CLOSE
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

1 - 6of6
Refine Search
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of medicine: a cross-sectional study of the Canadian U15 universities
    FACETS • Vol. 6 • pp. 58 - 70
    Background: The objective of this study was to determine the presence of a set of prespecified criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure within faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities.Methods: Each faculty guideline for assessing promotion and tenure was reviewed and the presence of five traditional (peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national/international reputation) and seven nontraditional (citations, data sharing, publishing in open access mediums, accommodating leaves, alternative ways for sharing research, registering research, using reporting guidelines) criteria were collected by two reviewers.Results: Among the U15 institutions, four of five traditional criteria (80.0%) were present in at least one promotion guideline, whereas only three of seven nontraditional incentives (42.9%) were present in any promotion guidelines. When assessing full professors, there were a median of three traditional criteria listed, versus one nontraditional criterion.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities base assessments for promotion and tenure on traditional criteria. Some of these metrics may reinforce problematic practices in medical research. These faculties should consider incentivizing criteria that can enhance the quality of medical research.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Providing valid evidence for decision-making: the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network Methods and Applications Group in Indirect Comparisons (DSEN MAGIC)
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 809 - 821
    In 2009, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada, and other stakeholders established the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN) to address the paucity of information on drug safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. This unique network invited knowledge users (e.g., policy makers) to submit queries to be answered by relevant research teams. The research teams were launched via open calls for team grants focused in relevant methodologic areas. We describe the development and implementation of one of these collaborating centres, the Methods and Application Group for Indirect Comparisons (MAGIC). MAGIC was created to provide high-quality knowledge synthesis including network meta-analysis to meet knowledge user needs. Since 2011, MAGIC responded to 54% of queries submitted to DSEN. In the past 5 years, MAGIC produced 26 reports and 49 publications. It led to 15 trainees who entered industry, academia, and government. More than 10 000 people participated in courses delivered by MAGIC team members. Most importantly, MAGIC knowledge syntheses influenced practice and policy (e.g., use of biosimilars for patients with diabetes and use of smallpox vaccinations in people with contraindications) provincially, nationally, and internationally.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Rigour and reproducibility in Canadian research: call for a coordinated approach
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 18 - 24
    Shortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Three years of quality assurance data assessing the performance of over 4000 grant peer review contributions to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant Competition
    FACETS • Vol. 8 • pp. 1 - 14
    The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) commenced a Quality Assurance Program in 2019 to monitor the quality of peer review in its Project Grant Competition Peer Review Committees. Our primary aim was to describe the performance of CIHR grant peer reviewers, based on the assessments made by CIHR peer review leaders during the first 3 years of the Research Quality Assurance Program. All Peer Review Committee Chairs and (or) Scientific Officers who led peer review for CIHR in 2019, 2020, and 2021 completed Reviewer Quality Feedback forms immediately following Peer Review Committee meetings. The form assessed Performance, Future potential, Review quality, Participation, and Responsiveness. We summarised and descriptively synthesised data from assessments conducted after each of the four grant competitions. The performance of peer reviewers on 4438 occasions was rated by Chairs and Scientific Officers. Approximately one in three peer reviewers submitted outstanding reviews or discussed additional applications and one in 10 demonstrated potential as a future Peer Review Committee leader. At most, one in 20 peer reviewers was considered to have not performed adequately with respect to review quality, participation, or responsiveness. There is a need for more research on the processes involved in allocating research grant funding.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Evaluating prospective study registration and result reporting of trials conducted in Canada from 2009 to 2019
    FACETS • Vol. 8 • pp. 1 - 10
    Adherence to study registration and reporting best practices is vital to fostering evidence-based medicine. All registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov conducted in Canada as of 2009 and completed by 2019 were identified. A cross-sectional analysis of those trials assessed prospective registration, subsequent result reporting in the registry, and subsequent publication of study findings. The lead sponsor, phase of study, clinical trial site location, total patient enrollment, number of arms, type of masking, type of allocation, year of completion, and patient demographics were examined as potential effect modifiers to these best practices. A total of 6720 trials were identified. From 2009 to 2019, 59% (n = 3,967) of them were registered prospectively, and 32% (n = 2138) had neither their results reported nor their findings published. Of the 3763 trials conducted exclusively in Canada, 3% (n = 123) met all three criteria of prospective registration, reporting in the registry, and publishing findings. Overall, the odds of having adherence to all three practices concurrently in Canadian trials decrease by 95% when compared with international trials. Canadian clinical trials substantially lacked adherence to study registration and reporting best practices. Knowledge of this widespread non-compliance should motivate stakeholders in the Canadian clinical trial ecosystem to address and continue to monitor this problem.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    The White House’s march towards open science: implications for Canada
    FACETS • Vol. 8 • pp. 1 - 4