241,243 | 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 multi-disciplinary teams and interaction47,92,97,109,132,160,217,226,236,245–247 | 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)97,101,154,160,180,226,229,246,248–251 | 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 have the opportunity to undertake research43,47,61,97,160,229,233,241,248 | 9 | |
| Measuring success that rewards contribution and open research practices | 1 | 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)3,5,6,8,21,24,27,52,59,86,89–91,93,94,96,99,100,109,111,132,141,155,160,214,223,225,229,235–238,244,252–257 | 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)24,25,27,43,45,51,89,91,100,101,103,111,156,166,208,217,222,224,228,237,238,244 | 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)3,8,24,27,52,86,94,100,111,180,219,223,234,239,241,243,245,254,256 | 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?’8,19,24,25,59,100,109,110,132,166,214,220,239,252 | 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 models). 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))8,24,25,47,100,110,229,235,239,242,249,252,258 | 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 researchers4,47,147,179,195,223,233,243,249 | 9 | |
| Ensure routes for development are inclusive and for everyone (regardless of position, role or discipline) | 1 | Develop and reward cross-disciplinary training and mentoring aligned with development of on the job skills to promote interdisciplinary insight19,48,62,71,74,75,90–92,94,97,100,103,154,156,174,184,195,219,224,230,234,249–251,259 | 26 |
| 2 | Invest capacity in fostering change for different specializations and teams to create a trusting environment for knowledge-exchange, particularly around inefficiencies and pressure on grant funding24,27,43,45,47,51,61,89,91,100,101,103,111,166,179,222,224,225,228,237,238,245,260 | 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)8,19,24,25,62,100,110,154,166,174,180,224,230,232,245,249–252,259,261 | 21 | |
| 4 | Implement an inclusive leadership programme, and promote the benefits of collaborative working to breakdown the feeling of a competitive research culture19,59,61,62,109,132,156,160,174,227,229,231,232,243,261 | 15 | |
| 5 | Provide access to research capacity building activities that value research and provide access to resources19,92,166,214,219,225,243,245,260 | 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 the use of social media (and digitalisation)3,6,8,21,24,25,27,52,86,89,90,93,94,99,100,111,141,156,229,235,238,247,248,252–254,256,257 | 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 (R&S4D)6,8,21,24,27,52,86,89,90,92–94,96,99,100,141,155,223,225,236,238,252–254,256,257,260 | 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 CRediT7,25,109,132,180,217,235,262 | 8 | |
| 4 | Consider optimal models of collaboration which promote integration that is appropriate and relevant as different problems (including different countries) require different approaches156,223,225,227,230,235 | 6 |
Although there are several challenges related to workplace relationships, any steps to reform these barriers 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).53,166,249
The 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 institutions, funding organisations and society share a unified approach to move beyond solitary, isolated teams to a deeper integration of multi-disciplinary/inter-disciplinary culture.7,59 An inclusive, representative, and collaborative research environment contributes to improvement in researchers’ sense of belonging and to positive cultural change.208
The 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 direction.7 There is growing evidence that success in research and innovation requires diversity in roles, knowledge, and skills, an inclusive, representative, and collaborative research environment all contribute to improvement in researchers’ sense of belonging and to positive cultural change is required.208
Research quality and accountability – open and trustworthy research
From the existing evidence it was clear that transparency, open research, and integrity requires collaboration from research institutions, funding organisations, researchers, publishers, and other sectoral organisations such as industry.28,262,263 A large proportion of the evidence (more than a quarter of articles (133/253) included from the database searches and half of the grey literature (52/102)) suggested a link between open research and reproducibility that could lead to public distrust and inhibit several open research practices.25,88,218,237,239,259,264 Increasing pressures on researchers is causing a ‘publish or perish’ practice, and has meant that researchers are prioritising ‘getting it published’ rather than ‘getting it right’.25,88,237,239,256,257,259
However, as noted by Munafo (2022), the ‘replication crisis’ could be regarded as an opportunity to promote motivation for improvements. Determining where effort is most needed and what changes are required, provides opportunities for the research ecosystem. Specifically, research institutions and funding organisations can mandate open research practices, and therefore coordinate change at both research integrity and researcher integrity level263 (see Table 5 for a summary of the key considerations associated to teamwork and supportive working relationships).
