research & reviews journal of life sciences

Research & Reviews: A Journal of Life Sciences (RRJoLS)

• Other Journals
• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians
• Announcements
• Editorial Team
• Editorial Guidelines
• STM Copyright Licensing Form
• Referencing Pattern
• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
• Manuscript Withdrawal Policy
• Editorial Board
• Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Search tips:

• Search terms are case-insensitive
• Common words are ignored
• By default only articles containing all terms in the query are returned (i.e., AND is implied)
• Combine multiple words with OR to find articles containing either term; e.g., education OR research
• Use parentheses to create more complex queries; e.g., archive ((journal OR conference) NOT theses)
• Search for an exact phrase by putting it in quotes; e.g., "open access publishing"
• Exclude a word by prefixing it with - or NOT ; e.g. online -politics or online NOT politics
• Use * in a term as a wildcard to match any sequence of characters; e.g., soci* morality would match documents containing "sociological" or "societal"

Research & Reviews : A Journal of Life Sciences (rrjols)

About the journal

Research & Reviews: A Journal of Life Sciences [2249-8656(e)]  is a peer-reviewed hybrid open-access journal launched in 2011 focused on the rapid publication of fundamental research papers on all areas of Life Sciences. The journal aims to enhance and disseminate scientific knowledge and principle.

Journal Specification

Editor spotlight

Meet Editorial Board

Special Issues

About journal

Journal specification….

[display-frm-data id=4247 pass_editor=”rrjols”]

Last updated: 2022-07-01

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER

The information provided by Journal Library (“Company”, “we”, “our”, “us”) on https://journalslibrary.com/ (the “Site”) is for general informational purposes only. All information on the Site is provided in good faith, however we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on the Site.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF THE SITE OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE SITE. YOUR USE OF THE SITE AND YOUR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION ON THE SITE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

EXTERNAL LINKS DISCLAIMER

The Site may contain (or you may be sent through the Site) links to other websites or content belonging to or originating from third parties or links to websites and features. Such external links are not investigated, monitored, or checked for accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability or completeness by us.

WE DO NOT WARRANT, ENDORSE, GUARANTEE, OR ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY INFORMATION OFFERED BY THIRD-PARTY WEBSITES LINKED THROUGH THE SITE OR ANY WEBSITE OR FEATURE LINKED IN ANY BANNER OR OTHER ADVERTISING. WE WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO OR IN ANY WAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN YOU AND THIRD-PARTY PROVIDERS OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.

PROFESSIONAL DISCLAIMER

The Site can not and does not contain medical advice. The information is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Accordingly, before taking any actions based upon such information, we encourage you to consult with the appropriate professionals. We do not provide any kind of medical advice.

Content published on https://journalslibrary.com/ is intended to be used and must be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any decision based on your own personal circumstances. You should take independent medical advice from a professional or independently research and verify any information that you find on our Website and wish to rely upon.

THE USE OR RELIANCE OF ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS SITE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

AFFILIATES DISCLAIMER

The Site may contain links to affiliate websites, and we may receive an affiliate commission for any purchases or actions made by you on the affiliate websites using such links.

TESTIMONIALS DISCLAIMER

The Site may contain testimonials by users of our products and/or services. These testimonials reflect the real-life experiences and opinions of such users. However, the experiences are personal to those particular users, and may not necessarily be representative of all users of our products and/or services. We do not claim, and you should not assume that all users will have the same experiences.

YOUR INDIVIDUAL RESULTS MAY VARY.

The testimonials on the Site are submitted in various forms such as text, audio and/or video, and are reviewed by us before being posted. They appear on the Site verbatim as given by the users, except for the correction of grammar or typing errors. Some testimonials may have been shortened for the sake of brevity, where the full testimonial contained extraneous information not relevant to the general public.

The views and opinions contained in the testimonials belong solely to the individual user and do not reflect our views and opinions.

ERRORS AND OMISSIONS DISCLAIMER

While we have made every attempt to ensure that the information contained in this site has been obtained from reliable sources, Journal Library is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information in this site is provided “as is”, with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.

In no event will Journal Library, its related partnerships or corporations, or the partners, agents or employees thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this Site or for any consequential, special or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

GUEST CONTRIBUTORS DISCLAIMER

This Site may include content from guest contributors and any views or opinions expressed in such posts are personal and do not represent those of Journal Library or any of its staff or affiliates unless explicitly stated.

LOGOS AND TRADEMARKS DISCLAIMER

All logos and trademarks of third parties referenced on https://journalslibrary.com/ are the trademarks and logos of their respective owners. Any inclusion of such trademarks or logos does not imply or constitute any approval, endorsement or sponsorship of Journal Library by such owners.

Should you have any feedback, comments, requests for technical support or other inquiries, please contact us by email:   [email protected] .

ISSN: 2977-4047 | Open Access

Journal of life sciences research and reviews, journal home.

• Impact Factor 0.35
• Citations Value 84.5
• Acceptance Rate 90%
• Associated Conference

Q4- H indexed

Journal of Life Sciences Research and Reviews  is an open access peer-reviewed journal from the publishers of Scientific Research and Community (SRC) which publishes articles in the form of written, Video and Power-Point Presentations from the arena of Life Sciences Research and Reviews. The journal focuses to build up accessing the complete content of articles freely from online for reader’s perusal.

Article acceptance will be in the form of Research, Review, Case Reports, Analysis, Magazines, Editorials, Opinion, Communications, Mini-Review, Short Communications, Picturized, Book Review, Video Type and Power Point Presentations (PPTs).

Journal of Life Sciences Research and Reviews  articles in all the formats from: Advances in Analytical Science, Agricultural Microbiology, Biological and Life Sciences, Chemistry and Materials Sciences, Biochemistry, Plant Biotechnology, Biomedical Data Science, Biology, Biophysics, Bio Threat,Biodiscovery, Biotransformation, Cancer Biology, Cell and Developmental Biology, Clinical Psychology, Cell Biology, Clinical Psychology, Molecular Biology, Industrial Biotechnology, Developmental Psychology, Ecology, Cell Biology, Earth And Environmental Sciences, Economics and Business, Education and Humanitiesfood Science, Genetics, Growth and Yield Quality, Geographical Biodiversity, Genomics and Human Genetics, Immunology, Healthy Life Care, Hydrology, Cornealtopographicindices, Geographical Biodiversity Research, Global-Economics, Life Extension, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Neuronal Cell Cycle, Oligodendrocytes, Ossifying Fibroma, Parasitology, Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease, Pharmacology and Toxicology, Phytopathology, Public Health, Physical Sciences, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Statistics and Its Application, System Biology, Structural Biology,Theoretical Science, Virology,Vision Science, etc...,

You can submit articles through Online:  https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/submit-online.php

Our Articles Indexed In

Journal Menu

Our Pubmed Indexed Articles

Detecting peripheral neuropathy in patients with diabetes, prediabetes and other high-risk conditions: an advanced practice nurse’s perspective, an analysis of peripheral neuropathy symptom characteristics in hiv, overview of neurotrauma and sensory loss.

• 0  ₹ 0 items

Research & Reviews : A Journal of Life Sciences

1,450  ₹ – 8,880  ₹

Additional information

About journal.

• Reviews (0)

Research & Reviews : Journal of Life Sciences (RRJoLS)

eISSN: 2249–8656

 Click  here  for complete Editorial Board

 Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF):

Research & Reviews: A Journal of Life Sciences (RRJoLS)  is a print and online journal focused towards the rapid publication of fundamental research papers on all areas of Life Sciences. The aim of the journal is to enhance and disseminate scientific knowledge and principle.It’s a triannual journal, started in 2011.

Journal DOI no.: 10.37591/ RRJoLS

Focus and Scope Covers

• Molecular Biology
• Cell biology
• Biochemistry
• Environmental sciences
• Molecular genetics
• System biology
• Endocrinology
• Population Genetics
• Biochemical analysis
• Basic and applied Life sciences
• Biodiversity
• Biomedical Science
• Developmental Biology
• Evolutionary Biology
• Parasitology
• Structural Biology

All contributions to the journal are rigorously refereed and are selected on the basis of quality and originality of the work. The journal publishes the most significant new research papers or any other original contribution in the form of reviews and reports on new concepts in all areas pertaining to its scope and research being done in the world, thus ensuring its scientific priority and significance.

Manuscripts are invited from academicians, students, research scholars and faculties for publication consideration.

Papers are accepted for editorial consideration through email  [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Abbreviation: RRJoLS

Frequency : Three issues per year

Peer Reviewed Policy

EDITORIAL BOARD

Instructions to Authors

Journal of Life Sciences

Best Journal of Life Sciences

Top list of Journal of Life Sciences

Best impact factor Journal of Life Sciences

Open-access Journal of Life Sciences

Top Journal of Life Sciences

Print Journal of Life Sciences

Online Journal of Life Sciences

Indian Journal of Life Sciences

International Journal of Life Sciences

Related products

Research & Reviews : Journal of Botany

International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Processing

International Journal of Environmental Chemistry

Session expired

Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.

• What is CELS?
• JournalsPUB
• STM Journals
• Special Issues
• Conferences
• Training programs

Author Guidelines

• Copy Right form
• Open Access Policy

Rapid Publication

• How to join?
• Editorial Guidelines
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Code of Conduct
• Consent Form

Research & Reviews: Journal of Life Sciences (RRJoLS)

Research & Reviews: Journal of Life Sciences  covers all major areas of Life Sciences, and publishes peer-reviewed articles that give an insight in to the ongoing research and recent advancement of the topic. Journal also covers Biomedical Science, Environmental sciences, Endocrinology, Basic and applied Life sciences, as additional fields under the scope of the journal.

