Recently, foreign interference has emerged as an important compliance issue for U.S. research institutions, due to efforts by foreign governments to misappropriate intellectual property and research. Consequently, federal funding agencies are now requiring research institutions to ensure compliance with foreign component regulations and to implement protections against foreign interference. This paper offers an analysis of foreign interference cases and recommendations from national committees and leading academic institutions, summarizing the geopolitical context, compliance risks, risk management strategies, and future challenges in this area. The key risks identified were the diversion of IP and research and non-disclosure of foreign sponsorship. Recommended compliance and risk management strategies include centralized work groups, monitoring and auditing, integration of foreign component compliance into research misconduct and conflict of interest and commitment policies, staff training, and security controls. Special attention should be paid to future regulations and industry standards for dual appointments and foreign talent recruitment programs and compliance with federal deemed-export and equal employment opportunity laws. Finally, foreign interference management programs should also include measures to prevent racial profiling and xenophobia, while emphasizing a commitment to international collaboration, a diverse workforce, and America’s open academic system. Research Management Review, Volume 24, Number 1 (2020)
Research development is increasingly recognized as a distinct field of employment. Practitioners currently self-identify as research development professionals based on their responsibilities or move into roles that have already been defined as being part of this field. The only professional organization in the United States for persons whose responsibilities have been defined as being in the field, the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP), just celebrated its tenth anniversary. As research development is a reasonably new realm of professional activity, the full extent of practitioner purposes and practices has yet to be delineated. To address the need for empirically-based understandings, an investigation of what research developers do was undertaken using the only known corpus that directly describes research development, the job descriptions in research development position announcements. Content analysis of this material was completed as the initial step in a multistage investigation that will address type, scope, and scale questions to facilitate a more formalized understanding of research development. The intention is to produce evidence-based understandings to “help us better understand what kinds of individuals, with what kinds of training, skills, and abilities, are best suited for various roles within research development, as well as what their professional trajectories are” (Stone, 2015, para. 5). This will facilitate differentiation from other areas of professional practice, like research administration, and “might improve our capacity to recruit, retain, and provide succession planning and longer-term career paths...in research development” (Stone, 2015, para. 5). Research Management Review, Volume 23, Number 1 (2018)
This thesis investigates the research funding patterns at ten doctoral universities across the country, classified by Carnegie as R2: Higher Research Activity institutions. Findings detail patterns in funding and research growth and the relationship between research administrators and funded projects. This mixed methods study uses quantitative and qualitative data to examine each of these universities’ total award dollars received in the FY2017 and compares the top three departments funded and how funding may relate to the research administration missions of each research office. I also analyze the source of research dollars, including federal and other external sponsors, and the percentage of proposals submitted versus those awarded. Overall, this paper encompasses and conceptualizes the complicated, competitive grant process at the university level and argues that in order for administrators to increase access to research dollars, they should: understand the funding climate, stay connected to their institutions’ community of scholars, and encourage scholars to conduct scholarship that drives opportunity, innovation, and change.
The purpose of the Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP) project was to obtain a snapshot of the research management and administration (RMA) profession around the world. This included collecting basic demographics, which is the focus of this paper. Here, we present the results of a worldwide survey of RMAs conducted in 2016. We compare and contrast the demographics of RMAs across different regions of the world. Findings from previous national surveys, such as those by Roberts & House (2005), and Shambrook et al (2015), are upheld and expanded in an international context—for example, that the profession is predominantly female. In addition, a high level of academic attainment is also reported, in line with findings from D’Agostino et al. (1991). There are some significant differences in responses between regions of the world which reflect the differential maturity of the profession. For example, the U.S. has by far the highest number of respondents with over 20 years’ experience in research administration as compared to the other regions. The reasons for joining and staying in the profession are also explored, with positives including working with faculty, the challenging work, and the fun. The extensive datasets are not fully explored in this paper and others are invited to use them for their own research and analyses. Overall, we conclude that research administration is becoming a global profession and argue that in some regions it is more advanced than in others, as reflected in the composition of the workforce and the availability and uptake of certification.
