Improvement of research quality in the fields of orthopaedics and trauma: a global perspective.

The international orthopaedic community aims to achieve the best possible outcome for patient care by constantly modifying surgical techniques and expanding the surgeon's knowledge. These efforts require proper reflection within a setting that necessitates a higher quality standard for global orthopaedic publication. Furthermore, these techniques demand that surgeons acquire information at a rapid rate while enforcing higher standards in research performance. An international consensus exists on how to perform research and what rules should be considered when publishing a scientific paper. Despite this global agreement, in today's "Cross Check Era", too many authors do not give attention to the current standards of systematic research. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to describe these performance standards, the available choices for orthopaedic surgeons and the current learning curve for seasoned teams of researchers and orthopaedic surgeons with more than three decades of experience. These lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the topics that will significantly influence the research development as we arrive at an important globalisation era in orthopaedics and trauma-related research.

Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice

In this article, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) Task Force on Publication and Research Practices offers a brief statistical primer and recommendations for improving the dependability of research. Recommendations for research practice include (a) describing and addressing the choice of N (sample size) and consequent issues of statistical power, (b) reporting effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), (c) avoiding “questionable research practices” that can inflate the probability of Type I error, (d) making available research materials necessary to replicate reported results, (e) adhering to SPSP’s data sharing policy, (f) encouraging publication of high-quality replication studies, and (g) maintaining flexibility and openness to alternative standards and methods. Recommendations for educational practice include (a) encouraging a culture of “getting it right,” (b) teaching and encouraging transparency of data reporting, (c) improving methodological instruction, and (d) modeling sound science and supporting junior researchers who seek to “get it right.”

New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of integrated psychological therapy (IPT) for schizophrenia patients: a research update

Standardized recovery criteria go beyond symptom remission and put special emphasis on personal and social functioning in residence, work, and leisure. Against this background, evidence-based integrated approaches combining cognitive remediation with social skills therapy show promise for improving functional recovery of schizophrenia patients. Over the past 30 years, research groups in 12 countries have evaluated integrated psychological therapy (IPT) in 36 independent studies. IPT is a group therapy program for schizophrenia patients. It combines neurocognitive and social cognitive interventions with social skills and problem-solving approaches. The aim of the present study was to update and integrate the growing amount of research data on the effectiveness of IPT. We quantitatively reviewed the results of these 36 studies, including 1601 schizophrenia patients, by means of a meta-analytic procedure. Patients undergoing IPT showed significantly greater improvement in all outcome variables (neurocognition, social cognition, psychosocial functioning, and negative symptoms) than those in the control groups (placebo-attention conditions and standard care). IPT patients maintained their mean positive effects during an average follow-up period of 8.1 months. They showed better effects on distal outcome measures when all 5 subprograms were integrated. This analysis summarizes the broad empirical evidence indicating that IPT is an effective rehabilitation approach for schizophrenia patients and is robust across a wide range of sample characteristics as well as treatment conditions. Moreover, the cognitive and social subprograms of IPT may work in a synergistic manner, thereby enhancing the transfer of therapy effects over time and improving functional recovery.

A novel comparative research platform designed to determine the functional significance of tree species diversity in European forests

One of the current advances in functional biodiversity research is the move away from short-lived test systems towards the exploration of diversity-ecosystem functioning relationships in structurally more complex ecosystems. In forests, assumptions about the functional significance of tree species diversity have only recently produced a new generation of research on ecosystem processes and services. Novel experimental designs have now replaced traditional forestry trials, but these comparatively young experimental plots suffer from specific difficulties that are mainly related to the tree size and longevity. Tree species diversity experiments therefore need to be complemented with comparative observational studies in existing forests. Here we present the design and implementation of a new network of forest plots along tree species diversity gradients in six major European forest types: the FunDivEUROPE Exploratory Platform. Based on a review of the deficiencies of existing observational approaches and of unresolved research questions and hypotheses, we discuss the fundamental criteria that shaped the design of our platform. Key features include the extent of the species diversity gradient with mixtures up to five species, strict avoidance of a dilution gradient, special attention to community evenness and minimal covariation with other environmental factors. The new European research platform permits the most comprehensive assessment of tree species diversity effects on forest ecosystem functioning to date since it offers a common set of research plots to groups of researchers from very different disciplines and uses the same methodological approach in contrasting forest types along an extensive environmental gradient. (C) 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Assessing the state of Sustainable Land Management research in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