Journal Details

Editorial Board

Current Issue

Hybrid Open Access

Call for Papers 

Submit your research to RRJoLS in this cross-journal Special Issue focusing on Basic and applied Life sciences, Biology, Biochemical analysis, Biomedical Science, Developmental Biology, etc. 

Journal Features

All contributions to the journal are rigorously refereed and are selected on the basis of quality and originality of the work. The journal publishes the most significant new research papers or any other original contribution in the form of reviews and reports on new concepts in all areas pertaining to its scope and research being done in the world, thus ensuring its scientific priority and significance.

Journal DOI No

10.37628/RRJoLS

Internal Management System (IMS)

In House software to maintain the records of articles, authors, institutes and editors. 

Three issues per year (April, August and December)

Quality Peer Review

Objective and In-Depth review from more that 2 editors

ISSN and Impact Factor

15 working days to first decision and quick hands on author support

Google Scholar, Journal TOC

RRJoLS is Hybrid open access journal. There is zero cost for subscription based publication and minimal cost for open access. 

Focus and Scope

RRJoLS covers broad areas of Life Sciences which includes following major topics. 

• Biochemistry
• Molecular Biology
• Cell Biology
• Environmental Sciences
• Molecular Genetics
• System Biology
• Endocrinology
• Population Genetics
• Biochemical analysis
• Protein Metabolism
• Basic and Applied Life Sciences
• Biodiversity
• Biochemical Sciences
• Evolutionary Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Parasitology
• Structural Biology
• Plant Sciences
• Environmental Biochemistry
• Bioseperation and Purification
• Bioreactor Engineering

Readership: Graduates, Postgraduates, Research Scholars

Submission of Paper: 

All contributions to the journal are rigorously refereed and are selected on the basis of the quality and originality of the work. The journal publishes the most significant new research papers or any other original contribution in the form of reviews and reports on new concepts in all areas pertaining to its scope and research being done in the world, thus ensuring its scientific priority and significance.

Manuscripts are invited from academicians, students, research scholars, and faculties for publication consideration.

Papers are accepted for editorial consideration through email [email protected]   or [email protected]

Peer-Reviewed Policy  

Instructions to Authors

Publisher: STM Journals, an imprint of CELNET (Consortium e-Learning Network Pvt. Ltd.)

Discover Our Latest Articles

Research & reviews: journal of life science vol 11 issue 1 (2021).

Table of Contents

RRJoLS has editors from all over the globe. To know more about renowned members of our editorial team, click the button. 

Do you want to publish your research?

Click below to get register yourself in National Journal of Life Sciences or send your manuscript at [email protected]

click here for Journal Subscription

Useful links

SUBSCRIPTION

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

• CONFERENCES

Center of Excellence in Life sciences, Consortium e-Learning Network Pvt Ltd, A-118, 2nd Floor, sec 63, Noida (Uttar Pradesh), India

+91 (120)-474-6126

[email protected] /|

      [email protected]

Copyright 2024 Center of Excellence in Life Sciences, all rights reserved.

• Impact Factor

Top Publication Journals

• Business, Economics & Management
• Chemical & Material Sciences
• Engineering & Computer Science
• Health & Medical Sci
• Humanities, Literature & Arts
• Life Sciences & Earth Sciences
• Physics & Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• 217523 Articles
• 26662 Journals

Journal Impact Factor Report 2021

Submit journal for impact factor evaluation, submit your journal for indexing, journal impact factor report 2020, journal impact factor report 2018, journal impact factor list 2014 ( now online ), getting your journal indexed, 2012 impact factor list.

Research & Reviews: A Journal of Life Sciences (RRJoLS)

URL: http://stmjournals.com/Journal-of-Life-Sciences.html

Keywords: Acetylcholine Application, diseases, molecular diagnosis, principle Biodiversity, Bijapur, Inventory CKD, UTI, hemodialysis, pyuria, E. coli Diversity, Temple complex, Bijapur, Karnataka Dry afromontan forest Kimphe Lafa Natural Forest, floristic composition, regeneration Extremophiles, psychrophiles, cold adaptation, freezing point, cold-active enzymes Fabaceae, flora, Tirunelveli, medicinal plants Raman Spectroscopy, Lipids, Raman Spectra, Degree of unsaturation, Cis and Trans configuration. Root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita, Ageratum conyzoides, plant extract, phenol, chlorophyll, NR activity Silver nano particles, Micrococca mercurialis, Green synthesis, Biological activity. biochemical catalase chronic endpoint legume plants, nematodes, Meloidogyne incognita, carbohydrate mobile phone, EMR, heat-shock response, peroxidase activity parasite reduced glutathione thyroid disorders, TSH, FT3, FT4, AST total protein uncontrolled and controlled diabetes, salivary parameters, healthy subjects

ISSN: 2348-95452249-8656

EISSN: 2249-8656

Subject: Multidisciplinary

Publisher: STM Journals(A Division of Consortium e Learning Network Pvt Ltd.)

Country: India

Author Ratings

Share With Us

Journal areas list.

• Agriculture
• Biochemistry
• Biotechnology
• Business and Management
• Computer Science
• Environmental Sciences

Information

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

Important Links

• Publisher Guidelines
• Journal Indexing
• Paper Indexing
• Impact Factor List

Top 5 Journals That Every Life Sciences Researcher Must Consider While Journal Selection

Journal selection is a crucial process of research publishing. Not only does it mark the beginning of the publishing process , but it also determines the manuscript drafting process. Failure to comply with a journal’s guideline can lead to the rejection of a manuscript. In order to make sure that the manuscript does not do so, one has to read through the Instruction to Authors or Author Guidelines. These include details about the scope, target audience, submission process and many more aspects of the journal. In fact, these are also few key points taken into consideration while selecting a journal. In this article, we would discuss top 10 OA journals specific for the Life Sciences discipline.

Tools to be Used While Selecting OA Life Sciences Journals

Open Access (OA) journals are a favorite of researchers when it comes to publishing research papers. OA allows members of the public to access the content without permission and paywall barriers. OA journals make it easier for scientists to share their data with a wide audience. Most research done in public institutions are funded through government research grants. These public institutions also pay journal subscription fees to allow their staff and students to read these journals. This means that public funds help in supporting and accessing research. This is one of the reasons that governments and funding agencies support OA journals.

There are a few tools or platforms available in the industry that researchers use to choose an OA target journal.

One can find a list of open access journals in the  Directory of Open Access Journals . The DOAJ also makes it possible for you to access content in OA journals.

Open Access Journal Finder (OAJF) , launched by Enago Academy, uses a validated journal index provided by Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) – the most trusted non-predatory open access journal directory in its search results, the tool displays vital journal details to the scholars including publisher details, peer review process, confidence index (indicates similarity between matching keywords in the published articles across all journals indexed by DOAJ), and publication speed. The dynamic platform also lets scholars filter search results based on preferences such as peer review process and approval of journals, among others.

ROAD (Director of Open Access Scholarly Resources) is another such platform useful in selecting OA journals.  ROAD  identifies open access resources which have been given ISSN numbers. The corresponding ISSN records are updated. ISSN records are matched with coverage lists provided by indexing databases, registries, and journal indicators. This process creates bibliographic records of open access content.

The Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) is another option. It is a  digital library  of open access journals. SciELO is used for electronic publishing in developing countries. It was launched in Brazil in 1997. It hosts more than 1,161 OA journals and more than 500,000 open access articles.

Here are the Journals Who Made it to the Top 5

Different websites will show different set of topmost journals, as created keeping different metrics into consideration. Every publisher has several journals under each discipline. After referring to several such websites, we have narrowed down to make the list as the top 5 publishers/journals in the field of Life Sciences.

• Nature: The topmost position on the list is taken by Nature, a British weekly scientific journal that started its publishing journey back in 1869. Although it covers multiple disciplines, it is still considered one of the best journals when it comes to manuscripts in the field of Life Sciences. In fact, with an impact factor as high as 42.778, Nature made it to the JCR 2019 as one of the most cited journals.
• Science: Also widely referred to as Science Magazine, Science is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and one of the world’s top academic journals. According to the Journal Citation Reports, Science’s 2019 impact factor was 41.845 . It was first published in 1880, and is currently circulated weekly.

The major focus of the journal is publishing important original scientific research and research reviews, but Science also publishes science-related news, opinions on science policy and other matters of interest to scientists and others who are concerned with the wide implications of science and technology. Unlike most scientific journals, which focus on a specific field, Science covers the full range of scientific disciplines.

• Cell : Cell, published by Cell Press, is a peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing research papers across a broad range of disciplines within the life sciences. Areas covered include molecular biology, cell biology, systems biology, stem cells, developmental biology, genetics and genomics, proteomics, cancer research, immunology, neuroscience, structural biology, microbiology, virology, physiology, biophysics, and computational biology. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2019 impact factor of 38.637 , ranking it first out of 298 journals in “Biochemistry & Molecular Biology”.
• Nature Communications: Nature Communications is a peer-reviewed, open access, scientific journal published by Nature Research since 2010. It is a multidisciplinary journals and it covers the natural sciences, including physics, chemistry, earth sciences, medicine, and biology. It has an impact factor of 12.021 (in 2019).
• PLOS ONE : PLOS (Public Library Of Science) is a non-profit organisation that publishes seven peer-reviewed Open Access journals. Each covers a different area of science or medicine.  PLOS journals include PLOS ONE, PLOS Biology, PLOS Medicine, PLOS Computational Biology, PLOS Genetics, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases  and  PLOS Pathogens. PLOS has an impact factor of 2.74 (in 2019). Among these, PLOS ONE is generally preferred more by researchers , mainly because of two reasons. Firstly, it includes papers across all scientific disciplines. Secondly, the editors of  PLO SONE  assess papers in an unusual way.