Bibliometric benchmarking can be an aid to researchers pondering whether to apply for competitive grants. In this paper, the highly prestigious grants offered by the European Research Council to young scientists of any nationality were scrutinized. The analysis of the 2014–2015 data indicates that over 75% of life science grantees in the starting category (2–7 years after completing a Ph.D. degree program) had at least 14 papers and an H-index of 10 (28 and 16, respectively ,in the case of the consolidator category—i.e., 7–12 years after obtaining the Ph.D.). Yet other signs of excellence, expert advice, and the limitations of metric approaches need to be considered. INTRODUCTION Think of a scientist pondering whether to submit an application to the European Research Council (ERC). The carrot is a tasty one: joining the prestigious club of those—over 5,500 members of 66 nationalities, including over 180 U.S. nationals—who have received, since 2007, one of the 5-year 1.5–2.5 million euro grant (European Research Council, 2015). The scientist may have an excellent project idea (ground-breaking and high-gain high-risk, in ERC language), which will be put to the test during the evaluation process. However, a second criterion will have to be met: the CV and track record also must be excellent. So what sort of measure of excellence would that be? After all, even for the best scientist at a given department or institution, a track record that is not perceived as outstanding at the European level will have no chance, meaning months of preparation spent in vain. The opposite may also occur, with scientists who could Research Management Review, Volume 21, Number 1 (2016) 2 potentially succeed not submitting an application due to excessive modesty. Benchmarking merits against previous grantees may be the next thought—in most cases these are young scientists either within the starting (2–7 years after Ph.D.) or consolidator (7–12 years after Ph.D.) categories (European Research Council, 2016). And here is where, at least within some disciplines (including the life sciences), bibliometric analyses could prove handy. So with a focus on the ERC Life Science (LS) domain and its 9 panels, key publication metrics for all 488 Starting and Consolidator grantees in the 2014 and 2015 rounds were retrieved from Scopus. Figure 1 displays quartile values, which may offer a useful reference to the pondering young scientist while controlling for outliers. The highlighted first quartile values, for example for the LS1 panel (Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry), reveal that 75% of grantees in the starting category had at least 13 papers (counted as Scopustype articles and reviews), 523 citations (not shown) and H-index of 10. The equivalent values for consolidators in the same panel are 24 papers, 949 citations, and an H-index of 16. Figure 1. Bibliometrics for the 2014–2015 ERC Starting and Consolidator Grantees in the life Sciences. (A) and (B) display number of papers and (C) and (D) H-indices. Value ranges are indicated by vertical lines. Boxes delimit the first (Q1) and third (Q3) quartiles, with median values also marked. Q1 values are shown and connected by a line. Research Management Review, Volume 22, Number 1 (2017) 3 The graphs also capture differences between panels, likely reflecting variation in publication and citation practices by field. Values were somewhat lower in panels such as LS3 (Cellular and Developmental Biology) and LS5 (Neurosciences and Neural Disorders). The LS7 panel (Diagnostic Tools, Therapies and Public Health) showed some of the highest values, possibly consistent with the fact that this life science panel received the most applications. The highest interquartile range values were found in some of the consolidator panels (e.g., LS7 and LS4— Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology), indicating a higher variability in grantees’ metrics. ERC MYTHS AND FACTS While little has been shared in the literature, there is a great deal of expertise on the ERC among European research institutions. In the words of the late Professor Ilkka Hanski (ERC Advanced grantee and former panel chair), an H-index approaching 10 could be considered a good indication when applying for ERC Starting, which seems in line with the values shown above. With respect to the often claimed “hidden” additional criteria, such as the need for prior international mobility, preliminary evidence reassuring feasibility, or a paper in Science, Nature or Cell (The Guardian, 2014), no evidence was found to support such claims. With regard to the latter, the data showed tremendous panel variations, with, for example, 80% of starting grantees in LS1 having such a paper versus just 18% in LS7. Considering the tough international competition for these grants, these and any other merits are simply likely to help—for example, it has been observed that ERC panels tend to select applicants who have published highimpact articles (Robitaille et al., 2015). Without splitting hairs about the values shown in the figure, we could derive the general conclusion that young scientists whose metrics are above first quartile values should probably stop pondering and start applying. All things considered, this look into metrics confirms something that comes as no surprise: the ERC is highly competitive and only for the best, with the 12–15% success rates for 2015 as a reminder. Yet, metrics could be of use in planning and rationalizing efforts when targeting research funding. The fairness of the ERC process [aside from political considerations (The Guardian, 2014) or exasperation about ever-changing deadlines] is widely acknowledged, especially with regard to recognizing excellence. Not surprisingly, rankings of excellence nowadays include counts of ERC grants, and an increasing number of organizations are re-modelling Research Management Review, Volume 21, Number 1 (2016) 4 their schemes to imitate the ERC, with even some national programs sponsoring the best non-funded ERC applications (Nature Cell Biology, 2010). As institutional recruitment practices follow suit, the issue at hand will continue to attract attention. A recent report commissioned by the ERC indicated that scores attributed by the evaluation committees match well with applicant performance as measured by bibliometric indicators (Robitaille et al., 2015, p. 69). Still, obvious caution should be exercised in the interpretation of our values given the limitations of the metrics approach [see Science (2016) for a discussion on metrics for young scientists]. In the case presented here, only grantees’ profiles were considered, with the excellence of the project idea criterion not accounted for. While effort was put into cross-checking the accuracy of the data (e.g., checking researchers’ ORCID and their own websites when necessary), the publication numbers in Scopus may not exactly match the scientists’ record at the