Talk:EQIPD Quality System
On this page we can collect ideas and errors within the entire Wiki.
Contents
New pages needed
- Sex differences in animal research
Errors on the pages
https://www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk/ - link doesn't work
Dedicated working groups
General
- Checking incorrect items:
- Sara: Section 2
- Leo / Björn: Section 1
- To clarify: Does the mission statement and the template still make sense? E.g. is it useful? https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EVUTrgQRuNpKtpHkobdCOq4BhSTw1p3akXGKvI_MRgxYag?e=U3bWIn
- Any thoughts for resources for the page 1.3.1 Transparency
- Error
- René: Section 3
- Checking missing pages
- Everyone when screening though the website, with René as a contact
- Find mechanisms to keep it up-to-date
- Tbd
Specific task forces formed already:
- Quality culture and improvmenent
- Arnoud, Sandrine, Jonathan
- Antibodies and validation
- Harv, Marija
- Creating page on sex differences
- Christina, Vootele
Orphans-Do not link to any other EQIPD pages:
1.4.3.2 Quality in collaborative research - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/1.4.3.2_Quality_in_collaborative_research
EQIPD - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD
EQIPD for Core Facilities - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_for_Core_Facilities
Examples of implementing a unique study ID - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Examples_of_implementing_a_unique_study_ID
Experimental Record - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Experimental_Record
Hauptseite - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Hauptseite
Performance Standards - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Performance_Standards
Spot checks - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Spot_checks
Why quality matters - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Why_quality_matters
Glossary: might need extension
SABV
FAIR (data)
Pages needed
- Questionable Research Practices
- CoARA process, research evaluation
- protocols (reusable, reproducible, management)
- AI in research quality?
- feature Marten Kas as EQIPD use case examples
- data (format) community standards
- FAIR data, data repositories, DMP
- more reporting guidelines/recommendations, like RIVER (not just minimum standards)
Pages with "to be added sections"
(needs priorisation before adding content)
1.3.1 Transparency
1.3.3 Promotion criteria within a research unit
1.4.1 Research ethics
1.4.2 Adherence to legal and regulatory considerations
1.4.2.7 Animal care and use
1.4.2.8 Human data protection
1.4.3.4 Academia-academia: Research as collaboration
1.5.2 Roles and responsibilities of involved personnel and organization
1.5.2.1 Organigram
1.5.2.2 Management
1.5.2.4 Principal investigators and study directors
1.5.2.5 Research team
1.5.2.6 Supporting team
1.5.2.7 Quality professionals
1.5.3 Management of resources
1.5.3.1 Personnel
1.5.3.2 Facilities
1.5.3.3 Laboratory and experimental equipment used for measurement
1.5.3.4 Electronic information system
1.5.3.5 Organization-specific know how
1.5.3.6 Documentation requirement for sample and material
1.5.3.7 Retained personnel records
1.5.4.1 Independence of internal compliance assessment
1.5.4.2 Internal assessment of the organizations' quality professionals
1.5.5 Sustainability
2.1.6 Sample size and power analysis
2.1.10 Plausibility check => resource: e.g. arrive guidelines + link with risk analysis?
2.2.2 Use of template for (manual) data recording
2.3.1.1 Converting non-electronic information into an electronic form
2.3.2 Primary analysis and evaluation of raw data
2.4 Reporting
2.4.1 Non-public reporting
3.2.1 General guidance on training
3.5.1 Animal and non-animal method and assay qualification
4.1.3 External assessment
4.2.1 Installation of solutions, actions and mitigation strategies
4.3.1.2 Deleting items
Dead links
2.1.11 Preregistration: https://openscience.bmj.com/
training resources needed to be embedded
https://go-eqipd.org/about-eqipd/webinar-2023/
https://go-eqipd.org/resources/eqipd-e-learning/
https://research.columbia.edu/ReaDI-program
find more more online templates
proof reading
- 2.1.11 Preregistration: example on timeline would be useful (to convince people to do it)
- 2.1.1: 2 pages with same content but different name: study protocol; study experimental plan
- 2.1 Plausibility check - suggestion for resource: ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0; text that can be used: Although the term plausibility check is not explicitly mentioned in the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, several of its key items promote similar quality practices. For example, sections on Study Design, Statistical Methods, and Interpretation encourage researchers to justify their choices, report results in context, and ensure that analyses are appropriate. These align closely with the goals of a plausibility check—namely, verifying whether assumptions, methods, and outcomes are biologically and methodologically credible.
2.2.3 Documentation of the experiment and deviations - link to 3.1.2.2 doesn't work; link to study protocol doesn't work
overall to do's
- proof reading sections: look for errors, outdated information, broken links, plausibility?
- QUALITY (evaluation) aspects (criteria, checks, checklists, how-to) should be in focus and a priority..to generate products and data with secured high quality