These are only five such top journals in Life Sciences that you can consider while publishing your manuscript. Do you agree to this list? Please share your thoughts with us in the comments section below.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Ethics

Restarting Clinical Trials: The Way Forward

The COVID-19 pandemic has “paused” many clinical trials. Moreover, it also delayed potential medical treatment…

• Reporting Research

The Complete Guide to Study Designs (Part II – Classification Criteria and Types)

In Part I of this series, the concept of ‘study designs’ was introduced and the…

The Complete Guide to Study Designs (Part 1: 10 Important Terminologies)

Study designs are of utmost importance in research. Right from ideation to testing the hypothesis,…

• Manuscripts & Grants

Safe Clinical Research Guidelines During a Pandemic

The current coronavirus pandemic required a swift response from authorities in an effort to manage…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

Which among these features would you prefer the most in a peer review assistant?

Best Life Science Journals 2024: Enhance Research Visibility

Are you ready to elevate your research career? Discover the crème de la crème of life science publications in our comprehensive guide to the top journals.

Publishing groundbreaking research in prestigious journals is crucial for career advancement and scientific progress. This comprehensive guide explores the best life science journals , offering valuable insights for researchers, academics, and science enthusiasts .

Whether you’re a seasoned scientist or an aspiring researcher, understanding the landscape of top-tier publications can significantly impact your work’s visibility and influence.

Life science encompasses a vast array of disciplines, from molecular biology and genetics to ecology and neuroscience. The journals featured in this article represent the pinnacle of scientific publishing across these diverse fields.

By targeting these high-impact journals, researchers can ensure their work reaches a broad audience and contributes meaningfully to the scientific community .

10 Best Life Science Journals

These top-tier life science journals represent the pinnacle of scientific publishing in biology and related fields.

Known for their rigorous peer review, high impact factors, and global readership, these publications consistently feature groundbreaking research that shapes the future of life sciences.

• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
• Nature Biotechnology
• Genome Research
• Molecular Cell
• ScienceDirect.com
• PLOS Biology

Let us check the journal one by one.

Nature, founded in 1869, is one of the world’s most prestigious and influential scientific journals. With its iconic black and white cover design, Nature has been at the forefront of publishing groundbreaking research for over 150 years.

The journal’s interdisciplinary approach covers a wide range of scientific fields, including biology, physics, chemistry, and earth sciences. Nature is renowned for its rigorous peer-review process and editorial standards, ensuring that only the most impactful and innovative research reaches its pages.

The journal has been instrumental in disseminating many of the most significant scientific discoveries of the modern era, from the structure of DNA to the detection of gravitational waves. Nature’s commitment to publishing cutting-edge research, coupled with its extensive readership, makes it a top choice for scientists looking to maximize the impact of their work.

Visit Nature Official site : –

Key Features:

• Extremely high impact factor (64.8)
• Publishes groundbreaking research, reviews, and news
• Provides extensive editorial support and promotion of published work
• Offers rapid publication for urgent findings

Science, first published in 1880, is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). As a multidisciplinary journal, Science covers an extensive range of scientific disciplines , with a particular emphasis on life sciences, physical sciences, and earth sciences.

The journal is known for its commitment to publishing research that pushes the boundaries of scientific understanding and has far-reaching implications across multiple fields. Science also plays a crucial role in science communication, featuring news articles, perspectives, and policy forums that contextualize research findings and explore their broader implications.

With its global readership and high visibility, publication in Science often garners significant attention from both the scientific community and the general public, making it a highly sought-after platform for researchers.

Visit Science Journal Now

• High impact factor (47.728)
• Covers a broad range of scientific disciplines
• Features policy forums and perspectives sections
• Offers multimedia content to enhance research presentation

Founded in 1974, Cell quickly established itself as a leading journal in molecular and cellular biology. Part of the Cell Press family of journals, Cell is known for publishing paradigm-shifting research that fundamentally alters our understanding of biological processes.

The journal covers a broad spectrum of topics within experimental biology, including molecular biology, neuroscience, immunology , and developmental biology. Cell is particularly noted for its innovative approach to scientific publishing, being one of the first journals to introduce graphical abstracts, which provide a visual summary of the main findings.

The journal’s commitment to excellence and its track record of publishing seminal papers have made it a top choice for researchers in the life sciences.

Visit: Cell journal now

• Strong impact factor (41.582)
• Known for publishing paradigm-shifting research
• Offers graphical abstracts for enhanced visual communication
• Provides a platform for cross-disciplinary studies in life sciences

4. The Lancet

The Lancet, established in 1823, is one of the world’s oldest and most respected medical journals. Named after the surgical instrument, The Lancet has been at the forefront of publishing groundbreaking medical research for nearly two centuries.

The journal covers all aspects of human health, from basic science and clinical research to global health policy. The Lancet is particularly known for its rapid publication of urgent public health issues and its commitment to improving health worldwide . It has played a crucial role in disseminating important medical discoveries and has been instrumental in shaping health policies globally.

The journal’s high impact factor and international readership make it a premier destination for researchers looking to publish high-quality clinical studies and health policy research.

Visit: The Lancet Now

• High impact factor (79.321)
• Focuses on clinical medicine and global health
• Publishes original research, reviews, and meta-analyses
• Known for its fast-track publication process for urgent public health issues

5. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

PNAS, first published in 1915, is the official journal of the United States National Academy of Sciences. As a multidisciplinary journal, PNAS covers a wide range of scientific disciplines, including biological, physical, and social sciences.

What sets PNAS apart is its unique contributed submission process, which allows Academy members to submit their own work and sponsor submissions from other researchers. This process, combined with rigorous peer review, ensures a diverse and high-quality collection of research papers. PNAS is also known for its rapid publication times and its commitment to making scientific research accessible to a broad audience.

The journal’s multidisciplinary nature makes it an excellent platform for publishing research with wide-ranging implications across various scientific fields.

Visit: PNAS journal now

• Respected impact factor (11.205)
• Offers a unique contribution submission process for National Academy members
• Provides open access options for all articles

6. Nature Biotechnology

Launched in 1983 as Bio/Technology and rebranded as Nature Biotechnology in 1996, this journal has become the premier publication for research in biotechnology and applied biology. As part of the Nature family of journals, Nature Biotechnology maintains high editorial standards while focusing on the practical applications of biological research.

The journal covers a wide range of topics, including bioengineering, synthetic biology, gene therapy, and agricultural biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology is particularly noted for its coverage of the commercial aspects of biotechnology, featuring analyses of industry trends and the business of science.

This unique blend of cutting-edge research and industry insights makes it an invaluable resource for both academic researchers and professionals in the biotechnology sector.

Visit: Nature Biotechnology

• High impact factor (54.908)
• Focuses on applied biology and the commercial exploitation of biological systems
• Publishes original research, reviews, and analysis of the business of biotechnology
• Offers news and commentary on industry trends

7. Genome Research

Established in 1995, Genome Research has quickly become a leading journal in the field of genomics. As the field of genomics has exploded in recent years, genome Research has been at the forefront, publishing pioneering studies in genome structure, function, and evolution.

The journal covers a wide range of topics, including computational biology, gene regulation, and comparative genomics. Genome Research is particularly known for its rapid publication of large-scale studies and its emphasis on data sharing and reproducibility.

The journal has played a crucial role in disseminating the findings of major genomics projects, including the Human Genome Project and its follow-up studies. Its focus on both method development and biological insights makes it a key resource for researchers working at the cutting edge of genomics.

Visit: Genome Research now

• Strong impact factor (11.026)
• Focuses on large-scale genome studies and their implications
• Publishes methods and technology developments in genomics
• Offers rapid publication for time-sensitive findings

8. Molecular Cell

Launched in 1997 as part of the Cell Press family, Molecular Cell has quickly established itself as a leading journal in molecular biology. The journal focuses on publishing mechanistic studies that provide insights into the molecular and cellular basis of biological processes.

Molecular Cell is known for its emphasis on studies that combine multiple experimental approaches to address fundamental questions in biology. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including gene expression, cell signaling, and protein structure and function.

Molecular Cell is particularly noted for its commitment to publishing resource papers that introduce new technologies or datasets, making it a valuable platform for researchers developing new tools and methods in molecular biology.

Visit: Molecular Cell Journal now

• High impact factor (17.970)
• Known for publishing mechanistic studies of fundamental biological processes
• Offers previews and reviews to provide context for new findings
• Encourages submission of resource papers that introduce new technologies or datasets

9. ScienceDirect.com

ScienceDirect is one of the world’s leading platforms for scientific and medical research. It is operated by Elsevier, a global information analytics business specializing in science and health. The Life Sciences section of ScienceDirect hosts a vast collection of peer-reviewed journals covering various aspects of biological and medical sciences.

These journals play a crucial role in disseminating cutting-edge research, fostering scientific discourse, and advancing our understanding of life in all its forms. From molecular biology to ecology, from neuroscience to plant sciences, the Life Sciences journals on ScienceDirect encompass a broad spectrum of disciplines, making it a comprehensive resource for researchers, academics, and students alike.

