Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Stakeholders’ views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
Concerns about research waste have fueled debate about incentivizing individual researchers and research institutions to conduct responsible research. Instead of looking at impact factors or grants, research institutions should be assessed based on indicators that pertain to responsible research. In this study, we showed stakeholders a proof-of-principle dashboard with quantitative metrics that visualized responsible research performance on a German University Medical Center (UMC) level. Our research question was: What are stakeholders’ views on a dashboard that displays the adoption of responsible research practices on a UMC-level?
Methods
We recruited different stakeholders to participate in an online interview. Stakeholders included UMC leadership, support staff, funders, and experts in responsible research. We asked interviewees to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of this institutional dashboard approach and enquired their perceptions of the metrics it included. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. We applied content analysis to understand what stakeholders considered the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of the dashboard and its metrics.
Results
We interviewed 28 international stakeholders (60% German). Overall, interviewees thought the dashboard was helpful in seeing where an institution stands and appreciated the fact that the metrics were based on concrete behaviors. Main weaknesses included the lack of a narrative explaining the choice of the metrics covered. Interviewees considered the dashboard a good opportunity to initiate change and hoped the dashboard could be supplemented with other indicators in the future. They feared that making the dashboard public might risk incorrect interpretation of the metrics and put UMCs in a bad light.
Discussion
While the feedback was given specifically to our proof-of-principle dashboard, our findings indicate that discussion with stakeholders is needed to develop an overarching framework governing responsible research on an institutional level, and to involve research-performing organizations.
Title: Stakeholders’ views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research
Description:
Abstract
Background
Concerns about research waste have fueled debate about incentivizing individual researchers and research institutions to conduct responsible research.
Instead of looking at impact factors or grants, research institutions should be assessed based on indicators that pertain to responsible research.
In this study, we showed stakeholders a proof-of-principle dashboard with quantitative metrics that visualized responsible research performance on a German University Medical Center (UMC) level.
Our research question was: What are stakeholders’ views on a dashboard that displays the adoption of responsible research practices on a UMC-level?
Methods
We recruited different stakeholders to participate in an online interview.
Stakeholders included UMC leadership, support staff, funders, and experts in responsible research.
We asked interviewees to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of this institutional dashboard approach and enquired their perceptions of the metrics it included.
The interviews were recorded and transcribed.
We applied content analysis to understand what stakeholders considered the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of the dashboard and its metrics.
Results
We interviewed 28 international stakeholders (60% German).
Overall, interviewees thought the dashboard was helpful in seeing where an institution stands and appreciated the fact that the metrics were based on concrete behaviors.
Main weaknesses included the lack of a narrative explaining the choice of the metrics covered.
Interviewees considered the dashboard a good opportunity to initiate change and hoped the dashboard could be supplemented with other indicators in the future.
They feared that making the dashboard public might risk incorrect interpretation of the metrics and put UMCs in a bad light.
Discussion
While the feedback was given specifically to our proof-of-principle dashboard, our findings indicate that discussion with stakeholders is needed to develop an overarching framework governing responsible research on an institutional level, and to involve research-performing organizations.
Related Results
619. Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) Target Attainment Analyses to Support Epetraborole Dose Selection for the Treatment of Patients with Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) Lung Disease
619. Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) Target Attainment Analyses to Support Epetraborole Dose Selection for the Treatment of Patients with Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) Lung Disease
Abstract
Background
Epetraborole (EBO) is an orally available, bacterial leucyl transfer RNA synthetase inhibitor that concentra...
LB2306. Population Pharmacokinetic (PPK), Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic attainment (PTA), and Clinical Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Analyses for Sulbactam-Durlobactam (SUL-DUR) to Support Dose Selection for the Treatment of Acinetobacter baum
LB2306. Population Pharmacokinetic (PPK), Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic attainment (PTA), and Clinical Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Analyses for Sulbactam-Durlobactam (SUL-DUR) to Support Dose Selection for the Treatment of Acinetobacter baum
Abstract
Background
SUL-DUR is a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination in development for the treatment of ABC infections, ...
593. Population Pharmacokinetic Model Development for Epetraborole and Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) Lung Disease Patients Using Data from Phase 1 and 2 Studies
593. Population Pharmacokinetic Model Development for Epetraborole and Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) Lung Disease Patients Using Data from Phase 1 and 2 Studies
Abstract
Background
Epetraborole (EBO), an orally available bacterial leucyl transfer RNA synthetase inhibitor with potent activ...
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Abstract
The rapid growth of open access publishing (OAP) has significantly improved the accessibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, this expansion has also c...
The Development of a Clinical Dashboard for Monitoring of Key Performance Indicators in ICU
The Development of a Clinical Dashboard for Monitoring of Key Performance Indicators in ICU
Background: Given the importance of the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), it is necessary to monitor the performance of this department to provide the urgent information required for clin...
Implementing a technical safety net: A scalable automated quality assurance tool for oncology patient navigation.
Implementing a technical safety net: A scalable automated quality assurance tool for oncology patient navigation.
612
Background:
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) implemented its Community-Focused Patient Navigation (CFPN) program in October 202...
Learning Analytics Dashboard for Twitter
Learning Analytics Dashboard for Twitter
<p>Considering the increasing use of Twitter for both formal and informal learning, the primary goal of this project is to design a Learning Analytics (LA) dashboard to suppo...
Learning Analytics Dashboard for Twitter
Learning Analytics Dashboard for Twitter
<p>Considering the increasing use of Twitter for both formal and informal learning, the primary goal of this project is to design a Learning Analytics (LA) dashboard to suppo...

