An Evaluation of agricultural research : report of Committee on Research Evaluation.

Mode of access: Internet.

Cooperative Alcoholic Rehabilitation Program progress report & research evaluation plan /

"February 1968."

Gender and the evaluation of research

This study examines if and how gender relates to research evaluation via panel assessment and journal ratings lists. Using data from UK business schools we find no evidence that the proportion of women in a submission for panel assessment affected the score received by the submitting institution. However, we do find that women on average receive lower scores according to some journal ratings lists. There are important differences in the rated quality of journals that men and women publish in across the sub-disciplines with men publishing significantly more research in the highest rated accountancy, information management and strategy journals. In addition, women who are able to utilise networks to co-author with individuals outside their institution are able to publish in higher-rated journals, although the same is not true for men; women who are attributed with “individual staff circumstances” (e.g. maternity leave or part-time working) have lower scores according to journal ratings lists.

Evaluation of control devices for asphalt pavement recycling operations : summary report for research project HR-188, 1982

The objective of the research project was to seek acceptable solutions to the air pollution problem created in the asphalt recycling process using modified conventional equipment.

Need of reduced and harmonized bureaucracy in multi-centre clinical research - a case-report from a Swiss trial

Introduction We launched an investigator-initiated study(ISRCTN31181395) to evaluate the potential benefit of pharmacokinetic-guided dosage individualization of imatinib for leukaemia patients followed in public and private sectors. Following approval by the research ethics committee (REC) of the coordinating centre, recruitment throughout Switzerland necessitated to submit the protocol to 11 cantonal RECs.Materials and Methods We analysed requirements and evaluation procedures of the 12 RECs with associated costs.Results 1-18 copies of the dossier, in total 4300 printed pages, were required (printing/posting costs: ~300 CHF) to meet initial requirements. Meeting frequencies of RECs ranged between 2 weeks and 2 months, time from submission to first feedback took 2-75 days. Study approval was obtained from a chairman, a subor the full committee, the evaluation work being invoiced by 0-1000 CHF (median: 750 CHF, total: 9200 CHF). While 5 RECs gave immediate approval, the other 6 rose in total 38 queries before study release, mainly related to wording in the patient information, leading to 7 different final versions approved. Submission tasks employed an investigator half-time over about 6 months.Conclusion While the necessity of clinical research evaluation by independent RECs is undisputed, there is a need of further harmonization and cooperation in evaluation procedures. Current administrative burden is indeed complex, time-consuming and costly. A harmonized electronic application form, preferably compatible with other regulatory bodies and European countries, could increase transparency, improve communication, and encourage academic multi-centre clinical research in Switzerland.