Visit: ScienceDirect’s Life Science Journal

• Impact Factor: 6.780
• Comprehensive Coverage: Hosts hundreds of peer-reviewed journals spanning all areas of life sciences, from molecular biology to ecology.
• Advanced Search Tools: Offers powerful search and filtering options to quickly find relevant research across the platform.
• Full-Text Access: Provides subscribers with complete access to articles in HTML and PDF formats, with open access options available.
• Multimedia Integration: Incorporates interactive elements like 3D models and video abstracts to enhance research communication.
• Impact Metrics: Displays various article-level and journal-level metrics to help gauge research impact and influence.

10. PLOS Biology

Launched in 2003, PLoS Biology was one of the first open-access journals in the life sciences. As the flagship journal of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), it has been at the forefront of the open science movement, promoting unrestricted access to scientific research.

PLoS Biology covers all areas of biological science, from molecules to ecosystems, with a focus on studies that address important biological questions and provide major advances in understanding. The journal is known for its commitment to rigorous science, transparent peer review, and rapid dissemination of research findings.

PLoS Biology has been a pioneer in implementing innovative publishing practices, such as article-level metrics and post-publication discussions, which provide a more comprehensive view of a paper’s impact. Its open-access model and broad scope make it an excellent platform for researchers looking to maximize the reach and accessibility of their work.

Visit: PLOS Biology Journal

• Respectable impact factor (8.167)
• Fully open access, ensuring wide dissemination of research
• Publishes a broad range of biological research, from molecules to ecosystems
• Offers article-level metrics and encourages post-publication discussions

Frequently Asked Question (FAQs)

What are life science journals?

Think of them as report cards for the science world! They’re publications where scientists share their latest discoveries in biology, like how genes work or what makes ecosystems tick. Other scientists then review the work (like a peer edit) to make sure it’s high quality and important.

Why are life science journals important?

These journals are like stepping stones for science. They let researchers share their findings, which helps build on existing knowledge and push the boundaries of what we know about life. It’s a way for scientists to talk to each other and move science forward.

What are the different types of life science journals?

There are all sorts! Some cover a wide range of biology, while others focus on specific areas like genetics or ecology. Some journals are free to read online (open access), while others require a subscription.

How can I find life science journals relevant to my research?

Imagine searching for a specific book in a library. There are online tools like PubMed or Web of Science that help you find journals related to your research area.

What are some tips for reading and understanding life science journals?

Scientific articles can be tough to crack. Here’s a tip: start with the summary (abstract) to get the gist of the research. Then, focus on pictures and charts that often explain the key findings. Don’t be afraid to look up unfamiliar words in a scientific dictionary!

Final words on best Life science journals in 2024

The 10 best life science journals highlighted in this article represent the gold standard in scientific publishing. They offer researchers the opportunity to share groundbreaking discoveries with a global audience and significantly impact their fields.

However, it’s important to remember that excellent research can be published in a wide range of journals. The key is to find the best fit for your work, considering factors such as scope, audience, and publication goals.

Discover more from Go Life Science

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Type your email…

Exercise and frailty in later life: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of research themes and scientific collaborations

Exercise is a promising intervention for frailty, but optimal protocols and implementation approaches remain unclear. In this review, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to synthesize research growth, collaborations, intellectual structure, and gaps in the literature on frailty and exercise over the past two decades. The Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for relevant publications from 1987 – 2024. The bibliometric analysis examined publication trends over time, contributing countries, institutions, authors, journals, research themes and hotspots, collaboration patterns, and evidence gaps. Data visualization and mapping were conducted using VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, and ScientoPy. A total of 447 publications were included in the analysis. The results indicate that research output has grown rapidly since 2010, led by the United States of America (USA), China, Japan, Spain, and Italy. The University of Valencia ( n = 12) and the School of Medicine, USA ( n = 11) were the most prolific institutions. Five key research clusters were identified through keyword analysis: (i) Frailty assessment, (ii) clinical trials, (iii) cognition, (iv) exercise protocols, and (v) physical outcomes. Regional collaborations were prominent between European, North American, and East Asia-Pacific countries. The bibliometric analysis revealed a surge in publications, with research concentrated in a few productive hubs. There is potential for newer institutions to emerge through international collaborations. Addressing gaps in qualitative, psychosocial, economic, implementation, and translational research could accelerate the translation of evidence into policy and practice. Continued knowledge sharing and partnerships focused on priority gaps can optimize exercise interventions amidst global population aging. This review synthesized the growth, collaborative landscape, and intellectual structure of research on frailty and exercise over nearly four decades. The findings provide insights to inform future research directions and facilitate the translation of evidence into optimized exercise protocols that can be implemented at scale to benefit frail older adults.

Aguirre, L.E., & Villareal, D.T. (2019). Physical exercise as therapy for frailty. Nestlé Nutrition Institute Workshop Series , 83:83-92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000382065

Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology , 71(2):103-112. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103

Akobeng, A.K. (2005). Understanding randomised controlled trials. Archives of Disease in Childhood , 90(8):840-844. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.058222

Angulo, J., El Assar, M., Álvarez-Bustos, A., & Rodríguez-Mañas, L. (2020). Physical activity and exercise: Strategies to manage frailty. Redox Biology , 35:101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2020.101513

Apóstolo, J., Cooke, R., Bobrowicz-Campos, E., Santana, S., Marcucci, M., Cano, A., et al . (2018). Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pre-frailty and frailty progression in older adults. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports , 16(1):140-232. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003382

Azizan, A. (2024). Mapping the muscle mass: A birds-eye view of sarcopenia research through Bibliometric network analysis. International Journal of Disabilities Sports and Health Sciences , 7(1):134-143. https://doi.org/10.33438/ijdshs.1362539

Azizan, A., & Zaki, A. (2023). Educational insights from bibliometric patterns: Examining depression research in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Research in Education and social Sciences , 5(3):33-47.

Azizan, A., Abdullah, K.H., Rahayu, S.R., Rusli, N.S., & Tarmidzi, N. (2023). Reshaping healthcare: A bibliometric analysis of lessons learned in post-COVID-19 health policy. Kesmas: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Nasional , 18(3):18. https://doi.org/10.21109/kesmas.v18i3.7060

Azizan, A., Azmi, A., & Putera Mohd Yusof, M.Y. (2024). Bibliometric analysis on geriatric rehabilitation in scopus database (1948-2022). Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation , 40(1):60-68. https://doi.org/10.1097/tgr.0000000000000423

Azizan, A., Sahrani, S., Anum, A., Husna, N., & Rahman, F. (2021). Effects of physical training and behavioural strategies towards muscle strength and mental health in the elderly. Malaysian Applied Biology , 50(2):177-184. https://doi.org/10.55230/mabjournal.v50i2.2159

Bandeen-Roche, K., Seplaki, C.L., Huang, J., Buta, B., Kalyani, R.R., Varadhan, R., et al . (2015). Frailty in older adults: A nationally representative profile in the United States. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences , 70(11):1427-1434. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv133

Binder, E.F., Yarasheski, K.E., Steger-May, K., Sinacore, D.R., Brown, M., Schechtman, K.B., et al . (2005). Effects of progressive resistance training on body composition in frail older adults: Results of a randomized, controlled trial. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences , 60(11):1425-1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/60.11.1425

Boreskie, K.F., Hay, J.L., Boreskie, P.E., Arora, R.C., & Duhamel, T.A. (2022). Frailty-aware care: Giving value to frailty assessment across different healthcare settings. BMC Geriatrics , 22(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02722-9

Brigola, A.G., Rossetti, E.S., Dos Santos, B.R., Neri, A.L., Zazzetta, M.S., Inouye, K., et al . (2015). Relationship between cognition and frailty in elderly: A systematic review. Dementia and Neuropsychologia , 9(2):110-119. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-57642015dn92000005

Cancela, J.M., Ayán, C., Varela, S., & Seijo, M. (2016). Effects of a long-term aerobic exercise intervention on institutionalized patients with dementia. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport , 19(4):293-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.05.007

Casas-Herrero, A., Anton-Rodrigo, I., Zambom-Ferraresi, F., Sáez de Asteasu, M.L., Martinez-Velilla, N., Elexpuru- Estomba, J., et al . (2019). Effect of a multicomponent exercise programme (VIVIFRAIL) on functional capacity in frail community elders with cognitive decline: Study protocol for a randomized multicentre control trial. Trials , 20(1):362. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3426-0

Cesari, M., Vellas, B., Hsu, F.C., Newman, A.B., Doss, H., King, A.C., et al . (2014). A physical activity intervention to treat the frailty syndrome in older persons--results from the LIFE-P study. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences , 70(2):216-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu099

Clegg, A., Rogers, L., & Young, J. (2014). Diagnostic test accuracy of simple instruments for identifying frailty in community-dwelling older people: A systematic review. Age and Ageing , 44(1):148-152. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu157

Clegg, A., Young, J., Iliffe, S., Rikkert, M.O., & Rockwood, K. (2013). Frailty in elderly people. The Lancet , 381(9868):752-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62167-9

De Labra, C., Guimaraes-Pinheiro, C., Maseda, A., Lorenzo, T., & Millán-Calenti, J.C. (2015) Effects of physical exercise interventions in frail older adults: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Geriatrics , 15(1):154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0155-4

Dent, E., Morley, J.E., Cruz-Jentoft, A.J., Woodhouse, L., Rodríguez-Mañas, L., Fried, L.P., et al . (2019). Physical frailty: ICFSR international clinical practice guidelines for identification and management. The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging , 23(9):771-787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1273-z

DeVito, C.A., Morgan, R.O., Duque, M., Abdel-Moty, E., & Virnig, B.A. (2003). Physical performance effects of low-intensity exercise among clinically defined high-risk elders. Gerontology , 49(3):146-154. https://doi.org/10.1159/000069168