Table 5. Key concepts, areas and considerations associated to research quality and accountability – open and trustworthy research.
| Key themes | No | Key areas and considerations associated to research quality and accountability – open and trustworthy research | No. refs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incentives and innovation | 1 | Synthesize insights across multiple disciplines to help to unify collaborative practices and breakdown boundaries and disconnect to signal organisational values, such as the Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework (particularly for early career researchers, supervisors, technicians), enabling change to the research ecosystem becoming interoperable and responsive to the open access movement7,8,19,24,27,45,51,57,86–88,94,100,103,111,121,128–130,153,158,194,226,236–238,243,265–280 | 43 |
| 2 | Encourage greater efficiency and use of innovative and alternative approaches such as alternative publishing models (e.g., Octopus); registering with Center for Open Science; methods to assess research and researchers (e.g., SPACE); and, Open Knowledge Indicators, mapping diversity, communication and coordination24,57,87,110,129,153,164,171,210,218,239,249,258,263,265–267,281–293 | 30 | |
| 3 | Prioritise shared decision making to ensure all perspectives of the full research eco system are captured, to initiate change in practice, including policy makers, funders, publishers, technicians, researchers, institution leaders, editors, including level of appropriateness for performance based funding schemes5,27–29,38,86,87,94,100,129,140,153,158,226,235,238,246,259,270,280,285,289,290,294–298 | 28 | |
| 4 | Maintain hiring, appointment and promotional policies are fair and not solely based on authorship, publications or secured grants, and value softer skills25,57,87,137,138,171,218,233,239,249,258,259,265,266,277,281,299–308 | 26 | |
| 5 | Develop a coordinated approach to incentivize open access policies to seek a cultural shift using existing initiatives in open access research practices (e.g., UK Research and Innovation, European and international position in open research)8,28,87,100,128,137,164,220,252,270,273,274,276,277,290,303,308,309 | 18 | |
| 6 | Ensure continued monitoring and evaluation, including meta-research/research on research takes place to avoid unintended consequences, efficient use of resources and demonstrate which aspects are beneficial to the research ecosystem (including where improvements are required at institutional and professional level)21,202,249,263,290,298,306,310–314 | 12 | |
| Creation and facilitation | 1 | Monitor, evaluate and embed learning from education, training, supervision and mentoring to improve research integrity and to create a responsible research culture that is not individualized (including publishing culture built on individual reputation and rankings) but is a collective role in promoting and fostering research/academic integrity, through initiatives such as open science peer networks, and not to capitalize on individual researchers compliance4,19,21,27,45,57,78,87,100,103,108,110–112,121,123,128,129,131,140,153,171,187,212,236–238,243,249,252,255,258,259,263–266,270,274,279,280,282–285,287–289,291,296,302,310,311,313,315–333 | 73 |
| 2 | Adopt open practices early on at all staff levels, but also at the institutional and funders level particularly around software and digital tools (including social media, Artificial Intelligence capabilities, the digital context, management tools), publishing mechanisms, workflows, ethics and data accessibility, supporting collaborations and training progression38,45,57,58,72,74,78,87,88,101,103,108,110,112,121,123,131,144,164,216,235,239,243,255,259,262,265,266,268,286,288,289,292–294,306,310,311,318,319,323,325,328,334–344 | 54 | |
| 3 | Ensure alignment between grant funding and publication outputs as well as consistency with open research initiatives, and opportunities to create mechanisms for reproducibility so greater collaboration can be gained, including understanding of authorship/contributorship consideration8,19,25,57,86,87,100,129,137,138,153,171,233,235,237,239,243,252,253,257–259,264,266,276,278,281,282,286–290,293,300,301,303,304,307,308,321,329,331,345,346 | 45 | |
| 4 | Coordinate and facilitate research integrity officers/champions to promote and create a responsible research culture, including opportunities for an academic integrity framework for policy and practice (including institutional improvements and avoiding the persistence of behaviors detrimental to reproducibility while encouraging responsible research conduct)19,21,29,45,78,86,100,103,108,112,121,123,129,153,212,237,238,253,257,264,274,279,280,282,287,288,290,296,298,311,313,315,316,320,324,326,328–333,347 | 43 | |
| 5 | Support Responsible Research Practices (RRP) as they require facilitation, advice and steer from the Government, funding organisations and research institutions (progression and progress cannot be done in isolation). Such activity should consider six key areas: research policies; research practices; training researchers; evaluating research (ers); rewarding researchers; funding research (ers)4,28,45,58,72,74,78,87,88,94,100,101,103,108,110,112,121,123,131,158,187,235,249,279,283,288,296,300,309,311,316,317,325,327,328,348 | 36 | |
