Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

7 Stakeholder Opportunities for Promoting Transparent Reporting
Pages 91-100

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 91...
... Fineberg asked participants to consider how stakeholder interests could be harmonized, and operations aligned, to realize the shared objective of increased transparency and rigor in research. He also asked participants to consider what leadership role each stakeholder plays in driving transparent reporting in biomedical research.
From page 92...
... Is it possible to obtain sufficient information about transparent reporting in grant applications without dramatic expansion of the application? BOX 7-1 Suggestions by Individual Workshop Participants on Stakeholder Opportunities to Promote Transparent Reporting in Preclinical Biomedical Research Researchers • Researchers may help promote adoption of minimal standards for trans parency and rigor through a number of actions, including ° Considering ways to include information regarding the reasoning and decision points that go into a research project, in addition to using a minimal checklist, when submitting research applications to funders or manuscripts to journals; and °  Considering ways to leverage the expertise of university librarians and create resources for investigators starting a new laboratory (e.g., look to concepts such as the University of California's QB3 "startup in a box" framework -- a combination of hands-on support, services, and mentorship -- which is designed to lower the barriers to innovation for university entrepreneurs interested in starting a company)
From page 93...
... as a routine part of the scientific re search process rather than added administrative burden; °  Identifying and sharing existing research practices that enhance data sharing and transparent reporting; °  Considering better mechanisms for connecting researchers with in stitutional resources; and °  Engaging leadership and on-the-ground researchers to help build momentum at all levels of the institution. NOTE: Points made by individual workshop participants discussing the role of institutions in promoting transparent reporting, as reported by Franklin Sayre and Deborah Sweet.
From page 94...
... to harmonize a set of minimal reporting stan dards to facilitate better science; °  Aligning reporting requirements with transparent reporting practices so expectations are clear for researchers throughout the biomedical research life cycle; °  Considering pragmatic and inclusive approaches to implementing interventions, such as checklists; and °  Helping to coordinate action to address areas of highest need (e.g., study design, statistics, data archiving, sourcing of biological materials)
From page 95...
... Participants suggested that more substantive feedback, particularly for early stage research proposals, through peer review -- internally within institutions as well as through external grant applications -- would benefit investigators at all stages of their careers. Finally, Keiser relayed that small group participants discussed the influential role of senior investigators in promoting a culture of openness (e.g., code review within the lab, experimental reproducibility and replicability by others within the group)
From page 96...
... The tenure process can be a source of great anxiety for early career researchers. Participants suggested that this anxiety and focus on particular metrics, such as publication in high-impact journals, may promote a culture of poor research practices.
From page 97...
... Funders Richard Nakamura reported for a small group that discussed the roles and responsibilities of funders in improving transparent reporting of biomedical research. Participants in the small group considered the benefit of harmonizing a set of minimal reporting standards across organizations so that investigators are not put in a position of having to meet multiple requirements when applying to different funders.
From page 98...
... Publishers Veronique Kiermer and Valda Vinson reported for two small groups, which considered the roles and responsibilities of publishers in improving transparent reporting of biomedical research. Vinson summarized the takeaway message of one small group discussion by saying, "If you want science better, make better science easier." Kiermer summarized that institutions can help facilitate transparent reporting practices and make them normative, while journals and funders may "bookend the process" by aligning reporting requirements so that expectations are clear for researchers from the beginning.
From page 99...
... . Vinson suggested the concept of a "sea change" initiative to improve reproducibility in biomedical research that could be modeled after the American Association for the Advancement of Science STEM Equity Achievement (SEA)
From page 100...
... CLOSING STATEMENT In closing the workshop, Fineberg observed that "there is a movement toward higher levels of rigor and transparency in science." He encouraged participants to continue to foster this movement and accelerate progress toward improving reproducibility and replicability across the biomedical research life cycle through transparent reporting.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.