Perspective: Consideration of values when setting priorities in nutrition research : guidance for transparency

Nutrition research can guide interventions to tackle the burden of diet-related diseases. Setting priorities in nutrition research, however, requires the engagement of various stakeholders with diverse insights. Consideration of what matters most in research from a scientific, social, and ethical perspective is therefore not an automatic process. Systematic ways to explicitly define and consider relevant values are largely lacking. Here, we review existing nutrition research priority-setting exercises, analyze how values are reported, and provide guidance for transparent consideration of values while setting priorities in nutrition research. Of the 27 (n=22 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 5 grey literature documents) studies reviewed, 40.7% used a combination of different methods, 59.3% described the represented stakeholders, and 49.1% reported on follow-up activities. All priority-setting exercises were led by research groups based in high-income countries. Via an iterative qualitative content analysis, reported values were identified (n = 22 manuscripts). Three clusters of values (i.e., those related to impact, feasibility, and accountability) were identified. These values were organized in a tool to help those involved in setting research priorities systematically consider and report values. The tool was finalized through an online consultation with 7 international stakeholders. The value-oriented tool for priority setting in nutrition research identifies and presents values that are already implicitly and explicitly represented in priority-setting exercises. It provides guidance to enable explicit deliberation on research priorities from an ethical perspective. In addition, it can serve as a reporting tool to document how value-laden choices are made during priority setting and help foster the accountability of stakeholders involved

Author Correction: UK Reproducibility Network Open and Transparent Research Practices Survey Dataset

The version of record of this article, first published in [Scientific Data], is available online at Publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03786-zIn the version of the article initially published, in the “Sampling” column of Table 1, the University of Sheffield was originally listed as “Opportunity” but has now been amended to “Stratified”. Additionally, in the fourth paragraph of the “Background & Summary” section, the text “In 2022, members of the UKRN published the results of the Brief Open Research Survey (BORS), which measured awareness and uptake of Open Research practices across the UKRN Local Networks. The survey found that respondents were most aware of Open Access publications, preprints and open data, and the most commonly reported means to foster further uptake of Open Research practices were incentives, dedicated funding, and recognition in promotion and recruitment criteria” has been added, alongside a new ref. 15: Norris, E. et al. Development of the brief open research survey (bors) to measure awareness and uptake of open research practices, https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/w48yh (2022). These corrections have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the article.Research England Development Fun

Designing and implementing a research integrity promotion plan: recommendations for research funders

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund

Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators.

The way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures on scientists. Yet, the precise ways in which assessments should change is still open for debate. We circulated a survey with Flemish researchers to understand how they work, and how they would rate the relevance of specific indicators used in research assessments. We found that most researchers worked far beyond their expected working schedule. We also found that, although they spent most of their time doing research, respondents wished they could dedicate more time to it and spend less time writing grants and performing other activities such as administrative duties and meetings. When looking at success indicators, we found that indicators related to openness, transparency, quality, and innovation were perceived as highly important in advancing science, but as relatively overlooked in career advancement. Conversely, indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. Open comments from respondents further revealed that, although indicators which indicate openness, transparency, and quality (e.g., publishing open access, publishing negative findings, sharing data, etc.) should ultimately be valued more in research assessments, the resources and support currently in place were insufficient to allow researchers to endorse such practices. In other words, current research assessments are inadequate and ignore practices which are essential in contributing to the advancement of science. Yet, before we change the way in which researchers are being assessed, supporting infrastructures must be put in place to ensure that researchers are able to commit to the activities that may benefit the advancement of science

Le rôle des facteurs développementaux dans la détermination de la responsabilité morale chez les jeunes : une étude pilote évaluant les opinions d’experts légaux et cliniques

Récemment, la recherche sur le développement cognitif fait part d’une grande source d’information concernant la responsabilité morale attribuable aux délinquants juvéniles. Cependant, l’intégration de ces connaissances dans le milieu légal demeure largement théorique. En utilisant un sondage en ligne, nous avons évalué les opinions, les croyances et les attitudes d’experts légaux et cliniques à propos de l’impact des facteurs développementaux sur la responsabilité morale des jeunes. Nos résultats suggèrent que la communauté légale est modérément consciente de la recherche émergente en science développementale portant sur la responsabilité morale des jeunes. Or le fossé entre la théorie et la pratique persiste. En ce qui a trait à la responsabilité morale des adolescents et leur capacité à subir un procès, par exemple, les policiers attribuent significativement moins d’importance aux facteurs développementaux que ne le font les experts cliniques. Nous soulignons le besoin d’un dialogue plus rapproché entre le droit et la science développementale pour favoriser la création d’un consensus et pour améliorer le traitement des jeunes délinquants.Evidence from developmental science sheds new light on legal aspects pertaining to the blameworthiness of youth ; however, incorporating these findings into the youth criminal justice system has been largely unsuccessful. Using an online survey, we probed the opinions, beliefs, and attitudes of legal and clinical specialists concerning the extent to which developmental parameters affect youth culpability and their ability to stand trial. Our findings suggest that while the majority of legal and clinical experts acknowledge the impact of developmental factors on the legal responsibility of youth, others (e.g., law enforcement) often underestimate such data. Here we outline how a closer dialogue between law professionals and developmental scientists will better facilitate a sorely overdue legal practice that fashions itself more closely after evidence-based science.Recientemente, las investigaciones sobre el desarrollo cognitivo son parte de una gran fuente de información referente a la responsabilidad moral atribuible a los delincuentes juveniles. Sin embargo, la integración de dichos conocimientos en el sistema de justicia de menores se encuentra muy limitada. Utilizando el sistema informático gratuito en línea, LimeSurvey, hemos evaluado las opiniones, las creencias y las actitudes de los expertos legales (Ej. los oficiales de policía, los abogados, los jueces) y clínicos (Ej. los psicólogos, los psiquiatras, los trabajadores sociales) en lo referente a el impacto de los factores de desarrollo sobre el nivel de responsabilidad de los jóvenes y de su aptitud a someterse a un proceso judicial. Nuestros resultados sugieren que, mientras la mayoría de los expertos legales y clínicos reconocen el rol de la ciencia del desarrollo en la justicia penal, algunos expertos (Ej. los oficiales de policía) subestiman su importancia. Nosotros sostenemos que un diálogo mas cercano entre la ciencia del desarrollo y el sistema de justicia es necesario para conciliar las prácticas legales con los descubrimientos científicos actuales

Data on the implementation of Narrative CV captured ahead of the 2023 Recognition and Rewards Festival

Created on 05 Feb 2024 - 18:02 by Noémie Aubert BonnAs part of the 2023 Dutch Recognition and Rewards Festival, James Morris, Sean Sapcariu, Karen Stroobants, and Noémie Aubert Bonn hosted a workshop to gather perspectives on Narrative CVs, including whether and how they may contribute to shifts in research culture that are needed to support research assessment reform. A short 12-question survey was circulated ahead of the workshop to representatives from research organisations via the following forums: the DORA Funders Group; the Global Research Council Responsible Research Assessment Working Group; and the Science Europe Working Group on Research Culture.The survey was launched between March and April 2023 and received 24 full responses from representatives of 23 research organisations, covering 18 countries across 4 continents and one European-wide organisation. The aggregated data were presented during the workshop at the Recognition and Rewards Festival in Utrecht, NL on 13 April 2023 to provoke discussion among participants.Given the high potential of re-identification of the survey data, we summarised narrative information in key themes of responses. Here, we share the de-identified data to accompany the manuscript which reports findings from the workshops. We also share a codebook which explains each question from the survey and details whether any changes were conducted to minimise re-identification.</p