| 6 | Enable researchers to have a voice in articulating (and contextualizing) how research could be evaluated and provide a mechanism for more detailed and transparent reporting of scholarly activities, using formal evaluative systems that explicitly captures behaviors that support reproducibility38,86,129,130,133,153,229,237,253,257,264,274,275,278,282,287,288,290,299,314,329,331,334,335,349,350 | 26 | |
| Fostering transparency and visibility | 1 | Provide clarity, transparency and understanding of research mandates, policies and procedures to permit and maintain productivity in research for all staff and students (including career advantages), across all disciplines (acknowledging the reproducibility networks)4,8,22,24,27,38,45,86,88,94,99,103,117,129,130,140,144,153,158,164,187,194,229,236–238,243,252–254,256,257,264,269,271,272,274–278,280,282,287,288,290,299,314,316–318,328,329,331,335,339,345,351 | 58 |
| 2 | Actively encouraging researchers to make their research more accessible and open through sharing protocols and data openly and transparently, could foster greater knowledge exchange opportunities8,19,38,86,87,100,129,130,144,153,164,210,235–237,252,253,255,257,259,264,275,278,282,283,287,288,290,292,299,300,303,306,316,318,319,323,329,331,334,335,337,339,341,343,345,349,352,353 | 49 | |
| 3 | Greater understanding 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 on 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 Offices; 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 (University Journals)21,24,45,78,87,100,108,110,112,121,123,129,153,210,238,264,280,282–284,287–289,291,294,305,306,325,328–332,336,340,342,346 | 37 | |
| 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)3,8,24,27,51,58,86,87,100,110,111,129,131,153,158,210,226,252,254,256,262,268,276,282,284,286–289,291,319,323,330,334,338,339,344 | 37 | |
| 5 | Ensure scholarly outputs are credited using alternative contributorship models (e.g., CRediT) and moving away from the traditional authorship models including becoming more preventative than reactive21,25,78,87,138,233,281,286,290,300,304,307 | 12 | |
| 6 | Incorporate and consider web-based tools such as Open Science Framework (OSF), Open Knowledge Institutions framework (OKIs) to increase transparency and visibility of research at an international, global and institutional level24,110,129,210,262,282,284,287,288,291,319,345 | 12 | |
| 7 | Become a signatory of initiatives such as DORA and seek to engage with local and international networks such as the Reproducibility Network22,28,38,100,262,263,270,306,314,331 | 10 |
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.45,262,263,284,331
As the evidence suggests, practices should be evaluated to assess whether change has been of value, enhancing the research pathway and align to be evidence informed, therefore avoiding any unintended consequences.5,7,137,263,274 Meta 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.7,25,38,249,263,283,331,343
The evidence review found several initiatives such as the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN), Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and the European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO) to promote, encourage and prioritise the facilitation and creation of open research practices.7,22,283,287,327 Adopting 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, research institutions and funding organisations.305,324,327,332
Discussion
From the evidence, it was clear that there were several initiatives seeking a cultural change across research institutions particularly around capacity building, attracting and retaining staff, fostering an inclusive and open collegial environment, fostering transparency and visibility, supporting incentives to advance innovation, and invest in people to feel supported and valued. Reviewing the evidence under the four areas (e.g., security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and research quality and accountability) demonstrated several areas of best practice that could be considered to support and adopt a good research culture (see Tables 2 to 5). However, adopting and implementing ways to enhance research culture will inevitably vary by country and setting. It is therefore imperative that regular and continuous monitoring and evaluation happens to improve and create a responsible research culture, fostering progression and innovation. 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-enabling staff.78,87,116,139,158,231 As noted in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) R&D People and Culture Strategy report, high quality research and innovation requires an acknowledgment of the full range of people involved, promoting equality of opportunity for everyone and the sense of being valued.8 An inclusive, representative and collaborative research environment contributes to improvement in researchers’ sense of belonging and to steps to enable a positive cultural change.208