Dipietro, L., Campbell, W.W., Buchner, D.M., Erickson, K.I., Powell, K.E., Bloodgood, B., et al . (2019). Physical Activity, injurious falls, and physical function in aging. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise , 51(6):1303-1313. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000001942

Edna Mayela, D.L.V.C., Miriam, L.T., Ana Isabel, G.G., Oscar, R.C., & Alejandra, C.A. (2023). Effectiveness of an online multicomponent physical exercise intervention on the physical performance of community-dwelling older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Geriatric Nursing , 54:83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.08.018

Evans, W.J., Guralnik, J., Cawthon, P., Appleby, J., Landi, F., Clarke, L., et al . (2023). Sarcopenia: No consensus, no diagnostic criteria, and no approved indication-how did we get here? Geroscience , 46:183-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-023-01016-9

Feng, L., Zin Nyunt, M.S., Gao, Q., Feng, L., Yap, K.B., Ng, T.P. (2017). Cognitive frailty and adverse health outcomes: Findings from the singapore longitudinal ageing studies (SLAS). Journal of the American Medical Directors Association , 18(3):252-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.09.015

Fent, T. (2008). Department of economic and social affairs, population division, united nations expert group meeting on social and economic implications of changing population age structures. European Journal of Population , Revue Européenne de Démographie , 24(4):451-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-008-9165-7

Fetscherin, M., & Heinrich, D. (2015). Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research , 68(2):380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.010

Fiatarone, M.A., O’Neill, E.F., Ryan, N.D., Clements, K.M., Solares, G.R., Nelson, M.E., et al . (1994). Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people. New England Journal of Medicine , 330(25):1769-1775. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199406233302501

Flores-Bello, C., Correa-Muñoz, E., Sánchez-Rodríguez, M.A., & Víctor Manuel Mendoza-Núñez. (2024). Effect of Exercise programs on physical performance in community-dwelling older adults with and without frailty: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Geriatrics , 9(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics9010008

Gené Huguet, L., Navarro González, M., Kostov, B., Ortega Carmona, M., Colungo Francia, C., Hervás Docón, A., et al . (2018). Pre frail 80: Multifactorial intervention to prevent progression of pre-frailty to frailty in the elderly. The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging , 22(10):1266-1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-018-1089-2

Gill, T.M., Baker, D.I., Gottschalk, M., Peduzzi, P.N., Allore, H., Byers, A. (2002). A program to prevent functional decline in physically frail, elderly persons who live at home. New England Journal of Medicine , 347(14):1068-1074. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa020423

Gschwind, Y.J., Kressig, R.W., Lacroix, A., Muehlbauer, T., Pfenninger, B., & Granacher, U. (2013). A best practice fall prevention exercise program to improve balance, strength/ power, and psychosocial health in older adults: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics , 13(1):105. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-13-105

Han, S., Gao, T., Mo, G., Liu, H., & Zhang, M. (2023). Bidirectional relationship between frailty and cognitive function among Chinese older adults. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics , 114:105086-105086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2023.105086

Huang, C.H., Umegaki, H., Makino, T., Uemura, K., Hayashi, T., Kitada, T., et al . (2020). Effect of various exercises on frailty among older adults with subjective cognitive concerns: A randomised controlled trial. Age and Ageing , 49(6):1011-1019. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaa086

Hui, Z., Wang, X., Zhou, Y., Li, Y., Ren, X., & Wang, M. (2022). Global research on cognitive frailty: A bibliometric and visual analysis of papers published during 2013-2021. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19(13):8170. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138170

Hwang, H.F., Suprawesta, L., Chen, S.J., Yu, W., & Lin, M.R. (2023). Predictors of incident reversible and potentially reversible cognitive frailty among Taiwanese older adults. BMC Geriatrics , 23(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-03741-4

Ip, E.H., Church, T., Marshall, S.A., Zhang, Q., Marsh, A.P., Guralnik, J., et al . (2012). Physical activity increases gains in and prevents loss of physical function: Results from the lifestyle interventions and independence for elders pilot study. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences , 68(4):426-432. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls186

Iskandar, I., Joanny, A., Azizan, A., & Justine, M. (2021). The prevalence of sarcopenia and its impact on quality of life in elderly residing in the community. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, 17(3):261-266.

Izquierdo, M., Merchant, R.A., Morley, J.E., Anker, S.D., Aprahamian, I., Arai, H., et al . (2021). International Exercise Recommendations in Older Adults (ICFSR): Expert Consensus Guidelines. The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging , 25(7):824-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-021-1665-8

Jeong, H.N., Chang, S.J., Kim, J.R., & Choi, G.W. (2022). Interventions to prevent the frailty in older women with frailty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovation in Aging , 6(Suppl 1):562-562. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igac059.2120

Kasim, N.F., Veldhuijzen van Zanten, J., & Aldred, S. (2020). Tai Chi is an effective form of exercise to reduce markers of frailty in older age. Experimental Gerontology , 135:110925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2020.110925

Kolle, A.T., Lewis, K.B., Lalonde, M., & Backman, C. (2023). Reversing frailty in older adults: A scoping review. BMC Geriatrics , 23(1):751. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04309-y

Kovács, É., Prokai, L., Mészáros, L., & Gondos, T. (2013). Adapted physical activity is beneficial on balance, functional mobility, quality of life and fall risk in community-dwelling older women: A randomized single-blinded controlled trial. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine , 49(3):301-310.

Lafrenière, S., Folch, N., Dubois, S., Bédard, L., & Ducharme, F. (2016). Strategies used by older patients to prevent functional decline during hospitalization. Clinical Nursing Research , 26(1):6-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773815601392

Lee, L.Y.K., & Chu, E.C.P. (2023). Tai chi as a body-mind exercise for promotion of healthy aging in nursing home residents: Appropriateness, feasibility, and effectiveness. Clinical Interventions in Aging , 18:1949-1959. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S430968

Leng, S., Chen, X., & Mao, G. (2014). Frailty syndrome: An overview. Clinical Interventions in Aging , 9:433-441. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s45300

Li, C., Ge, S., Yin, Y., Tian, C., Mei, Y., & Han, P. (2023). Frailty is associated with worse cognitive functioning in older adults. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 14:1108902. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1108902

Li, L., Catalá-López, F., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Tian, J., Aleixandre- Benavent, R., Pieper, D., et al . (2016). The global research collaboration of network meta-analysis: A social network analysis. Plos One , 11(9):e0163239. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163239

Li, X., Zhang, Y., Tian, Y., Cheng, Q., Gao, Y., & Gao, M. (2022). Exercise interventions for older people with cognitive frailty-a scoping review. BMC Geriatrics , 22(1):721. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03370-3

Ligezka, A.N., Mohamed, A., Pascoal, C., Ferreira, V.D.R., Boyer, S., Lam, C., et al . (2022). Patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in PMM2-CDG. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism , 136(2):145-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2022.04.002

Lin, Y., Chen, C.Y., Shuk, D., Montayre, J., Lee, C.Y., & Ho, M. (2022). The relationship between physical activity trajectories and frailty: A 20-year prospective cohort among community-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatrics , 22(1):867. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03493-7

Lutz, W., Sanderson, W., & Scherbov, S. (2008). The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature , 451(7179):716-719. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06516

Mauricio, V.G., Daniel, R., & Duque, G. (2024). Exercise as a therapeutic tool in age-related frailty and cardiovascular disease: Challenges and strategies. Canadian Journal of Cardiology , 40:1458-1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2024.01.005

Meunier, A., Longworth, L., Kowal, S., Ramagopalan, S., Love- Koh, J., & Griffin, S. (2022). Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health technologies: Data requirements and challenges. Value in Health , 2023:60-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.011

Money, A., Harris, D., Hawley-Hague, H., McDermott, J., Vardy, E., & Todd, C. (2023). Acceptability of physical activity signposting for pre-frail older adults: A qualitative study to inform intervention development. BMC Geriatrics , 23(1):621. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04202-8

Mugueta-Aguinaga, I., & Garcia-Zapirain, B. (2017). Is technology present in frailty? technology a back-up tool for dealing with frailty in the elderly: A systematic review. Aging and Disease , 8(2):2005.

https://doi.org/10.14336/ad.2016.0901

Mulasso, A., Roppolo, M., Rainoldi, A., & Rabaglietti, E. (2022). Effects of a multicomponent exercise program on prevalence and severity of the frailty syndrome in a sample of Italian community-dwelling older adults. Healthcare , 10(5):911. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050911

Muscedere, J., Afilalo, J., Araujo de Carvalho, I., Cesari, M., Clegg, A., Eriksen, H.E., et al . (2019). Moving towards common data elements and core outcome measures in frailty research. Journal of Frailty and Aging , 9(1):14-22. https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2019.43

Nagai, K., Miyamato, T., Okamae, A., Tamaki, A., Fujioka, H., Wada, Y., et al . (2018). Physical activity combined with resistance training reduces symptoms of frailty in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics , 76:41-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2018.02.005

Negm, A.M., Kennedy, C.C., Thabane, L., Veroniki, A.A., Adachi, J.D., Richardson, J., et al . (2017). Management of frailty: A protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Systematic Reviews , 6(1):130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0522-7

Negm, A.M., Kennedy, C.C., Thabane, L., Veroniki, A.A., Adachi, J.D., Richardson, J., et al . (2019). Management of frailty: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association , 20(10):1190-1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2019.08.009

