Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding

Research Integrity and Peer Review

Adrian Barnett¹  Cynthia M. Kroeger²  Lisa A. Bero²  Joanna Diong³  Katherine J. Reynolds⁴ 

[1] Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology;Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney;School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney;School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney;

关键词: Grant;    Fellowship;    Medical;    Research transparency;    Research reproducibility;    Research integrity;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s41073-021-00113-7

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices. Methods We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: “Instructed”, “Encouraged”, or “No mention”. Results Across the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required. Conclusions Funders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.

【 授权许可】

Unknown