Security: Over the last five years, and particularly the last two years (i.e., post the COVID-19 pandemic), there has been a surge of evidence to capture the effects of these challenges and barriers and how these failings in the research ecosystem can be mitigated. Much of the literature that focused on career stability, job security and career progression suggested the need to build research capacity that spans across research, education and enterprise. However, with this comes new challenges and pressures for research active staff to also mentor, support and educate, whilst also having committed time to conduct their own research.7,25,46,52,75,76,99,179,196,339 Several initiatives and opportunities were found in the evidence, particularly around supporting multiple career paths, promoting fair and transparent processes (particularly around the appropriate use of research metrics), and cultivating a culture that promotes diversity of skills and career pathways (e.g., triple helix approach).35
Wellbeing and equality of opportunity: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic also presented several challenges around the physical and emotional wellbeing of staff, 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.’179 There has been a steady increase in mental health distress arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, which added to the existing strain in academia, can often feel detrimental to an individual’s career.18 Several initiatives were reported in the evidence to also suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may have perhaps initiated more transparency on obtaining a life/work balance, particularly at a time when many parents and carers across the world were not only managing increasing work demands but also having to manage home life and home schooling simultaneously. Recognising such demands on individuals has introduced new opportunities that would not otherwise have been considered, such as the use of alternative methods and approaches for teaching and training (e.g., online platforms and virtual teaching methods).
Teamwork: There 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.59,72,92,105,132,135,161,225,312,354 Initiatives taking place, emphasized 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.20,164,218 Although this is promising, the evidence suggests that research institutions must not assume that ‘one size fits all’. There is diversity across disciplines, research and research-enabling staff (across research, education and enterprise) and several types of research institutions. To enhance research culture, different solutions will require different approaches at individual, institutional and systemic levels (see Table 4).
Open and trustworthy research: The increasing competitiveness perpetuated by research funding organisations sometimes placing greater focus on citation impact rather than creativity and innovation, is contributing to the need for cultural change. The health of research groups (e.g., project teams inclusive of academics and research-enabling staff) 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.45 Team leaders play an important role in creating trustful environments, which support knowledge exchange processes and open research166 and crucially they act as mentors and role models for research integrity and open working practices.45,94
Future considerations: Given 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.43,166 With 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 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.155
Guidance 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.18,46,75,76 However, despite the pandemic causing global disruption and concern, it has initiated new opportunities to bring communities and countries together by assessing the value and implementation of alternative digital technology such as the use of social media and interviewing techniques using virtual platforms (see Table 4).196,243,247,259,266,334,344,346 Research, training and teaching took place online, and the growing evidence suggests 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.210,247 Any changes will inevitably take time, but small incremental improvements can have an impact, affecting both research institutions and funding organisations.183 In addition, the pandemic provided the impetus to embed kindness in research where empathy replaced the usual expectations on life-work balance,99 and researchers who felt supported during the pandemic tended to have better indicators of well-being.75,76
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 and Canada (28.2%) and other international countries (28.7%). 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. Reviewing the literature under four broad areas of what constitutes a good research culture (e.g., security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and research quality and accountability), demonstrated not only the complexities of how to implement change but also how they do not work in isolation. For example, to thrive and enhance job security, individuals need to feel empowered and safe in their workplace, feel a sense of team support, and treated with respect. However, the commitment for change and progress to occur requires the whole research community to work collaboratively, not one part can work in isolation. Individuals, research organisations 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 will strengthen and enhance research culture for the better. There is a lot that can be done, and the evidence base for promoting a good research culture is substantial.