time of the evaluation. Furthermore, the metrics analyses only capture a part of the picture (e.g., overlooking merits such as awards or the scientist’s contributions to multiauthored papers). Whereas substantial differences in the material and methods used impeded a comparison of results with two related studies [those of Pecha on a 2012 Starting grantees’ cohort (Pecha, 2014), and of the MERCI project with 2007 and 2009 Starting applicants (MERCI project, n.d.)], the described analyses can be easily replicated with future ERC cohorts, and may be likewise relevant for other competitive research funding schemes. When interpreting values, the golden rules of metrics also need to be remembered: use more than one metric to give insights into an issue, and support conclusions with expert analysis (Colledge & Verlinde, 2014). Research advisors, ERC National Contact Points, and particularly ERC-experienced scientists will be great supports for the pondering scientist who, if still doubting, should just be encouraged to apply. LITERATURE CITED Colledge, L., & Verlinde, R. (2014). SciVal metrics guidebook, Version 1.01. New York: Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/53327/scival-metrics-guidebookv1_01-february2014.pdf European Research Council. (2015). Ideas newsletter (December). https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/files/Newsletter_December_2015.pdf European Research Council. (2016). 2016 work programme (July). https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_Work_Programme_2016.pdf Research Management Review, Volume 21, Number 1 (2016) 5 The Guardian. (2014). European research funding: It's like Robin Hood in reverse (7 November). http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/07/european-researchfunding-horizon-2020 MERCI project. (n.d.). Monitoring European Research Council’s implementation of excellence. Final Report. http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/177023_en.html Nature Cell Biology. (2010. A maturing European Research Council (Editorial), 12, 307. http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v12/n4/full/ncb0410-307.html Pecha, O. (2014). Results of a bibliometric analysis of successful applicants for ERC starting grants in 2012. Prague: Technology Centre AS CR. Robitaille, J. P., Macaluso, B., Pollitt, A., Gunashekar, S., & Lariviè, V. (2015). Comparative scientometric assessment of the results of ERC-funded projects, bibliometric assessment report. Report prepared for the European Commission. https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_Bibliometrics_report.pdf Science. (2016). Measure of success (Letters, NextGen Voices). 28, 352. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/03/342.6154.36.DC1
In 2013, the University of California, Biomedical Research, Acceleration, Integration, and Development (UC BRAID) convened a regional network of contracting directors from the five University of California (UC) health campuses to: (i) increase collaboration, (ii) operationalize and measure common metrics as a basis for performance improvement efforts, and (iii) identify and implement best practices to maintain a competitive edge in the field of biomedical research. This article summarizes an 18-month examination of performance metrics across the five campuses, including methods for data collection and harmonization agreed upon by the UC contracting offices. Some of the most striking, and previously unmeasured, results demonstrate that master agreements are a highly effective and successful strategy for significantly shortening the average time to completion of contract terms. Interestingly, clinical research organizations (CROs) significantly increase the time required to negotiate a contract. Results also point to the intra- and inter-organizational dependencies affecting time to contract execution. Systematic and transparent data collection among UC stakeholders is necessary to continue improvements to the system. However, data collection is only one component of the larger need to develop shared technology both within and between institutions. This study demonstrates that collaboration and sharing of contract terms is an effective way to reduce study activation time, but the greatest improvements will be driven by the sharing of data and technology tools.
The most difficult aspect of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) and compliance with federal regulations involves the assessment and management of identified FCOIs. While some federal agencies provide examples of the structure and content of management plans, it is up to institutions to evaluate FCOI to determine whether and how research may be conducted when conflict is present. Unfortunately, there is minimal federal guidance on the evaluation and management aspect of FCOI and institutions must carefully consider and implement appropriate procedures to ensure compliance. Once a conflict has been disclosed and is known by the institution, the burden of responsibility falls squarely on the institution. Without clear direction from federal agencies, institutions may become paralyzed with indecision or refuse to allow any research to proceed where there is known conflict. Sources exist which provide some guidance on how to mitigate conflicts of interest. This paper provides information and steps to assist institutions with the evaluation and management of FCOI.
This article provides a description of an 18-month pilot program focused on the leadership development of the next generation of research administrators (RAs) in the State University of New York system (SUNY). The key questions for the evaluators were: 1) can we create a developmental program that effectively prepares the next generation of RAs; 2) what content generates the highest impact for RA leadership development; and 3) is the combination of an assigned mentor with a professional development curriculum series comprised of twelve elements an effective method of delivering the program? A pre-, mid-point and post-questionnaire, plus reflective essays were used in the evaluation of the program. The RA leadership attributes developed were: confidence, risk-taking, growth in multicultural values, and embracing multiple perspectives. Such characteristics are important traits for RAs to have in order to excel in a complex, changing, and interconnected professional work environment. Participants defined attainable career goals, acquired valuable feedback from mentors, established collaborative networks for problemsolving and advanced perceptions of self in acquiring leadership traits. Participants also practiced new leadership behaviors, volunteered more for workplace assignments, and heightened their mastery and sense of purpose at work. Overall, job satisfaction improved. The article incorporates recommendations for future mentoring programming in the SUNY system. Research Management Review, Volume 21, Number 1 (2016)
