Difference between pages "Spot checks" and "1.4.3.5 Expectations from public funders"

From EQIPD
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "For a spot check, data / experiments may be selected randomly to see how well the RU is doing by finding answers to questions like ‘how easy is it to retrieve and reconstruc...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
For a spot check, data / experiments may be selected randomly to see how well the RU is doing by finding answers to questions like ‘how easy is it to retrieve and reconstruct the data?’, ‘have data been generated in an unbiased fashion?’ or ‘have all results been reported?’. The site visitor / assessor / auditor selects tests from the RU and organizes data transfer from studies for in-depth review, based on the study overview sent by the RU beforehand. During the course of the spot check, the site visitor / assessor / auditor can arrange data discussion meetings with scientists from the RU to ensure proper understanding of the data. At the end of the review, feedback will be provided to the RU and a report with observations will be sent. The RU may be requested to respond to these observations. In scope for a spot check are all studies…. (here we could set priorities, e.g., published studies, critical assays etc.).
+
=Background and Expectations=
 +
 
 +
EQIPD has developed a tool to support:
 +
* funders willing to communicate their expectations about data management and rigor in study design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
 +
* scientists applying for funding and willing to follow best practices in research rigor
 +
 
 +
For funders:
 +
* it is expected that the tool is made freely available (e.g. as a link) on the website informing applicants about the scope of the tool
 +
* the tool provides generic expectations formulated by the EQIPD working group and can be further extended by guidance and other information specific to a funding body
 +
* it is expected that different funding bodies will decide as to whether:
 +
** the use of this tool is mandatory or not
 +
** whether a report generated by the tool should be made part of the application for funding
 +
** whether any additional information or evidence should be provided to support answers collected by the tool
 +
 
 +
For scientists applying for funding:
 +
* the primary use of the tool is to help scientists identify potential gaps in the current practices
 +
* even if the use of the tool is not mandated by the funder, applicants may nevertheless want to add the report generated by the tool to the submission package in order to emphasize the adherence to the research practice expectations formulated by EQIPD
 +
 
 +
The tool creates a "snapshot" of the environment in which research is conducted and provides scientists/organizations with the opportunity to demonstrate to funders in a structured (comparable) way that they are aware of critical quality measures/requirements and that they have implemented (most of) these in their environment.
 +
 
 +
It ensures that funders and applicants can align on relevant quality expectations (based on the EQIPD framework) and that all parties involved speak the “same language”.
 +
 
 +
This tool is NOT supposed to guide scientists how to design and conduct specific experiments.
 +
 
 +
=Resources=
 +
 
 +
* [https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/EQIPD/ESCLBokAH8ZIuDcre3q5pp0BlN3IzHfYVr8clB9_UbT13w?e=48hlRK Excel-based tool] (The tool can be downloaded from the Online-Excel via the tab “File” in the menu, click on “Save as” and click on "Download a copy")
 +
* [https://public-funding-tool.paasp.net/survey Research Quality Transparency Tool] Online version
 +
 
 +
 
 +
----------------
 +
back to [[Toolbox]]
 +
 
 +
Next item: [[1.5.1 Quality policy]]​

Revision as of 14:13, 2 February 2023

Background and Expectations

EQIPD has developed a tool to support:

  • funders willing to communicate their expectations about data management and rigor in study design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
  • scientists applying for funding and willing to follow best practices in research rigor

For funders:

  • it is expected that the tool is made freely available (e.g. as a link) on the website informing applicants about the scope of the tool
  • the tool provides generic expectations formulated by the EQIPD working group and can be further extended by guidance and other information specific to a funding body
  • it is expected that different funding bodies will decide as to whether:
    • the use of this tool is mandatory or not
    • whether a report generated by the tool should be made part of the application for funding
    • whether any additional information or evidence should be provided to support answers collected by the tool

For scientists applying for funding:

  • the primary use of the tool is to help scientists identify potential gaps in the current practices
  • even if the use of the tool is not mandated by the funder, applicants may nevertheless want to add the report generated by the tool to the submission package in order to emphasize the adherence to the research practice expectations formulated by EQIPD

The tool creates a "snapshot" of the environment in which research is conducted and provides scientists/organizations with the opportunity to demonstrate to funders in a structured (comparable) way that they are aware of critical quality measures/requirements and that they have implemented (most of) these in their environment.

It ensures that funders and applicants can align on relevant quality expectations (based on the EQIPD framework) and that all parties involved speak the “same language”.

This tool is NOT supposed to guide scientists how to design and conduct specific experiments.

Resources


back to Toolbox

Next item: 1.5.1 Quality policy​

Retrieved from "http://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/index.php?title=Spot_checks&oldid=18940"