Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal

Co-production of knowledge between academic and non-academic communities is a prerequisite for research aiming at more sustainable development paths. Sustainability researchers face three challenges in such co-production: (a) addressing power relations; (b) interrelating different perspectives on the issues at stake; and (c) promoting a previously negotiated orientation towards sustainable development. A systematic comparison of four sustainability research projects in Kenya (vulnerability to drought), Switzerland (soil protection), Bolivia and Nepal (conservation vs. development) shows how the researchers intuitively adopted three different roles to face these challenges: the roles of reflective scientist, intermediary, and facilitator of a joint learning process. From this systematized and iterative self-reflection on the roles that a researcher can assume in the indeterminate social space where knowledge is co-produced, we draw conclusions regarding training.

Opinions on registering trial details: a survey of academic researchers

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a set of items related to study design and administrative information that should build the minimum set of data in a study register. A more comprehensive data set for registration is currently developed by the Ottawa Group. Since nothing is known about the attitudes of academic researchers towards prospective study registration, we surveyed academic researchers about their opinion regarding the registration of study details proposed by the WHO and the Ottawa Group. METHODS: This was a web-based survey of academic researchers currently running an investigator-initiated clinical study which is registered with clinicaltrials.gov. In July 2006 we contacted 1299 principal investigators of clinical studies by e-mail explaining the purpose of the survey and a link to access a 52-item questionnaire based on the proposed minimum data set by the Ottawa Group. Two reminder e-mails were sent each two weeks apart. Association between willingness to disclose study details and study phase was assessed using the chi-squared test for trend. To explore the potential influence of non-response bias we used logistic regression to assess associations between factors associated with non-response and the willingness to register study details. RESULTS: Overall response was low as only 282/1299 (22%) principal investigators participated in the survey. Disclosing study documents, in particular the study protocol and financial agreements, was found to be most problematic with only 31% of respondents willing to disclose these publicly. Consequently, only 34/282 (12%) agreed to disclose all details proposed by the Ottawa Group. Logistic regression indicated no association between characteristics of non-responders and willingness to disclose details. CONCLUSION: Principal investigators of non-industry sponsored studies are reluctant to disclose all data items proposed by the Ottawa Group. Disclosing the study protocol and financial agreements was found to be most problematic. Future discussions on trial registration should not only focus on industry but also on academic researchers.

The new Australasian goblin spider genus Prethopalpus (Araneae, Oonopidae)

The new goblin spider genus Prethopalpus is restricted to the Australasian tropics, from the lower Himalayan Mountains in Nepal and India to the Malaysian Peninsula, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Australia. Prethopalpus contains those species with a swollen palpal patella, which is one to two times the size of the femur, together with a cymbium and bulb that is usually separated, although it is largely fused in four species. The type species Opopaea fosuma Burger et al. from Sumatra, and Camptoscaphiella infernalis Harvey and Edward from Western Australia are newly transferred to Prethopalpus. The genus consists of 41 species of which 39 are newly described: P. ilam Baehr (♂, ♀) from Nepal; P. khasi Baehr (♂), P. madurai Baehr (♂), P. mahanadi Baehr (♂, ♀), and P. meghalaya Baehr (♂, ♀) from India; P. bali Baehr (♂), P. bellicosus Baehr and Thoma (♂, ♀), P. brunei Baehr (♂, ♀), P. deelemanae Baehr and Thoma (♂), P. java Baehr (♂, ♀), P. kranzae Baehr (♂), P. kropfi Baehr (♂, ♀), P. leuser Baehr (♂, ♀), P. magnocularis Baehr and Thoma (♂), P. pahang Baehr (♂), P. perak Baehr (♂, ♀), P. sabah Baehr (♂, ♀), P. sarawak Baehr (♂), P. schwendingeri Baehr (♂, ♀), and P. utara Baehr (♂, ♀) from Indonesia and Malaysia; and P. alexanderi Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. attenboroughi Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. blosfeldsorum Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. boltoni Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. callani Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. cooperi Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. eberhardi Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. framenaui Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. humphreysi Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. kintyre Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. scanloni Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. pearsoni Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. julianneae Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. maini Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. marionae Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. platnicki Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀), P. oneillae Baehr and Harvey (♂), P. rawlinsoni Baehr and Harvey (♂), and P. tropicus Baehr and Harvey (♂, ♀) from Australia and Papua New Guinea. Three separate keys to species from different geographical regions are provided. Most species are recorded from single locations and only three species are more widely distributed. A significant radiation of blind troglobites comprising 14 species living in subterranean ecosystems in Western Australia is discussed. These include several species that lack abdominal scuta, a feature previously used to define subfamilies of Oonopidae.