Neto, S., Rosa, S., Freire, M.D., Correa, H.L., Pedreira, R.C., Dias, F.C.F., et al . (2023). Geriatric and gerontology research: A scientometric investigation of open access journal articles indexed in the scopus database. Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research , 27(3):183-191. https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.23.0076

Niazi, S.K., Greenberg-Worisek, A.J., Smith, J.L., Matthews, A., Boyum, P.P., Nordan, L., et al . (2022). Exploring the patient experience with patient-reported outcomes: A qualitative, multistakeholder study. Southern Medical Journal , 115(9):653-657. https://doi.org/10.14423/smj.0000000000001438

Okamura, K. (2019). Interdisciplinarity revisited: Evidence for research impact and dynamism. Palgrave Communications , 5(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0352-4

Peng, C., Burr, J.A., Yuan, Y., & Lapane, K.L. (2023). Physical frailty and cognitive function among older chinese adults: The mediating roles of activities of daily living limitations and depression. Journal of Frailty and Aging , 12(3):156-165. https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2023.1

Pialoux, T., Goyard, J., & Lesourd, B. (2012). Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: A systematic review. Geriatrics and Gerontology International , 12(2):189-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2011.00797.x

Puts, M.T.E., Toubasi, S., Andrew, M.K., Ashe, M.C., Ploeg, J., Atkinson, E., et al . (2017). Interventions to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults: A scoping review of the literature and international policies. Age and Ageing , 46(3):383-392. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afw247

Rahayu, U.B., Rahman, F., Setiyadi, N.A., & Azizan, A. (2021). Exercise and physical health in survivors of COVID-19: A scoping review. Journal of Medicinal and Chemical Sciences , 4(2):154-162. https://doi.org/10.26655/jmchemsci.2021.2.6

Reeves, D., Howells, K., Sidaway, M., Blakemore, A., Hann, M., Panagioti, M., et al . (2018). The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design was found to be highly susceptible to low statistical power and internal validity biases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 95:111-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.008

Rodrigues, F., Domingos, C., Monteiro, D., & Morouço, P. (2022). A review on aging, sarcopenia, falls, and resistance training in community-dwelling older adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19(2):874. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020874

Rubenstein, L.Z., Josephson, K.R., Trueblood, P.R., Loy, S., Harker, J.O., Pietruszka, F.M., et al . (2000). Effects of a group exercise program on strength, mobility, and falls among fall-prone elderly men. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences , 55(6):M317-M321. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/55.6.m317

Sadjapong, U., Yodkeeree, S., Sungkarat, S., & Siviroj, P. (2020). Multicomponent exercise program reduces frailty and inflammatory biomarkers and improves physical performance in community-dwelling older adults: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17(11):3760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113760

Sarkies, M.N., Robins, L.M., Jepson, M., Williams, C.M., Taylor, N.F., O’Brien, L., et al . (2021). Effectiveness of knowledge brokering and recommendation dissemination for influencing healthcare resource allocation decisions: A cluster randomised controlled implementation trial. PLoS Medicine , 18(10):e1003833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003833

Seguin, R., & Nelson, M. (2003). The benefits of strength training for older adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 25(3):141-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00177-6

Seldeen, K.L., MacDonald, B.A., & Troen, B.R. (2022). Frailty: The End of the Osteosarcopenia Continuum? Netherlands: Elsevier EBooks. p. 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-820088-9.00002-0

Shamliyan, T., Talley, K.M.C., Ramakrishnan, R., & Kane, R.L. (2013). Association of frailty with survival: A systematic literature review. Ageing Research Reviews , 12(2):719-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2012.03.001

Shears, M., McGolrick, D., Waters, B., Jakab, M., Boyd, J.G., & Muscedere, J. (2017). Frailty measurement and outcomes in interventional studies: Protocol for a systematic review of randomised control trials. BMJ Open , 7(12):e018872. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018872

Sun, M., Min, L., Xu, N., Huang, L., & Li, X. (2021). The effect of exercise intervention on reducing the fall risk in older adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18(23):12562. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312562

Talar, K., Hernández-Belmonte, A., Vetrovsky, T., Steffl, M., Kałamacka, E., & Courel-Ibáñez, J. (2021). Benefits of resistance training in early and late stages of frailty and sarcopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Journal of Clinical Medicine , 10(8):1630. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081630

Tan, R.S., Goh, E.F., Wang, D., Chung, R., Zeng, Z., Yeo, A., et al . (2022). Effectiveness and usability of the system for assessment and intervention of frailty for community-dwelling pre-frail older adults: A pilot study. Frontiers in Medicine (Lausanne) , 9: 955785. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.955785

Tawfik, G.M., Dila, K.A.S., Mohamed, M.Y.F., Tam, D.N.H., Kien, N.D., Ahmed, A.M., et al . (2019). A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Tropical Medicine and Health , 47(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6

Travers, J., Romero-Ortuno, R., Bailey, J., & Cooney, M.T. (2018). Delaying and reversing frailty: A systematic review of primary care interventions. British Journal of General Practice , 69(678):e61-e69. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18x700241

Valenzuela, P.L., Morales, J.S., Castillo-García, A., Mayordomo- Cava, J., García-Hermoso, A., Izquierdo, M., et al . (2020). Effects of exercise interventions on the functional status of acutely hospitalised older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews , 61:101076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2020.101076

Valenzuela, P.L., Ortiz-Alonso, J., Bustamante-Ara, N., Vidán, M.T., Rodríguez-Romo, G., Mayordomo-Cava, J., et al . (2020). Individual responsiveness to physical exercise intervention in acutely hospitalized older adults. Journal of Clinical Medicine , 9(3):797. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030797

Vellas, B., Balardy, L., Gillette-Guyonnet, S., Abellan Van Kan, G., Ghisolfi-Marque, A., Subra, J., et al . (2013). Looking for frailty in community-dwelling older persons: The gerontopole frailty screening tool (GFST). The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging , 17(7):629-631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-013-0363-6

Vieira, E.S., & Gomes, J.A.N.F. (2009). A comparison of scopus and web of science for a typical university. Scientometrics , 81(2):587-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0

Walsh, B., Fogg, C., Harris, S., Roderick, P., De Lusignan, S., England, T., et al . (2023). Frailty transitions and prevalence in an ageing population: Longitudinal analysis of primary care data from an open cohort of adults aged 50 and over in England, 2006-2017. Age and Ageing , 52(5):afad058. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afad058

Wang, Z., Meng, D., He, S., Guo, H., Tian, Z., Wei, M., et al . (2022). The effectiveness of a hybrid exercise program on the physical fitness of frail elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19(17):11063. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711063

Weening-Dijksterhuis, E., De Greef, M.H.G., Scherder, E.J.A., Slaets, J.P.J., & Van der Schans, C.P. (2011). Frail institutionalized older persons. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , 90(2):156-168. https://doi.org/10.1097/phm.0b013e3181f703ef

Welstead, M., Jenkins, N.D., Russ, T.C., Luciano, M., & Muniz- Terrera, G. (2020). A systematic review of frailty trajectories: Their shape and influencing factors. The Gerontologist , 61(8):e463-e475. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa061

Wolf, S.L., O’Grady, M., Easley, K.A., Guo, Y., Kressig, R.W., & Kutner, M. (2006). The influence of intense tai chi training on physical performance and hemodynamic outcomes in transitionally frail, older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A , 61(2):184-189. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/61.2.184

Wu, C. (2023). Embracing complexity: New horizons in frailty research. The Lancet Regional Health-Western Pacific , 34:100791-100791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2023.100791

Xue, H., Huang, C., Zhu, Q., Zhou, S., Ji, Y., Ding, X., et al . (2022). Relationships among cognitive function, frailty, and health outcome in community-dwelling older adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience , 13:790251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.790251

Yi, M., Zhang, W., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., & Wang, Z. (2023). The effectiveness of Otago Exercise Program in older adults with frailty or pre-frailty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics , 114:105083-105083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2023.105083

Yoon, D.H., Lee, J.Y., & Song, W. (2018). Effects of resistance exercise training on cognitive function and physical performance in cognitive frailty: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging , 22(8):944-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-018-1090-9

Yu, R., Leung, G., & Woo, J. (2021). Randomized controlled trial on the effects of a combined intervention of computerized cognitive training preceded by physical exercise for improving frailty status and cognitive function in older adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18(4):1396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041396

Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences

Issn 2783-025x (online).

Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) is a Peer Reviewed, Open Access, International Journal. It is a Referred, Indexed, Online International Journa l. Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)​   is published as a Quarterly Journal with 4 issues per year. Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)   offers fast publication of quality Research and Review articles. Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)   publishes manuscripts (Original research, review articles, Short communication and letter to editor) on original work, either experimental or theoretical) from all aspects of Life Sciences (Biology, Genetics, Biological Anthropology, Botany, Medical Sciences, Veterinary Sciences, Biochemical Genetics, Biometry, Clinical Genetics, Cytogenetics, Genetic Epidemiology, Genetic Testing, Evolution and Population Genetics, Immunogenetics and Molecular Genetics). The journal also covers ethical issues. To know more details about Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)  Click here...                               

Aims and Scope

Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)  aims to establish itself as a platform for exchanging ideas in new emerging trends in Biology and Allied Applied Sciences etc. It aims to serve as a forum for life scientists and health professionals. The journal publishes original papers on current research and practical programmes, short notes, news items, book reviews, reports of meetings and professional announcements. Constructive criticisms and discussions of published papers and letters of relevance and interest to the readership will be published at the discretion of the Managing Editor. The journal is committed to prompt review, and priority publication is given to manuscripts with novel or timely findings, and to manuscripts of unusual interests.  Since inception, Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)  is continuously publishing original and best quality research articles. To view full Aims and Scope of Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)   Click here...

