bioRxivScientific Communication & Education
Taxonomy of interventions at academic institutions to improve research quality
A. R. Davidson, V. Barbour, S. Nakagawa, A. O. Holcombe, F. Fidler, P. P. Glasziou
Abstract
Research institutions and researchers have become increasingly concerned about poor research reproducibility and replicability, and research waste more broadly. Research institutions play an important role and understanding their intervention options is important. This review aims to identify and classify possible interventions to improve research quality, reduce waste, and improve reproducibility and replicability within research-performing institutions. Taxonomy development steps: 1) use of an exemplar paper of journal-level research quality improvement interventions, 2) 2-stage search in PubMed using seed and exemplar articles, and forward and backward citation searching to identify articles evaluating or describing research quality improvement, 3) elicited draft taxonomy feedback from researchers at an open-sciences conference workshop, and 4) cycles of revisions from the research team. The search identified 11 peer-reviewed articles on relevant interventions. Overall, 93 interventions were identified from peer-review literature and researcher reporting. Interventions covered before, during, and after study conduct research stages and whole of institution. Types of intervention included: Tools, Education & Training, Incentives, Modelling & Mentoring, Review & Feedback, Expert involvement, and Policies & Procedures. Identified areas for research institutions to focus on to improve research quality and for further research includes improving incentives to implement quality research practices, evaluating current interventions, encourage no- or low-cost/high-benefit interventions, examine institution research culture, and encourage mentor-mentee relationships.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Survey of Core Facilities shows the importance of communication and management for optimal research quality
I. C. Kos, B. Gerlach, C. Pitzer·bioRxiv·Aug 19, 2020
- A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?
N. Aubert Bonn, W. Pinxten·bioRxiv·Mar 14, 2019
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) -- A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science
N. Aubert Bonn, W. Pinxten·Research Integrity and Peer ReviewPeer-reviewed·Jan 14, 2021
- Bridging the gap between formal theory and scientific reform practices
E. O. Buzbas, B. Devezer·bioRxiv·Dec 7, 2022
- How Changes in Common Practice Can Improve the Quality of Biomedical Science
M. Steinfath, S. Vogl, … G. Schoenfelder·bioRxiv·Nov 13, 2017
- Biomedical researchers perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey
K. D. Cobey, S. Ebrahimzadeh, … D. Moher·bioRxiv·Sep 18, 2023