UNASSIGNED: The Africa Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI) programme aimed to \'strengthen the research and training capacity of higher education institutions and support the development of individual scientists in sub-Saharan Africa through UK-Africa research collaborations\' including by funding PhD studentships. We conducted research to understand students\' experiences and to see how consortia-based programmes such as ACBI and their own institutions can enhance PhD students\' research environment and progress.
UNASSIGNED: In-depth interviews with 35 ACBI-funded PhD students explored their perspectives about how their research and personal development benefitted from belonging to a research consortium. Questionnaires were used to corroborate interview findings.
UNASSIGNED: Students recognised that membership of a research consortium provided many benefits compared to less well-resourced peers. By drawing on the programme and consortiums\' resources, they were often able to overcome some limitations in their own institution\'s systems and facilities. Through their consortia they could access a wide range of international expertise and support from mentors and colleagues for their technical and psychosocial needs. Multiple consortia opportunities for engaging with the international scientific community and for networking, gave them confidence and motivation and enhanced their career prospects.
UNASSIGNED: Our study and its recommendations highlight how the breadth and diversity of resources available to PhD students through research consortia can be harnessed to facilitate students\' progress and to create a supportive and conducive research environment. It also underlines how, through a multi-level approach, consortia can contribute to longer-term improvements in institutional research environments for PhD students.

UNASSIGNED: The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore \' What does the evidence say about the \'problem\' with \'poor\' research culture, what are the benefits of \'good\' research culture, and what does \'good\' look like?\'
UNASSIGNED: To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.
UNASSIGNED: 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.
UNASSIGNED: There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals\' well-being, career progression and performance.

This study explains workplace conflicts (interpersonal and task-related) as antecedents of knowledge-hiding behaviors. Moreover, a relational psychological contract breach is a mediator between workplace conflicts and knowledge-hiding behavior. For empirical evidence, data were collected from research and development institutions in Pakistan. The results confirm the significant association between conflicts and knowledge-hiding behaviors and the mediating role of relational psychological contract breach. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of workplace conflicts (interpersonal conflict and task-related conflict) on knowledge-hiding behaviors (evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding). Besides, a relational psychological contract breach is used as a mediator between workplace conflicts and knowledge-hiding behaviors. By using a simple random sampling technique and time lag strategy, the data were collected from 408 employees working in research and development institutions in Pakistan. For analyses, this study employed partial least squares structural equation modeling statistical technique by using SmartPls-3 software. The results of the study confirm the significant relationship between workplace conflicts and knowledge-hiding behaviors. Relational psychological contract breach also significantly mediates the relationship between conflicts and knowledge-hiding behaviors. However, this study found an insignificant association between interpersonal conflict and evasive knowledge hiding.

The development of the brain sciences (Hirnforschung) in the Max Planck Society (MPG) during the early decades of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was influenced by the legacy of its precursor institution, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science (KWG). The KWG\'s brain science institutes, along with their intramural psychiatry and neurology research programs, were of considerable interest to the Western Allies and former administrators of the German science and education systems in their plans to rebuild the extra-university research society-first in the British Occupation Zone and later in the American and French Occupation Zones. This formation process occurred under the physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) as acting president, and the MPG was named in his honor when it was formally established in 1948. In comparison to other international developments in the brain sciences, it was neuropathology as well as neurohistology that initially dominated postwar brain research activities in West Germany. In regard to its KWG past, at least four historical factors can be identified that explain the dislocated structural and social features of the MPG during the postwar period: first, the disruption of previously existing interactions between German brain scientists and international colleagues; second, the German educational structures that countered interdisciplinary developments through their structural focus on medical research disciplines during the postwar period; third, the moral misconduct of earlier KWG scientists and scholars during the National Socialism period; and, fourth, the deep rupture that appeared through the forced migration of many Jewish and oppositional neuroscientists who sought to find exile after 1933 in countries where they had already held active collaborations since the 1910s and 1920s. This article examines several trends in the MPG\'s disrupted relational processes as it sought to grapple with its broken past, beginning with the period of reinauguration of relevant Max Planck Institutes in brain science and culminating with the establishment of the Presidential Research Program on the History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in National Socialism in 1997.

