Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue

Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1) (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

BackgroundHealth research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens.DiscussionWhile experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research—including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations—have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed.ConclusionWe propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,475

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Should Universities File Patent Applications?Gilles Capart - 2006 - Ethical Perspectives 13 (2):221-230.
Peer review and innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
International Research Ethics Education.J. Millum, B. Sina & R. Glass - 2015 - Journal of the American Medical Association 313 (5):461-62.
Priorities in the Use of Research into Ageing.Harry Lesser - 2005 - Health Care Analysis 13 (1):53-58.
Funding and Forums for ELSI Research: Who (or What) Is Setting the Agenda?Clair Morrissey & Rebecca Walker - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics Primary Research 3 (3):41-50.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-02-03

Downloads
4 (#1,615,905)

6 months
3 (#974,323)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?