This research explores the perspectives of academic physicists from three national contexts concerning their roles and responsibilities within the realm of science. Using a dataset comprised of 211 interviews with scientists working in China, the United States, and the United Kingdom, the study seeks to explain whether and in what manner physicists conceptualize scientific ethics within a global or national framework. The empirical findings bring to light disparities across nations in the physicists\' perceptions of what constitutes responsible mentorship and engagement in public service. These cross-national variations underscore the moral agency of physicists as they navigate the ethical standards embraced by the global scientific community vis-à-vis those that are specific to their respective national contexts. The study\'s empirical insights may carry significant implications for both policymakers and ethicists, underscoring the imperative of soliciting and acknowledging the perspectives of academic scientists working and living in disparate national contexts when formulating comprehensive science ethics frameworks. Such inclusive and context-aware approaches to shaping ethics in science can contribute to the cultivation of a more robust and universally relevant ethical foundation for the scientific community.

The Danish Reproducibility Network (DKRN) is a grassroots initiative for establishing a peer-supportive reproducibility-focused academic network in Denmark. We modelled our approach on already existing national Reproducibility Networks. We consulted with researchers and research support professionals to identify the needs of the research community. Three themes emerged around policy implementation, training and the appropriate application of reproducible practices. The network aims to address these three themes in a strategic plan, which harnesses the benefits of grassroots initiatives. The mission of the DKRN is therefore to facilitate communication, peer-support, and the exchange of ideas through a network of topic and geographical nodes. The network is open to researchers and research support professionals from all career stages and disciplines. It aligns with broader international initiatives, and national institutions, positioning itself as a contributor to the Danish research ecosystem.

If we assume that nonhuman animals experience pain or distress, then ethically justifying human-centered research with only nonhuman animals as subjects likely requires that the research\'s benefits to humans must, at least, outweigh harms suffered by the nonhuman animals. Yet this reasoning does not seem to account well for the ethical view that nonhuman animals are morally valuable in their own right. This commentary on a case considers this ethical tension and discusses how clinician-researchers should navigate it. This commentary also suggests why clinician-researchers\' reasoning about the nature and scope of their obligations to nonhuman animals extends beyond governing regulations and federal oversight, which is silent on or ambiguous about nonhuman animals as morally valuable in their own right.

In her bestselling book Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer describes the reciprocity between humans and nature while also contemplating another potentially beneficial relationship-between Indigenous knowledge and Western science. Not surprisingly, this integration is easier said than done. Recently, for example, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) terminated a $2 million study on how to best combine Indigenous and Western approaches to understanding the natural world. The problem? As Kimmerer herself said on this page, effective collaboration with Indigenous communities requires Western science to respect cultural practices and scientific ideas that diverge from the reductionist approach. Unless the scientific community leans into this discomfort, we will never unlock the possibility that this relationship could help address some of society\'s most distressing problems.

We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others\' findings that women\'s work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.
There have been growing concerns around sexism in science. Studies have found that women in science are often paid less, are less likely to get credit for their work and receive fewer and smaller grants than men at similar stages in their careers. This can make it harder for women to advance in their careers, resulting in less women than men taking up positions of leadership. There are also gender imbalances between scientific disciplines, with a higher proportion of women working in some fields compared to others. Here, James et al. set out to find whether having more women working in a discipline leads to biases in how the research is evaluated. The team examined four datasets which included information on the research evaluations and funding success of thousands of researchers across 30 different countries. The analysis suggested that scientists working in women-dominated disciplines were less likely to succeed in their grant applications. Their research was also often evaluated as being lower quality compared to researchers working in fields dominated by men. These biases applied to both men and women working in these disciplines. There were not sufficient data to analyse patterns faced by non-binary individuals. The study by James et al. cannot pinpoint a specific cause for these outcomes. However, it suggests that funding organisations should analyse the pattern of successful applications across disciplines and consider taking steps to ensure all disciplines have similar success rates. James et al. also propose that when hiring or making promotions, scientific institutions should take care when comparing researchers across disciplines and ensure there is no built-in assumption that fields dominated by men are intrinsically better.

