评估资金申请中知识转化的审稿人培训早就应该进行了。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2017-08-01 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8
Gayle Scarrow, Donna Angus, Bev J Holmes
{"title":"评估资金申请中知识转化的审稿人培训早就应该进行了。","authors":"Gayle Scarrow,&nbsp;Donna Angus,&nbsp;Bev J Holmes","doi":"10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research-including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations-have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"2 ","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue.\",\"authors\":\"Gayle Scarrow,&nbsp;Donna Angus,&nbsp;Bev J Holmes\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research-including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations-have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:卫生研究资助机构在资助申请中越来越关注知识转化(KT)计划,也称为传播和实施(D&I)计划,以缩小我们从研究中获得的知识与我们在实践、政策和进一步研究中所做的之间的差距。从历史上看,审查小组关注的是应用程序的科学卓越性,以确定哪些应用程序应该得到资助;然而,与社会卫生优先事项相关,促进循证实践和政策,或实现商业化机会都需要不同的视角。讨论:作为各自领域的专家,拨款审稿人可能缺乏严格评估应用程序的KT组件的能力。卫生研究的资助者——包括卫生慈善机构、非营利机构、政府和基金会——有义务确保资助申请的这些组成部分与科学组成部分一样得到严格的评估。在本文中,我们讨论了审查小组对知识翻译潜力进行更严格评估的必要性,并提出了如何解决这一问题的建议。结论:我们建议以各种方式支持审稿人培训,包括审查小组的指导方针和KT专业知识,以及在线和面对面培训等方式,将导致对资助申请的所有组成部分进行严格评估,从而增加资助研究证据的相关性和使用。这种培训的一个意想不到但非常受欢迎的结果可能是,在经过培训的评审人员随后的资助申请中,有更高质量的D&I或KT计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue.

Background: Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens.

Discussion: While experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research-including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations-have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed.

Conclusion: We propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1