IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3001680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice

Author

Listed:
  • Brianne A Kent
  • Constance Holman
  • Emmanuella Amoako
  • Alberto Antonietti
  • James M Azam
  • Hanne Ballhausen
  • Yaw Bediako
  • Anat M Belasen
  • Clarissa F D Carneiro
  • Yen-Chung Chen
  • Ewoud B Compeer
  • Chelsea A C Connor
  • Sophia Crüwell
  • Humberto Debat
  • Emma Dorris
  • Hedyeh Ebrahimi
  • Jeffrey C Erlich
  • Florencia Fernández-Chiappe
  • Felix Fischer
  • Małgorzata Anna Gazda
  • Toivo Glatz
  • Peter Grabitz
  • Verena Heise
  • David G Kent
  • Hung Lo
  • Gary McDowell
  • Devang Mehta
  • Wolf-Julian Neumann
  • Kleber Neves
  • Mark Patterson
  • Naomi C Penfold
  • Sophie K Piper
  • Iratxe Puebla
  • Peter K Quashie
  • Carolina Paz Quezada
  • Julia L Riley
  • Jessica L Rohmann
  • Shyam Saladi
  • Benjamin Schwessinger
  • Bob Siegerink
  • Paulina Stehlik
  • Alexandra Tzilivaki
  • Kate D L Umbers
  • Aalok Varma
  • Kaivalya Walavalkar
  • Charlotte M de Winde
  • Cecilia Zaza
  • Tracey L Weissgerber

Abstract

Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in research culture and practice. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve the culture and practice of science. Together, we drafted 2 sets of recommendations for (1) ECRs directly involved in initiatives or activities to change research culture and practice; and (2) stakeholders who wish to support ECRs in these efforts. Importantly, these points apply to ECRs working to promote change on a systemic level, not only those improving aspects of their own work. In both sets of recommendations, we underline the importance of incentivizing and providing time and resources for systems-level science improvement activities, including ECRs in organizational decision-making processes, and working to dismantle structural barriers to participation for marginalized groups. We further highlight obstacles that ECRs face when working to promote reform, as well as proposed solutions and examples of current best practices. The abstract and recommendations for stakeholders are available in Dutch, German, Greek (abstract only), Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Serbian.Around the world, early-career researchers are working to improve research culture and practice by addressing systemic challenges. This consensus statement provides expert guidance for individuals involved in these projects, and stakeholders who wish to empower the next generation of scientific leadership.

Suggested Citation

  • Brianne A Kent & Constance Holman & Emmanuella Amoako & Alberto Antonietti & James M Azam & Hanne Ballhausen & Yaw Bediako & Anat M Belasen & Clarissa F D Carneiro & Yen-Chung Chen & Ewoud B Compeer &, 2022. "Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3001680
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001680
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001680&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001680?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uraina S. Clark & Yasmin L. Hurd, 2020. "Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(8), pages 774-777, August.
    2. David Moher & Lex Bouter & Sabine Kleinert & Paul Glasziou & Mai Har Sham & Virginia Barbour & Anne-Marie Coriat & Nicole Foeger & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Isidore Komla Zotoo & Guifeng Liu & Zhangping Lu & Frank Kofi Essien & Wencheng Su, 2023. "The Impact of Key Stakeholders and the Computer Skills of Librarians on Research Data Management Support Services (Id so-21-1893.r2)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    3. Ulrich Dirnagl & Nonia Pariente, 2024. "Promoting research quality," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(2), pages 1-3, February.
    4. repec:osf:osfxxx:ygakx_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Gowri Gopalakrishna & Gerben ter Riet & Gerko Vink & Ineke Stoop & Jelte M Wicherts & Lex M Bouter, 2022. "Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Núria Bautista-Puig, 2024. "Research assessment under debate: disentangling the interest around the DORA declaration on Twitter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 537-559, January.
    7. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Thomas Klebel & Petr Knoth & Nancy Pontika, 2024. "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 337-351.
    8. Jessie V Willis & Janina Ramos & Kelly D Cobey & Jeremy Y Ng & Hassan Khan & Marc A Albert & Mohsen Alayche & David Moher, 2023. "Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, July.
    9. Shinichi Nakagawa & Edward R. Ivimey-Cook & Matthew J. Grainger & Rose E. O’Dea & Samantha Burke & Szymon M. Drobniak & Elliot Gould & Erin L. Macartney & April Robin Martinig & Kyle Morrison & Matthi, 2023. "Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-5, December.
    10. Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez & Daniel J. Lindegger & Ala Taji Heravi & Thomas Stojanov & Martin Sykora & Suzanne Elayan & Stephen J. Mooney & John A. Naslund & Marta Fadda & Oliver Gruebner, 2023. "Reproducibility and Scientific Integrity of Big Data Research in Urban Public Health and Digital Epidemiology: A Call to Action," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Ginevra Peruginelli & Janne Pölönen, 2024. "The legal foundation of responsible research assessment: An overview on European Union and Italy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 670-682.
    12. Yuki Yamada, 2021. "How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, January.
    13. Rosie Hastings & Krishma Labib & Iris Lechner & Lex Bouter & Guy Widdershoven & Natalie Evans, 2023. "Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 318-335.
    14. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    15. Adam J Kucharski & Sebastian Funk & Rosalind M Eggo, 2020. "The COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-3, October.
    16. Gadd, Elizabeth, 2021. "Mis-measuring our universities: how global university rankings don't add up," SocArXiv gxbn5, Center for Open Science.
    17. Chin, Jason & Zeiler, Kathryn, 2021. "Replicability in Empirical Legal Research," LawArchive 2b5k4_v1, Center for Open Science.
    18. Labib, Krishma, 2024. "Research integrity and research fairness: harmonious or in conflict?," OSF Preprints ygakx, Center for Open Science.
    19. repec:osf:socarx:gxbn5_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten, 2021. "Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-17, February.
    21. Alexandra-Maria Klein & Nina Kranke, 2023. "Some thoughts on transparency of the data and analysis behind the Highly Cited Researchers list," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6773-6780, December.
    22. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3001680. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.