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 and research-enabling staff, resistance to innovation, equity for research institution staff and career progression.29,64,66,87,197,262,338 Adding to the complexity is the increasing pressure for academic institutions, research groups, disciplines, and staff to demonstrate the impact of their research. 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.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Kay Lakin, Sarah Thomas
Data curation: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Kay Lakin
Formal analysis: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Kay Lakin
Investigation: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Kay Lakin
Methodology: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Kay Lakin
Validation: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Kay Lakin
Project administration: Amanda Blatch-Jones
Supervision: Amanda Blatch-Jones
Writing – original draft: Amanda Blatch-Jones
Writing – review and editing: Amanda Blatch-Jones, Kay Lakin, Sarah Thomas
Download
Export To
metrics
| Views | Downloads | |
|---|---|---|
| F1000Research | - | - |
|
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Blatch-Jones AJ, Lakin K and Thomas S. A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.147599.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 09 Jul 2024
Revised
Views
14
How to cite this report:
Gadd E. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168087.r300823)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300823
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300823
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 24 Jul 2024
Approved
VIEWS 14
Thanks to the authors for working hard to implement the recommendations of my review. I still couldn't see any references to the Vitae Research Culture Framework either in the references or the text which might be something worth revisiting given
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Gadd E. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168087.r300823)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300823
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300823
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 14 Oct 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK14 Oct 2024Author ResponseComment : Thanks to the authors for working hard to implement the recommendations of my review. I still couldn't see any references to the Vitae Research Culture Framework either in ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 14 Oct 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK14 Oct 2024Author ResponseComment : Thanks to the authors for working hard to implement the recommendations of my review. I still couldn't see any references to the Vitae Research Culture Framework either in ... Continue reading
Views
14
How to cite this report:
De Peuter S. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168087.r300822)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300822
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300822
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 16 Jul 2024
Approved
VIEWS 14
Thank you for taking into account my comments and those of the other reviewers. I consider this version a substantial improvement from the previous. Allow me to formulate some additional minor comments that, when addressed, may further add to the
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
De Peuter S. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168087.r300822)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300822
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v2#referee-response-300822
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 14 Oct 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK14 Oct 2024Author ResponseReviewer's comment: There is some inconsistency between, on the one hand, the description of the purpose of the paper as formulated in the abstract and, on the other hand, the final paragraph ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 14 Oct 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK14 Oct 2024Author ResponseReviewer's comment: There is some inconsistency between, on the one hand, the description of the purpose of the paper as formulated in the abstract and, on the other hand, the final paragraph ... Continue reading
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2024
Views
31
How to cite this report:
Curry S. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r271033)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-271033
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-271033
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 04 Jul 2024
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 31
This is a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on research culture issues at research institutions that aims to explore the evidence base for (i) claims of poor research culture, (ii) the benefits of a ‘good’ research culture, and
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Curry S. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r271033)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-271033
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-271033
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 23 Aug 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK23 Aug 2024Author ResponseUnfortunately we did not receive your review until we submitted a revised version. We will of course address your comments in version 3, when we have received all of the ... Continue reading
-
Author Response 14 Oct 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK14 Oct 2024Author ResponseIn addition to our previous comments we would like to add that we have addressed your comments in line with the other comments and feedback received. Thank you for your ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 23 Aug 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK23 Aug 2024Author ResponseUnfortunately we did not receive your review until we submitted a revised version. We will of course address your comments in version 3, when we have received all of the ... Continue reading
-
Author Response 14 Oct 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK14 Oct 2024Author ResponseIn addition to our previous comments we would like to add that we have addressed your comments in line with the other comments and feedback received. Thank you for your ... Continue reading
Views
26
How to cite this report:
Gadd E. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r277505)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277505
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277505
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 30 May 2024
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 26
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.
... Continue reading
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Gadd E. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r277505)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277505
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277505
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 09 Jul 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK09 Jul 2024Author ResponseReviewer comment: 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 ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 09 Jul 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK09 Jul 2024Author ResponseReviewer comment: 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 ... Continue reading
Views
24
How to cite this report:
Grey E. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r277499)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277499
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277499
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 28 May 2024
Approved
VIEWS 24
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.
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Grey E. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r277499)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277499
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277499
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 09 Jul 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK09 Jul 2024Author ResponseReviewer response: 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 ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 09 Jul 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK09 Jul 2024Author ResponseReviewer response: 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 ... Continue reading
Views
38
How to cite this report:
De Peuter S. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r277506)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277506
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277506
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 23 May 2024
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 38
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.
... Continue reading
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
De Peuter S. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:324 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161809.r277506)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277506
https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324/v1#referee-response-277506
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 25 Jun 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK25 Jun 2024Author ResponseBackground: 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 ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 25 Jun 2024Amanda Blatch-Jones, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK25 Jun 2024Author ResponseBackground: 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 ... Continue reading
Comments on this article Comments (0)