BACKGROUND: Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects.
OBJECTIVE: To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research.
METHODS: We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research.
RESULTS: We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth.
CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers.
UNASSIGNED: The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.

The proportion of female doctors among younger generations has increased in recent years, and support for reemployment after childbirth and childcare leave is important for maintaining stability of local healthcare. We conducted a questionnaire with doctors in the Department of Pediatrics at Ehime University School of Medicine and it\'s affiliated hospitals to identify issues in the career development of female doctors. Although many female physicians want to pursue career development by obtaining subspecialty qualifications and PhD degrees, a high percentage have not actually obtained them. This is not only due to interruptions in work caused by childbirth and childcare but also because they are busy with housework, childcare, and daily work, and lack sufficient information about career development. In this regard, it appears that beyond improving work-life balance, female doctors must always keep in mind their career design and future goals, as well as their social mission as a physician. For administrators of these departments, acceptance of diversity, providing adequate support for female physicians to return to work after maternity/childcare leave, and balancing childcare and work are important for expanding female doctors\' opportunities and career development.

BACKGROUND: The focus on quantitative indicators-number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index-has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable \'publish or perish\' culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research.
METHODS: We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities.
RESULTS: In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/.

BACKGROUND: Workers tasked with specific responsibilities around patient and public involvement (PPI) are now routinely part of the organizational landscape for applied health research in the United Kingdom. Even as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has had a pioneering role in developing a robust PPI infrastructure for publicly funded health research in the United Kingdom, considerable barriers remain to embedding substantive and sustainable public input in the design and delivery of research. Notably, researchers and clinicians report a tension between funders\' orientation towards deliverables and the resources and labour required to embed public involvement in research. These and other tensions require further investigation.
METHODS: This was a qualitative study with participatory elements. Using purposive and snowball sampling and attending to regional and institutional diversity, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with individuals holding NIHR-funded formal PPI roles across England. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis with coding and framing presented and adjusted through two workshops with study participants.
RESULTS: We generated five overarching themes which signal a growing tension between expectations put on staff in PPI roles and the structural limitations of these roles: (i) the instability of support; (ii) the production of invisible labour; (iii) PPI work as more than a job; (iv) accountability without control; and (v) delivering change without changing.
CONCLUSIONS: The NIHR PPI workforce has enabled considerable progress in embedding patient and public input in research activities. However, the role has led not to a resolution of the tension between performance management priorities and the labour of PPI, but rather to its displacement and - potentially - its intensification. We suggest that the expectation to \"deliver\" PPI hinges on a paradoxical demand to deliver a transformational intervention that is fundamentally divorced from any labour of transformation. We conclude that ongoing efforts to transform health research ecologies so as to better respond to the needs of patients will need to grapple with the force and consequences of this paradoxical demand.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are often impacted by distressing situations during patient care and can experience the second victim phenomenon (SVP). Addressing an adequate response, training, and increasing awareness of the SVP can increase HCWs\' well-being and ultimately improve the quality of care and patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe and evaluate a multimodal training organized by the European Researchers\' Network Working on Second Victims to increase knowledge and overall awareness of SVP and second victim programs.
METHODS: We implemented a multimodal training program, following an iterative approach based on a continuous quality improvement process, to enhance the methodology and materials of the training program over the duration of 2 years. We conducted web-based surveys and group interviews to evaluate the scope and design of the training, self-directed learning materials, and face-to-face activities.
RESULTS: Out of 42 accepted candidates, 38 (90%) participants attended the 2 editions of the Training School program. In the second edition, the level of participants\' satisfaction increased, particularly when adjusting the allocated time for the case studies\' discussion (P<.001). After the multimodal training, participants stated that they had a better awareness and understanding of the SVP, support interventions, and its impact on health care. The main strengths of this Training School were the interdisciplinary approach as well as the contact with multiple cultures, the diversity of learning materials, and the commitment of the trainers and organizing team.
CONCLUSIONS: This multimodal training is suitable for different stakeholders of the health care community, including HCWs, clinical managers, patient safety and quality-of-care teams, academicians, researchers, and postgraduate students, regardless of their prior experience with SVP. Furthermore, this study represents a pioneering effort in elucidating the materials and methodology essential for extending this training approach to similar contexts.