Paper Weight

The book reigns unfettered as the cultural object per excellence. Next to being carriers of information and symbols of social prestige, books embody concepts of enlightenment, emancipation, and self-discovery. As an object, it is akin to a sacred object. Yet unlike the relics from many religions, books are anything but scarce. Even as they pile up and gather dust, their cultural status makes it impossible to dispose of them as any other object. As experts on compartmentalisation, we have found creative ways to “ditch” those books we no longer want. Through the secular ritual of book donation we are not “getting rid” of them, we are just “passing them around”.This paper stems from a research in progress with Giulia Moriconi on Little Free Libraries. Based on our framework of book donation as a ritual of disposal, I focus on book donation programmes.Wetensch. publicati

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

Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk

Counselling, coaches and collegiality — how institutions can share resources to promote best practice in science

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

Bridging the gap – how to walk the talk on supporting early career researchers

Early career researchers (ECRs) play a crucial role in European and nationally funded research projects. They are at the forefront of planning, conducting, analysing, and reporting research. As part of the SOPs4RI project funded by the European Commission, we, as ECRs and members of this project's consortium, were given the opportunity to reflect on our role, obstacles, and possible opportunities that we experienced. Although several steps have been already taken to support early career researchers, more concrete actions have to be pursued. In our opinion, the EC should take the lead and serve as a global frontrunner (taken as exemplary also by national funding agencies) in implementing initiatives to support early career researchers during their research trajectory. We opine that the European Commission should explicitly (i) require the creation of a support system in which early career researchers will be able to build new skills and capacity, (ii) encourage and facilitate more involvement of early career researchers in decision-making roles of EC-funded projects, and (iii) provide resources to support career continuity between fixed-term contracts. The suggested actions can help early career researchers build competencies and expertise to establish stability and continuity within the research environment or to embrace and excel in careers outside academia

Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?

Abstract The widespread problems with scientific fraud, questionable research practices, and the reliability of scientific results have led to an increased focus on research integrity (RI). International organisations and networks have been established, declarations have been issued, and codes of conducts have been formed. The abstract principles of these documents are now also being translated into concrete topic areas that Research Performing organisations (RPOs) and Research Funding organisations (RFOs) should focus on. However, so far, we know very little about disciplinary differences in the need for RI support from RPOs and RFOs. The paper attempts to fill this knowledge gap. It reports on a comprehensive focus group study with 30 focus group interviews carried out in eight different countries across Europe focusing on the following research question: “Which RI topics would researchers and stakeholders from the four main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine) prioritise for RPOs and RFOs?” The paper reports on the results of these focus group interviews and gives an overview of the priorities of the four main areas of research. The paper ends with six policy recommendations and a reflection on how the results of the study can be used in RPOs and RFOs

International Survey on Research Integrity (IRIS)

Dataset and accompanying materials from the SOPs4RI project