Sarah Parks

UK Doubles Its “World-Leading” Research in Life Sciences and Medicine in Six Years: Testing the Claim?

Background The UK, like some other countries, carries out a periodic review of research quality in universities and the most recent Research Excellence Framework (REF) reported a doubling (103% increase) in its “world leading” or so-called “4*” research outputs in the areas of life sciences and medicine between 2008 and 2014. This is a remarkable improvement in six years and if validated internationally could have profound implications for health sciences. Methods We compared the reported changes in 4* quality to bibliometric measures of quality for the 56,639 articles submitted to the RAE 2008 and the 50,044 articles submitted to the REF 2014 to Panel A, which assesses the life sciences, including medicine. Findings UK research submitted to the RAE and REF was of better quality than worldwide research on average. While we found evidence for some increase in the quality of top UK research articles, a 10-25% increase in the top 10%ile papers, depending upon the metrics used, we could not find evidence to support a 103% increase in quality. Instead we found that as compared to the RAE, the REF results implied a lower citation %ile threshold for declaring a 4*. Interpretation There is a wide discrepancy between bibliometric indices and peer-review panel judgements between the RAE 2008 and REF 2014. It is possible that the changes in the funding regime between 2008 and 2014 that significantly increased the financial premium for 4* articles may have influenced research quality evaluation. For the advancement of science and health, evaluation of research quality requires consistency and validity – the discrepancy noted here calls for a closer examination of mass peer-review methods like the REF.

Mapping the global mental health research funding system

This study maps the global funding of mental health research between 2009 and 2014. It builds from the bottom up a picture of who the major funders are, what kinds of research they support and how their strategies relate to one another. It uses the funding acknowledgements on journal papers as a starting point for this. The study also looks to the future, considering some of the areas of focus, challenges and opportunities which may shape the field in the coming few years.

Bibliometric analysis of highly cited publications of biomedical and health research in England, 2004–2013

This report presents a bibliometric analysis of biomedical and health research in England, 2004–2013. It is intended to support the shortlisting and selection of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres in England.

Open science: The citizen's role in and contribution to research

O pen science can be thought of as a movement or an evolution in the research process. It relates to how scientists interact with one another and how the public engages with and is engaged in science. It also relates to societal expectations about the imperative to share results – particularly those obtained through publicly funded research. In practical terms, open science can be seen as a systemic change in the way research is conducted, affecting steps throughout the research process, from idea generation, planning and design, through to the outputs and impacts of research further along in the process. Linking these changes towards openness is a shift in our understanding of the role of science in society that, some have argued, is bringing back values that have been overshadowed in modern science, such as a spirit of exploration (Lichten et al. 2014) and an appreciation for sharing knowledge (Könneker & Lugger 2013). Digital technology has enabled radical changes in how we

Most mobility to and from the UK is within a small set of western countries

Amongst those receiving their highest degree overseas, most did so in EU countries or the US; the most common countries were the US, Germany, Spain and France Regardless of duration, the USA, Germany and France are the most common destinations for researchers from the UK. Australia, Canada and Japan are also important destinations of non-UK nationals in the UK have EU or North American nationalities 80%

How Will Open Science Impact on University/Industry Collaborations?

Open science represents a challenge to traditional modes of scientific practice and collaboration. Knowledge exchange is still heavily influenced by researchers ambition to publish in highly cited journals and within ‘closed partnerships’ (Holmes, Nature 533: 54, 2016) where interactions are based on patenting based on IPR. However, perceived inefficiencies, a desire to make publically funded research available to all and a crisis of confidence in the quality of research published in top journals all serve to fuel demands for more openness in the conduct of science and the exchange of scientific knowledge. Whilst there is a strong logic behind the contention that increased openness will promote efficiencies, quality and fairness, there is still considerable uncertainty about the impact on university/industry collaboration and the balance that needs to be struck between open and closed approaches. Policy obstacles are also likely to impede the pace of change.

A global map of mental health research funding

Introduction Mental illness has a major impact on individuals, healthcare systems and society. Research is needed to improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of many mental health conditions and to develop effective treatments. However, the field of mental health research is broad and fragmented. It covers a diversity of health conditions and contains a large and varied population of researchers and funding organisations. These characteristics are a significant challenge to coordinating and conducting research. There has never been, to the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive view of the entire mental health research funding ‘ecosystem’ at a global scale. This study provides a snapshot of the mental health research funding ecosystem, showing who the major funders are, what kinds of research they support and how their strategies relate to one another.

How policy can help develop and sustain workforce capacity in UK dementia research: insights from a career tracking analysis and stakeholder interviews

Objectives To identify research support strategies likely to be effective for strengthening the UKs dementia research landscape and ensuring a sustainable and competitive workforce. Design Interviews and qualitative analysis; systematic internet search to track the careers of 1500 holders of UK doctoral degrees in dementia, awarded during 1970–2013, to examine retention in this research field and provide a proxy profile of the research workforce. Setting and participants 40 interviewees based in the UK, whose primary role is or has been in dementia research (34 individuals), health or social care (3) or research funding (3). Interviewees represented diverse fields, career stages and sectors. Results While the UK has diverse strengths in dementia research, needs persist for multidisciplinary collaboration, investment in care-related research, supporting research-active clinicians and translation of research findings. There is also a need to better support junior and midlevel career opportunities to ensure a sustainable research pipeline and future leadership. From a sample of 1500 UK doctorate holders who completed a dementia-related thesis in 1970–2013, we identified current positions for 829 (55%). 651 (43% of 1500) could be traced and identified as still active in research (any field) and 315 (21%) as active in dementia research. Among recent doctoral graduates, nearly 70% left dementia research within 4–6 years of graduation. Conclusions A dementia research workforce blueprint should consider support for individuals, institutions and networks. A mix of policy interventions are needed, aiming to attract and retain researchers; tackle bottlenecks in career pathways, particularly at early and midcareer stages (eg, scaling-up fellowship opportunities, rising star programmes, bridge-funding, flexible clinical fellowships, leadership training); and encourage research networks (eg, doctoral training centres, succession and sustainability planning). Interventions should also address the need for coordinated investment to improve multidisciplinary collaboration; balanced research portfolios across prevention, treatment and care; and learning from evaluation.