Panel report ECIS 2012: publication strategy for junior researchers: quantity vs. quality, importance of the first authorship and collaboration

The publication record is a key component of a successful academic career in IS. Despite its importance, its definition - especially for junior researchers―remains unclear. Is it better to have one A-publication or three Bpublications? Does being the third author on an A-publication carry more weight than being the first author on a Bpublication? Is it better to publish with as few co-authors as possible to demonstrate ability for independent work or is publishing with others a sign of good teamwork and academic excellence? Faced with these uncertainties, young researchers increasingly question the choices they make regarding their publication strategy. If unaddressed, these issues are bound to interfere with the quality of the IS research and scholars’ job satisfaction. This article raises these concerns associated with a publication strategy for junior researchers and reports the views voiced by five academics at a panel session at the European Conference on Information Systems 2012. In particular, the following topics are discussed: quantity vs. quality, value of the first authorship, the “optimal” number of authors, and the issues of co-authorship with an academic supervisor.

Let’s collaborate, but I will be the first author! Exploring the importance of the first authorship for IS researchers

Collaboration among researchers is typically seen as the quintessence of academic excellence, leading to improvements in the research quality, capitalization on the diversity of perspectives and gains in productivity. Despite these benefits, many research teams find themselves torn by competition, antagonism and resentment. Desire to be the first author and resultant underperformance of non-first co-authors is often at the root of these conflicts. At the same time little is known about what motivates researchers in general and IS researchers in particular to engage as first authors. To fill this gap, this study uses survey methodology to explore the attitudes of IS researchers and their resulting behavior when it comes to authors order. Qualitative and quantitative evidence collected from 398 IS researchers is used to support our analysis. We find that researchers’ desire to be the first authors is mainly driven by such determinants as career aspirations, visibility, leadership and sense of ownership, and less so by the desire to satisfy their self-esteem and self-actualization needs. In addition, the value placed on being the first author appears to be the function of researchers’ career level, with Ph.D. students attaching significantly higher value to it than senior scholars.

Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?

Previous studies have shown medical students in Germany to have little interest in research while at the same time there is a lack of physician scientists. This study’s aim is to investigate factors influencing publication productivity of physicians during and after finishing their medical doctorate. We conducted a PubMed search for physicians having received their doctoral degree at Ludwig-Maxmilians-University Munich Faculty of Medicine between 2011 and 2013 (N = 924) and identified the appropriate impact factor (IF) for each journal the participants had published in. Gender, age, final grade of the doctorate, participation in a structured doctoral study program and joint publication activities between graduate and academic supervisor were defined as factors. For analyses we used nonparametric procedures. Men show significantly more publications than women. Before their doctoral graduation men publish 1.98 (SD ± 3.64) articles on average, women 1.15 (±2.67) (p < 0.0001, d = 0.27). After completion of the doctorate (up to 06/2015), 40 % of men still publish, while only 24.3 % of women (p < 0.0001, φ = 0.17) continue to publish. No differences were found concerning the value of IFs. Similar results were found regarding the variable ‘participation in a structured doctoral study program’. Until doctoral graduation, program participants publish 2.82 (±5.41) articles, whereas participants doing their doctorate individually only publish 1.39 (±2.87) articles (p < 0.0001, d = 0.46). These differences persist in publication activities after graduation (45.5 vs. 29.7 %, p = 0.008, φ = 0.09). A structured doctorate seems to have positive influence on IFs (4.33 ± 2.91 vs. 3.37 ± 2.82, p = 0.006, d = 0.34). Further significant results concern the variables ‘final grade’ and ‘age’: An early doctoral graduation and an excellent or very good grade for the doctoral thesis positively influence publication productivity. Finally, joint publication activities between the graduate and his/her academic supervisor result in significantly higher IFs (3.64 ± 3.03 vs. 2.84 ± 2.25, p = 0.007, d = 0.28). The study’s results support the assumption about women’s underrepresentation in science as well as the relevance of structured doctoral study programs for preparing and recruiting young academics in medicine for scientific careers. Promoting women and further development of structured doctoral study programs are highly recommended.