The demand for rehabilitation has increased, and evidence is rapidly growing; however, a rehabilitative health strategy receives less attention than treatment. Knowledge of what is being researched, who are the target groups and who contributes to rehabilitation research is deficient. We did not find any reviews mapping rehabilitation research regarding the research questions. The objective was to identify and synthesize existing scientific evidence on rehabilitation research published by Danish institutions between 2001 and 2021. The research questions to be explored were: Among which study groups has rehabilitation research been published?. Which types of studies on rehabilitation have been published?. Which institutions have been involved in rehabilitation research?
UNASSIGNED: The process was guided according to the Joanna Briggs Institute\'s (JBI\'s) scoping review methodology. Four databases were searched. All types of peer-reviewed studies on any target group and rehabilitation setting, with any affiliation to a Danish institution, were eligible to be included. Studies referring to population and the type of design were categorized. Institutions were counted as Danish first authorship.
UNASSIGNED: The search revealed 3,100 studies, and following screening 1,779 were included. A total of 24 broad study groups were identified, mostly diagnosis-based health conditions. Musculoskeletal, cancer, and cardiac had 342, 228, and 174 studies, respectively. A total of 1,545 had a Danish first authorship, most of the Danish publications came from hospitals (56.6%) and universities (28.4%). The publication trend showed an almost linear development, with a 10-15% increase during the period.
UNASSIGNED: Following screening 1,779 studies were included involving 24 broad study groups. Most categories were diagnosis-based; musculoskeletal, cancer, and cardiac health conditions encompassed most studies. All study designs were represented, and 1/10 were secondary studies. The majority (87%) of studies had a Danish first authorship. The majority of first affiliations were among hospitals followed by universities. A few municipalities were presented although they are yet to have research responsibility. Publication trends showed an increase primarily from 2013.
UNASSIGNED: https://osf.io/, identifier [10.17605/OSF.IO/2AENX].

Reproducibility and research integrity are essential tenets of every scientific study and discovery. They serve as proof that an established and documented work can be verified, repeated, and reproduced. New knowledge in the biomedical science is built on the shoulders of established and proven principles. Thus, scientists must be able to trust and build on the knowledge of their colleagues. Scientific innovation and research discoveries especially in the field of medicine has contributed to improving the lives of patients and increasing life expectancies. However, the growing concerns of failure to comply with good scientific principles has resulted in issues with research integrity and reproducibility. Poor reproducibility and integrity, therefore, may lead to ineffective interventions and applications. Here we comment on research reproducibility in basic medical and life sciences with regards to issues arising and outline the role of stakeholders such as research institutions and their employees in addressing this crisis.

The evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK).
Bibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017.
Analysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean  = 18.03, SD  = 3.63, maximum  = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n  = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean  = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean  = 1.83) for the analysed publications.
The NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.
METHODS: These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.
RESULTS: The main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.
CONCLUSIONS: Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

This study examines survey data on the views of editors of economics journals on common critiques of the discipline, ethics and editorial practices, and the role of prestige and status in publishing. We utilize an ordered probit model to investigate whether editors or journal characteristics are systematically related to editors\' views, controlling for gender and editorial position. Regression results show that editors from top-ranked journals are less likely to agree with common disciplinary critiques, more likely to support market solutions and less likely to agree with concerns about editorial practices.

Scientific research can act as the \'bedrock for development\' which can provide a solid foundation for the overall socioeconomic transformation in a country through invention and innovation. The inclusion of seven groups of Nepalese monuments in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)\'s world heritage sites provides evidence of the richness in architecture and civil engineering in the country, which also show how Nepal was influenced by arts and religious philosophy. The government of Nepal (GoN) has established different scientific departments, universities, and research institutions, and has tried to emphasize the application of science and research for the development of the nation. These institutions, however, have inadequate resources, exist in a poor academic and research environment and are subject to overt political influence. Despite these various problems, a variety of pioneer research and development activities have been conducted, which show positive rays of hope. This review presents history, current situation, progress and future perspective for scientific research and development in Nepal.