Call for Paper

Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)  invites you to submit your research work via our Online Submission System or through Email at [email protected] . Make sure that the submitted manuscript should not have been submitted or published previously anywhere else for publication. It is strictly advised to submit original and plagiarism free articles only for possible consideration, else they will be rejected without any response. All received manuscripts will go through Double Blind Peer Review and final decision shall be based on the high level of quality, originality and additional contribution to the existing knowledge.  Special note : Once your article is submitted to Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) , you cannot submit / present this paper anywhere else, unless your article is rejected by Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) . Accepted submission will not be withdrawn or be presentable in any other journal / conference / magazine or any media without written permission of Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) . 

Why Publish with OARJLS?

• International Open Access Journal
• Peer Reviewed  Journal with ISSN (under process),
• Fast and Easy Publication of high quality Research and Review Papers
• Certificate of publication to each author at no cost
• Submission via e-mail /online 
• Online tracking of articles submitted.
• Open Access to all Articles: Anytime & Anywhere in the world
• Improved visibility of articles to  get more citations
• Immediate response to author queries.
• Highly experiences Editorial Board and Reviewer members ​

Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) Policies

Open access policy: Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access. To know more about Open access  Click here

Peer-review policy: The manuscript submitted to Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) will be reviewed by two suitable experts in respective subject area. The reports of both the reviewers will be considered when deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript. Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on reviewer’s comments. To know more about Peer-review process Click here

Anti-Plagiarism policy: Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) has very strict policy against plagiarism. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. To know more about Plagiarism Click here

Copyright policy: All the articles published in  Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS)  are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license . The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright of their work (all usages allowed except for commercial purpose).

Author self-archiving policy: Open Access Research Journal of Life Sciences (OARJLS) allows the authors to self-archive pre-print, post-print and publisher’s version of the article in any Open Access Initiative (OAI) compliant repository.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations AmsterdamUMC, Department of Ethics, Health and Humanities, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Philosophy, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaram, Bandung, Indonesia

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), Universiteit Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

• Joeri K. Tijdink, 
• Govert Valkenburg, 
• Sarah de Rijcke, 

• Published: September 4, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Introduction

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trial registration

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/ .

Citation: Tijdink JK, Valkenburg G, Rijcke Sd, Dix G (2024) Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study. PLoS ONE 19(9): e0307814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814

Editor: Julian D. Cortes, Universidad del Rosario: Universidad Del Rosario, COLOMBIA

Received: August 30, 2023; Accepted: July 11, 2024; Published: September 4, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Tijdink et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: ZonMw (= funder in the Netherlands) Award Number: Grant No. 445001010 | Recipient: Sarah de Rijcke, Prof. PhD The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

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 [ 1 , 2 ]. Over the past decade, the shortcomings of assessment criteria for promotion and tenure for researchers have become increasingly evident [ 3 – 6 ]. Such criteria may stimulate undesirable research practices such as guest/ghost authorship, multi-publishing in predatory journals, salami slicing and p-hacking with the aim to increase performance metrics. These criteria jeopardize the responsible conduct of research. Besides, it may induce fierce competition, false incentives, reduced willingness to collaborate and reduced attention to other important academic duties (e.g. education). Moreover, other research also emphasized reform of evaluation practices to stimulate flexibility per individual assessment, institutions should incentivize non-traditional criteria [ 7 ] and emphasizing interdisciplinary work [ 8 ], would bring new perspectives to the debate on promotion and tenure. There have been a number of initiatives recently that aim to change current assessment practices (the Leiden Manifesto [ 6 ], the DORA statement [ 9 ], the changing incentives and reward criteria in funding bodies [ 10 , 11 ], the Reward alliance and the Hong Kong manifesto [ 12 ].

However, two major unknowns still stand out.

First, it is unclear to what extent institutions will actually change their evaluation practices. A recent study, investigating such practices in 146 institutions, shows that, despite the criticism, many institutions still favor traditional assessment criteria over novel and innovative criteria that emphasize compliance with open science practices, good leadership, responsible supervision or educational skills [ 7 ]. Regarding the reliability of scientific knowledge, similarly, universities might remain rather conservative in not including the transparency, replicability and accuracy of reported findings in new-found assessment criteria [ 13 ].

Second, it is yet unclear whether the existing reform initiatives will counter unintended effects of the conventional use of performance metrics. Being relatively new, it is an open question whether or not they help to foster responsible conduct of research by selecting the scientists with more multidimensional profiles beyond a good publication, citation and funding record. Moreover, it is uncertain if these mechanisms will foster academic behaviour that complies with ideals of responsible conduct in research.

In light of these two unknowns, it is important to understand the kinds of bottom-up support that institutional changes in academic assessment can count on. For as a survey of publication practices showed, researchers do (re)consider such practices in relation to institutional evaluation criteria [ 14 ]. The dissemination and acceptability of new evaluation practices could benefit from insights into researchers’ perspectives on the current assessment of responsible conduct of research and on the changes in the assessment of academic tasks and responsibilities that are needed to assess research and researchers responsibly. One study alluded to this by emphasizing researchers perceptions of valuation regimes beyond traditional research activities and how current systems and criteria can influence behavior and choices regarding the activities they prioritize [ 15 ]. This is also influenced by intense competition can narrow the range of activities and goals that scientists pursue due to the limited set of criteria and values by which scientists are judged and that reevaluating the criteria in academia is necessary to create a healthier and more sustainable research culture [ 16 ].

In a two-year qualitative research project, Optimizing the responsible researcher , we asked: What possibilities do biomedical researchers themselves see for the improvement of evaluation practices? To systematically address that question, we draw on 6 focus group interviews with junior and senior researchers at three Dutch University Medical Centers (UMC’s).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. The Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center assessed our project and confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to our study (see Supplementary files).

Participants

We included researchers who worked at 3 different University Medical Centers in the Netherlands. We decided to conduct focusgroups among 2 different groups and selected 2 types of active researchers; 1) Senior researchers: assistant, associate and full professors and 2) Junior researchers: postdocs, PhD candidates. We selected those researchers who have published about their research in the past two years, as a proxy criterion for their being ‘active’ as researchers. The two categories are considered sufficiently internally homogeneous with respect to academic seniority, and should allow for the focus group participants to recognize each other as peers. Our recruitment strategy was diverse; we used several techniques to invite colleagues from different ranks and disciplines. We approached the dean’s office to ask for interested researchers, used our collegial network and randomly invited researchers by email to invite them to participate in our study.

We recruited a variety of biomedical disciplines to create some perspectival diversity. Within each group, all participants were selected from the same UMC. We aimed for a group size between 6 and 8 participants, and maintained a minimum of 3 researchers. After confirmation of participation, the participants were sent a one-page description of the purposes of the research project as well as the main conditions of the informed consent in advance of the project by email.

Informed consent

Participation to the focus groups were subject to obtaining verbal informed consent at the start of the focus group, referring to the sent document that contained the privacy policy and based on additional verbal explanation during the focus groups of the following conditions: 1) the purpose of the research and the focus group; 2) treatment of the focus group recordings: anonymized transcriptions and notes on nonverbal communication and behaviour, coding of transcriptions by the research team. And 3) the right to leave the focus group at any point, or to refuse answering specific questions or discussing specific topics, without further obligation of explanation.

Procedure of focus groups

First, we investigated how researchers perceive the norms they see their work subject to, and how they see these norms relate to their own ideals of proper research / responsible research practices. Underlying the focus group methodology is the idea that people come to more balanced and comprehensive account in a conversation with peers, than they would in an individual conversation with an interviewer who is less akin. As set out above, the groups were composed homogeneously with respect to academic rank so participants could recognize each other as peers. Heterogeneity in biomedical disciplines was pursued, as this is reckoned conducive to critical appraisal.

The focus groups were conducted in 2017 and 2018. The focus groups were in English if there were participants that were not fluent in Dutch. A moderator facilitated the focus groups (JKT) and an observer (GV and/or GD) made notes about the process and its content. The focus groups started with a short introduction in which the goals of the project were explained. Questions could be answered in that phase. We used a topic guide as a semi-structured way to guide the focus group discussions.

The focus groups were recorded by the research team and transcribed by an external party. Most transcriptions were coded by 2 members of the research team (JKT and GD). In first instance, code systems were developed and via inductive content analysis led to several themes, and in second instance the themes were analysed by the second coder. After the focus groups, participants received a short summary of the discussion (member check) [ 17 ] or received a preprint of this manuscript.

We used inductive content analysis for the analysis of the transcripts of the focus groups and took the following steps in this process. First we coded the data on a phrase level. Next, we established a tentative set of themes to analyze the selected phrases, while allowing for flexibility to revise and update these themes during the process, if necessary. Then we analyzed the different themes and summarized these themes. This process of inductive content analysis helps us to understand complex discussions and bring them back to meaningful themes [ 18 ]. One researcher (JKT) analyzed and coded the transcripts entirely. One other team member (GD) read the transcripts entirely and coded 2 transcripts independently. The themes were discussed with the other team members [ 17 ].

Descriptive information.

We conducted 6 focus groups with 32 researchers from 3 university medical centers and across a wide variety of disciplinary fields, see Table 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.t001

We started the focus groups with an exercise to familiarize the participants with each other, the topic and the methodology. Participants were asked about their experiences with questionable research practices and what they find the most detrimental research misbehaviors. In both junior and senior groups, most participants had experiences with authorship disputes, while some of them reported more severe breaches of RI (such as data manipulation). Interestingly, bad supervision was mostly mentioned by the more senior participants as a potential threat of research integrity.

