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

From EQIPD
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
=Background and Expectations=
  
−
Spot check is a a close look at a few items in a group.
+
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
  
−
Within the EQIPD framework, spot check is an examination of various activities and processes to make sure that everything is being done according to the expectations.
+
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 a spot check, records / data / experiments may be selected randomly to see how well the RU is doing by finding answers to questions such as:
+
For scientists applying for funding:
−
- how easy is it to retrieve and reconstruct the data?
+
* the primary use of the tool is to help scientists identify potential gaps in the current practices
−
- are study protocols completed prior to the start of experiments?
+
* 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
−
- have data been generated in an unbiased fashion?
 
−
- have all results been reported?
 
  
−
Spot checks are typically conducted by a [https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/1.5.2.3_Process_owner Process owner] or someone to whom this task is delegated. EQIPD does not require that the research unit maintains documentation on spot checks conducted and leaves it up to the Process owner and the research unit to decide how often spot checks are conducted, how the outcome is evaluated, discussed, reported or followed up. Some research units opt to build key performance indicators that quantify the outcome of the spot checks of key processes.
+
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”.
  
−
If a research unit undergoes an internal or external assessment, the assessors may also conduct spot checks to evaluate the overall performance and to identify processes or specific examples for an in-depth discussion with the research unit.
+
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"