This article synthesizes findings from a review of the state of research on sustainable land management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and from an analysis of the interface between research and action. Using the Global Land Project (GLP 2005) analytical framework, we analyzed the distribution of 131 selected publications (including a clearly defined set of local and international academic and gray literature) across the framework's components and links in a social–ecological system. There is a strong emphasis in the literature on the impact of changes in land use and management on ecosystems; however, there is little research on the implications for ecosystem services. This finding is opposed to that of a similar analysis of publications at the global scale (Björnsen Gurung et al 2012). Another major gap was the lack of research on Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan regarding the influence of global factors on social and ecological systems, despite social, economic, and political integration into global structures since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the increasing influence of climate change. Our analysis disaggregated academic literature published in the region and international academic literature, revealing stark differences. These differences are partly attributable to the legacy of the late Soviet era principle of “rational use of land resources,” which fit the planned economy but lacks approaches for decentralized resource governance. Finally, the emphasis of research on systems knowledge, the lack of transdisciplinary research, and the critical feedback of stakeholders at a regional sustainable land management forum suggest that actionable sustainable land management research on Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is rare. Recommendations are made for targeted, application-focused, multistakeholder research and knowledge sharing, including local and international researchers as well as practitioners, policy-makers, and land users.

Pile-dwellings of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in Switzerland. Long-term research and future tasks

Swiss lake-side settlements dating between 4300 and 800 BC were first recognized in the early 19th century and between 1854 and 1880 early research boomed due to the first scientific studies and the artificial lowering of lakes in Western Switzerland. In the 20th century underwater and wetland archaeology experienced an enormous surge not only because of large rescue excavations, due to extensive motorway construction projects but also due to the evolution of modern IT technology in the 1970s. For the first time huge quantities of ancient wooden structures could be dated by dendrochronology. This produced a quantum leap in the 150 years of pile-dwelling research. In 2011, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee recognized the outstanding universal value of these sites. This article presents an overview about Swiss pile-dwellings of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age and the results of two recent diploma works (case study Sutz-Lattrigen Haupstation innen and case study Seedorf Lobsigensee) as examples of research and cooperation between universities and government agencies for cultural heritage management.

Moving forward on facilitation research: response to changing environments and effects on the diversity, functioning and evolution of plant communities

Once seen as anomalous, facilitative interactions among plants and their importance for community structure and functioning are now widely recognized. The growing body of modelling, descriptive and experimental studies on facilitation covers a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic systems throughout the globe. However, the lack of a general body of theory linking facilitation among different types of organisms and biomes and their responses to environmental changes prevents further advances in our knowledge regarding the evolutionary and ecological implications of facilitation in plant communities. Moreover, insights gathered from alternative lines of inquiry may substantially improve our understanding of facilitation, but these have been largely neglected thus far. Despite over 15 years of research and debate on this topic, there is no consensus on the degree to which plant–plant interactions change predictably along environmental gradients (i.e. the stress-gradient hypothesis), and this hinders our ability to predict how plant–plant interactions may affect the response of plant communities to ongoing global environmental change. The existing controversies regarding the response of plant–plant interactions across environmental gradients can be reconciled when clearly considering and determining the species-specificity of the response, the functional or individual stress type, and the scale of interest (pairwise interactions or community-level response). Here, we introduce a theoretical framework to do this, supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence. We also discuss current gaps in our knowledge regarding how plant–plant interactions change along environmental gradients. These include the existence of thresholds in the amount of species-specific stress that a benefactor can alleviate, the linearity or non-linearity of the response of pairwise interactions across distance from the ecological optimum of the beneficiary, and the need to explore further how frequent interactions among multiple species are and how they change across different environments. We review the latest advances in these topics and provide new approaches to fill current gaps in our knowledge. We also apply our theoretical framework to advance our knowledge on the evolutionary aspects of plant facilitation, and the relative importance of facilitation, in comparison with other ecological processes, for maintaining ecosystem structure, functioning and dynamics. We build links between these topics and related fields, such as ecological restoration, woody encroachment, invasion ecology, ecological modelling and biodiversity–ecosystem-functioning relationships. By identifying commonalities and insights from alternative lines of research, we further advance our understanding of facilitation and provide testable hypotheses regarding the role of (positive) biotic interactions in the maintenance of biodiversity and the response of ecological communities to ongoing environmental changes.