1
|
Qussini S, MacDonald RS, Shahbal S, Dierickx K. Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2023; 18:250-262. [PMID: 37526052 DOI: 10.1177/15562646231191424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/02/2023]
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Methods: Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Results: Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Conclusion: Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seba Qussini
- Medical Research Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | - Ross S MacDonald
- Distributed eLibrary, Weill Cornell Medicine - Qatar, Education City, Doha, Qatar
| | - Saad Shahbal
- Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | - Kris Dierickx
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Iwanaga T, Wang HH, Hamilton SH, Grimm V, Koralewski TE, Salado A, Elsawah S, Razavi S, Yang J, Glynn P, Badham J, Voinov A, Chen M, Grant WE, Peterson TR, Frank K, Shenk G, Barton CM, Jakeman AJ, Little JC. Socio-technical scales in socio-environmental modeling: Managing a system-of-systems modeling approach. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE : WITH ENVIRONMENT DATA NEWS 2021; 135:104885. [PMID: 33041631 PMCID: PMC7537632 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104885] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/29/2020] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
System-of-systems approaches for integrated assessments have become prevalent in recent years. Such approaches integrate a variety of models from different disciplines and modeling paradigms to represent a socio-environmental (or social-ecological) system aiming to holistically inform policy and decision-making processes. Central to the system-of-systems approaches is the representation of systems in a multi-tier framework with nested scales. Current modeling paradigms, however, have disciplinary-specific lineage, leading to inconsistencies in the conceptualization and integration of socio-environmental systems. In this paper, a multidisciplinary team of researchers, from engineering, natural and social sciences, have come together to detail socio-technical practices and challenges that arise in the consideration of scale throughout the socio-environmental modeling process. We identify key paths forward, focused on explicit consideration of scale and uncertainty, strengthening interdisciplinary communication, and improvement of the documentation process. We call for a grand vision (and commensurate funding) for holistic system-of-systems research that engages researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers in a multi-tiered process for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions to major socio-environmental problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takuya Iwanaga
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - Hsiao-Hsuan Wang
- Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
| | - Serena H Hamilton
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
- CSIRO Land & Water, Canberra, Australia
| | - Volker Grimm
- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Ecological Modelling, Leipzig, Germany
- University of Potsdam, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Potsdam, Germany
| | - Tomasz E Koralewski
- Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
| | - Alejandro Salado
- Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
| | - Sondoss Elsawah
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
- School of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Saman Razavi
- Global Institute for Water Security, School of Environment and Sustainability, Department of Civil, Geological, and Environmental Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
| | - Jing Yang
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
| | - Pierre Glynn
- U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA
| | - Jennifer Badham
- Centre for Research in Social Simulation, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
| | - Alexey Voinov
- Center on Persuasive Systems for Wise Adaptive Living (PERSWADE), Faculty of Engineering & IT, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
- Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Netherlands
| | - Min Chen
- Key Laboratory of Virtual Geographic Environment (Ministry of Education of PRC), Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, 210023, China
| | - William E Grant
- Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
| | - Tarla Rai Peterson
- Environmental Science and Engineering Program, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, 79968, USA
| | - Karin Frank
- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Ecological Modelling, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Gary Shenk
- U.S Geological Survey, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD, 21403, USA
| | - C Michael Barton
- Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity, School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
| | - Anthony J Jakeman
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - John C Little
- Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lee D, Heo Y, Kim K. A Strategy for International Cooperation in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Focusing on National Scientific Funding Data. Healthcare (Basel) 2020; 8:E204. [PMID: 32659997 PMCID: PMC7551450 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8030204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Revised: 07/05/2020] [Accepted: 07/07/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
The coronavirus crisis may lead to a deeper understanding of international collaborations for developing antivirals and vaccines that are essential to protect us from current and future health security threats. Beyond technical solutions, the government of South Korea needs to establish a timely strategic investment in coronavirus-related research and development (R&D) in order to enhance the capabilities for managing this new uncertainty in regard to the domestic health crisis. Thus, this study aims to provide useful information about the status of global coronavirus-related research from the South Korean government's perspective. National funded projects stemmed from leading nations such as the United States, countries of the European Union, and Japan between 2012 and 2018. Six research fields were derived by clustering analysis and an expert-based approach, and then matched to those of South Korea. The comparative analysis among them allowed for the identification of the nations' strengths and weaknesses, thereby laying the groundwork for strategic international research collaborations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Doyeon Lee
- Division of Data Analysis, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), Seoul 02456, Korea;
| | - Yoseob Heo
- Busan Branch, Division of Data Analysis, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), Busan 48058, Korea;
| | - Keunhwan Kim
- Division of Data Analysis, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), Seoul 02456, Korea;
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Meirmans S, Butlin RK, Charmantier A, Engelstädter J, Groot AT, King KC, Kokko H, Reid JM, Neiman M. Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists' perspective. J Evol Biol 2019; 32:754-768. [PMID: 31215105 PMCID: PMC6771946 DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2019] [Revised: 05/19/2019] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Roger K Butlin
- Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.,Department of Marine Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Strömstad, Sweden
| | - Anne Charmantier
- CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS, Université Paul-Valery Montpellier, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier Cedex 05, France
| | - Jan Engelstädter
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Astrid T Groot
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kayla C King
- Department of Zoology, Christ Church College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hanna Kokko
- Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jane M Reid
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Maurine Neiman
- Department of Biology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.,Department of Gender, Women's, and Sexuality Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
| |
Collapse
|