12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘ What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’

          Aims

          To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution.

          Methods

          A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.

          Results

          1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.

          Conclusions

          There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references316

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A manifesto for reproducible science

          Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals of these measures, and how they can be implemented, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews

              The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR).

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                23 April 2024
                2024
                : 13
                : 324
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, SO16 7NS, UK
                [2 ]Hatch, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, SO16 7NS, UK
                [1 ]Loughborough University, Loughborough, England, UK
                [1 ]Bristol Medical School and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
                [1 ]KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1486-5561
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.147599.1
                11140362
                38826614
                d4715609-bcd2-4888-9031-253f84ca1f57
                Copyright: © 2024 Blatch-Jones AJ et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 29 March 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Research England
                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.
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Articles

                research culture,research institutions,funding organisations,academia,open research,early career researchers,transparency,research integrity

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log