Network information foraging behavior strategy of virtual scientific research team members

2015 ◽  
pp. 519-522
Keyword(s):  
Foraging Behavior ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Information Foraging ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Network Information ◽  
Behavior Strategy

scholarly journals Arbitration is needed to resolve scientific authorship disputes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zen Faulkes
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Large Power ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Power Differentials ◽  
Scientific Authorship

Authorship of publications is the main way scientists received credit for their academic research. But as scientific research projects have become larger and more collaborative, the number of contributors has increased, and so has the potential for disputes over authorship. There is rarely detailed accounting of effort to justify authorship inclusion or placement. Instead, authorship is often negotiated by research team members, which is complicated by there often being large power differentials between team members. Existing recommendations are to try to get authors to work out disputes between themselves, which is unlikely to occur. There is an urgent need for an independent body that can offer binding arbitration for scientific collaborators and journals, like practices in other collaborative disciplines.

scholarly journals Arbitration is needed to resolve scientific authorship disputes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zen Faulkes
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Large Power ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Power Differentials ◽  
Scientific Authorship

Authorship of publications is the main way scientists received credit for their academic research. But as scientific research projects have become larger and more collaborative, the number of contributors has increased, and so has the potential for disputes over authorship. There is rarely detailed accounting of effort to justify authorship inclusion or placement. Instead, authorship is often negotiated by research team members, which is complicated by there often being large power differentials between team members. Existing recommendations are to try to get authors to work out disputes between themselves, which is unlikely to occur. There is an urgent need for an independent body that can offer binding arbitration for scientific collaborators and journals, like practices in other collaborative disciplines.

Study on Knowledge Integration Social Network of Scientific Research Team in University

2012 ◽  
Vol 479-481 ◽  
pp. 623-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Fang Liu ◽  
Yong Jiu Yuan ◽  
Chen Guang Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Knowledge Integration ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Joint Research ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Measurement Analysis ◽  
Measurement Results ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
As Relationship

The paper gets a scientific research team in university as a case, through the collection of the joint research achievements of the team members nearly 3 years to build the knowledge integration social network and to study the practical problems such as relationship of team members which occurred in the process of knowledge integration. From the perspective of the overall network to conduct a detailed study on the knowledge integration network of this scientific research team, includes three aspects: network viscosity measurement, centrality measurement and structural holes measurement. Analysis the measurement results and gives recommendations to improve the level of knowledge integration in the scientific research team of university.

Fieldnotes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lowndes ◽  
Palle Storm ◽  
Marta Szebehely
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Ethnographic Methodology

This chapter discusses the taking, writing up, and analyzing of fieldnotes as part of the rapid ethnographic methodology. It describes the preparatory process the team members went through to learn how to conduct observations, and the guiding documents/principles used by the research team throughout the site visits. We explain how observations were carried out and how fieldnotes were captured in our project, comparing this process to that of traditional ethnographic research. It compares the process of writing up and analyzing fieldnotes in traditional ethnography with the process used in the team-based rapid ethnography, drawing on our individual experiences in conducting both types. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the team-based approach.

scholarly journals MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 6104
Author(s):  
Erin Polka ◽  
Ellen Childs ◽  
Alexa Friedman ◽  
Kathryn S. Tomsho ◽  
Birgit Claus Henn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Equitable Access ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
The Impact

Sharing individualized results with health study participants, a practice we and others refer to as “report-back,” ensures participant access to exposure and health information and may promote health equity. However, the practice of report-back and the content shared is often limited by the time-intensive process of personalizing reports. Software tools that automate creation of individualized reports have been built for specific studies, but are largely not open-source or broadly modifiable. We created an open-source and generalizable tool, called the Macro for the Compilation of Report-backs (MCR), to automate compilation of health study reports. We piloted MCR in two environmental exposure studies in Massachusetts, USA, and interviewed research team members (n = 7) about the impact of MCR on the report-back process. Researchers using MCR created more detailed reports than during manual report-back, including more individualized numerical, text, and graphical results. Using MCR, researchers saved time producing draft and final reports. Researchers also reported feeling more creative in the design process and more confident in report-back quality control. While MCR does not expedite the entire report-back process, we hope that this open-source tool reduces the barriers to personalizing health study reports, promotes more equitable access to individualized data, and advances self-determination among participants.

scholarly journals The Moderator Effect of Researchers' Team Tenure Heterogeneity on the Relationship Between Improvisation Behavior and Innovative Performance in Henan Province, China

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ming Li ◽  
Fuangfa Amponstira
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Coping Strategy ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Henan Province ◽  
Moderator Effect ◽  
Innovative Performance ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Positive Effect

With the face of a highly uncertain market environment, an empirical study of researchers in Henan Province found that improvisational behavior has a positive effect on innovation performance, and that team tenure heterogeneity has a significant moderating effect between improvisational behavior and innovative performance. Therefore, we propose a coping strategy to improve innovative performance form the use of team tenure heterogeneity to form a scientific research team and create an environment conducive to improvisational behavior.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document