In analyzing the content of the focus group transcripts, we came to identify 3 themes–collaboration, supervision and teaching–that relate to responsible research practices. Each theme represents a responsibility of researchers vis-à-vis others that the participants think should be better recognized and rewarded. After this, we explored potential solutions for improving the assessment criteria that they are also in line with the identified themes of the responsible research practices.

Based on these 3 themes that were discussed, we divided them into 2 categories: 1) responsibilities of researchers that are related to research integrity; and 2) new forms of assessment that could cater to these responsibilities. Both categories hence consisted of 3 themes each. We have collected quotes from all focus groups and have reported the most typical quotes that illustrate the discussed solutions in Table 2 at the end of this results section. If the focus group was conducted in Dutch, we have translated the quote into English. Below, we present the two categories of themes. After these results of the focus groups, we will briefly discuss the results of the evaluation labs with relevant stakeholders that we organized to safeguard the uptake of our findings.

Below we highlight the 3 main themes (collaboration, supervision and teaching by emphasizing the most suitable quotes about these themes. Furthermore, we describe the 3 solutions that were brought up during the discussions on researcher assessment in the FGs and highlight potential limitations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.t002

I. Responsible research as the relational responsibilities of researchers

Research integrity is a term that sparked lively discussions in the focus groups. But it is also a term that was difficult to capture as one ‘thing’; a thing that can be clearly defined and assessed. In the first part of the focus group, participants discussed what research integrity meant to them. They highlighted that a researcher with integrity is someone who does good research and knows what good research is. For many, research integrity is not necessarily a character trait that you develop–although honesty would be part of the requirements of a responsible researcher. More than a character trait, integrity is seen by participants as an element of good research practices associated with the replicability of someone’s work; the compliance with open science principles (such as sharing data); and collegial reviews to assess to what extent the published work is of high quality. Despite these elements, familiar ones for those professionally preoccupied with the topic, participants found it hard to make research integrity converge into a clear measure that could find its way in the assessment criteria. As a senior researcher (UMC 1) expressed it: And integrity : I cannot see yet how one should assess this . It is very important , of course , for a responsible scientist , to have some of these measures that you should ask for in a more qualitative manner or that should be part of the way people assess one another .

The reproducibility of scientific results, for instance, seems particularly hard to evaluate: ‘ The only thing that comes to my mind that would be an unbiased , but really tricky , way to sort of assess honesty , is to look at how someone’s work is followed up and reproduced independently , right , after publication ’ (Senior Researcher UMC 2).

But although research integrity seems elusive as a characteristic of research or of a researcher which one could directly measure and assess, participants did find indirect ways that open it up for evaluative purposes. What particularly stands out are the social relations and skills that are deemed necessary to act responsibly in research settings. These relations and skills are pivotal in conducting responsible research and permeate the kinds of role modeling and leadership that people are capable of. Or, in the words of a junior researcher, ‘ being responsible for your researchers is also part of responsible research’ (Junior researcher UMC 3). Junior researchers would appreciate more focus on scientists who act responsibly because ‘people who enjoy the game , but that are not doing responsible research , they stick around too much ’ (Junior researcher UMC 2). Another junior researcher sides with this point of view, though expressed somewhat stronger terms: ‘When you look at the system as it is right now , it presorts quite significantly on a very specific , scary personality type’ (Junior researcher UMC 1). A possible explanation for that presorting process, is that people who enjoy ‘the game’ sometimes become full professor predominantly on the basis of their skills as researcher, not so much on their skills as research leaders. Perhaps, these research content-related qualities should not stand out in the decision to let researchers ‘supervise these people who end up at home with a burn-out’ (Junior UMC 3). In addition to the inability to directly assess research integrity, the importance of social relations and skills in responsible research practices hence stood out as a second key finding. These relational responsibilities branch out in three different themes that should be (more) central in responsible research assessment according to our participants: researchers relate to peers in constructive collaboration to foster responsible research among researchers in biomedical research overall; researchers relate to PhD’s in responsible supervisory practices; and they relate to students in responsible teaching practices.

Relational responsibility theme 1: Collaboration.

The participants agreed that collaboration in general is essential for scientific research. In biomedicine, research is mostly done in teams and the importance and value ‘team science’ has gained more attention recently [ 19 , 20 ]. Participants consider the ability to collaborate a pivotal skill for a biomedical researcher. They feel that poor collaborative skills are important reasons for disputes and potentially threaten research integrity. Having collaborative skills can, according to most of the participants, hence be considered as a core characteristic of a responsible researchers and therefore ‘collaboration , the competence to collaborate , has to be assessed’ (senior researcher UMC 3). The actual assessments of (the development of) this competence could increase the emphasis on the collaborative nature of biomedical research.

The question how to integrate this competence in individual assessments leads to various answers. As with supervision, one can ask for 360 degrees of feedback from team members to assess someone’s collaborative skills. Interestingly, some participants are geared towards more competitive inducements for collaboration: ‘You could also have like , well , a prize for a well-functioning team; you could have something like a team player prize’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Other participants, on the contrary, reckoned that rewarding collaboration skills through such external incentives might be problematic due to the fact that collaboration should remain an intrinsic drive of team leaders: ‘ Well , many people have the inner incentive that they want their group to function well and we don’t need to have such an artificial score for it’ (Senior Researcher UMC 1).

Relational responsibility theme 2: PhD supervision.

In addition to collaboration, the participants stress that PhD supervision is one of the key elements of responsible research practices. Although it is not valued and represented in their institutions’ assessment criteria, most participants feel that supervision is one of the cornerstones of such practices. To start with, they argue one has to be aware of the fact that one is a role model in their research group in the sense that ‘ well , you know how things ought to be and show that too . And you straighten people out when they think they can deviate from it’ (senior researcher UMC 3). In addition, participants consider that supervision of high quality should not solely focus on transmitting the technical knowledge and know-how that are essential for good research practices but should also focus on the relationship between supervisor and supervisee. They suggest that there should be attention to the personal development of the supervisee. As one senior researcher expressed it, to educate researchers to stand their ground in society you ‘not only have to invest in scientific training but in someone’s personal development in the wider sense of the term’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Such supervision skills require both training and practice to make people aware of their role as well as their capacities. Being promoted from junior to senior positions ‘you grow into this at a certain moment’ through the ‘interaction with your people’ (senior researcher UMC 3). And even though personality may play a role here as well, becoming a good role model and developing supervisory skills is easier ‘when you are trained well and when it is , kind of , explained to you’ (senior researcher UMC 3).

Assessment of supervision is complex: it is difficult to measure the quality of supervision and there are limitations to assess supervision quality by PhD students because they have a dependent relationship with their supervisor. A potential solution to these issues is also suggested. There can be a mentor system, where PI’s from other departments have regular meetings with PhD students, or an semi-anonymous ‘360 degrees assessment’ with special attention to supervision skills.

Relational responsibility theme 3: Teaching.

Currently, educational responsibilities are often seen as a burden for individual researchers because they are not a top priority for them. Although the education of students is a vital responsibility of universities, this is not automatically reflected into the ideals of good science and responsible research practices: ‘To teach or to disseminate things to society : that does belong to it but is currently not considered to be a way to be a good scientist’ (Junior researcher UMC 1). According to the participants, teaching has thus a very important indirect relation with responsible research practices. Students learn to become responsible researchers by following workshops and lectures, being supervised during master theses, develop academic skills in classrooms and gain experience in conducting research that is taught according to the highest standards of research integrity. However, engaging in education will cost researchers time and energy that they cannot spend on other ‘assessable’ tasks such as writing publications and grant applications. The notion that teaching will not be very important to their career advancement is widespread. This in turn makes that some participants have developed a pragmatic attitude towards teaching that can border on the opportunistic: ‘For some people , teaching is not their greatest hobby . And then they still do it and try to somehow get a good evaluation out of it’ (senior researcher UMC 3). What does not help, participants add, is that hiring committees seem to be looking for the impossible. As one of our senior researchers states: ‘You have to conduct research , and create societal relevant work and you have to be good at teaching too’ (Senior researcher UMC 3). But while you are expected to excel in all academic tasks, it is not easy to be good at everything.

The participants give several solutions to include education in the assessment system. This can be done by taking the hours spent on education, the development of new courses and student evaluations explicitly into consideration when assessing researchers. A possible limitation to these suggestions is also brought up: it may strengthen the pragmatic or opportunistic attitude to get high assessment scores on educational skills.

From relational responsibilities to relational assessment

The three relational responsibilities that our participants singled out are deemed essential in fostering responsible research practices and a positive research culture of a faculty, department, or research group. However, the participants acknowledge that relational responsibilities very much depend on research culture, formation of teams and activities of team leaders. They are key in engaging in, and maintaining, collaborative relations, supervise young researchers and are often considered a role model to give the right example in their team. ‘In a research group , you function as a role model in that you also , well , know how things should go and show how things should go . And to call people to order in case they think they can deviate from this . ’ (Senior researcher UMC 2). The orientation towards the team and how it functions is bound up with an orientation towards the kinds of social skills, such as a reflexive stance and communicative skills that someone has to possess or develop. Some participants highlighted that what makes that someone becomes a team player is a specific attitude. As way of relating to others, taking relational responsibility is opposed to the search for self-aggrandizement that is also plentiful in academia: ‘I would think that ‘responsible’ is more applicable to someone who intends to be of service to others and does not act in too selfish a way’ (Senior researcher UMC 2). Or even more strongly put, responsible researchers can be opposed to narcistic attitudes of researchers: ‘narcissism is an outgoing personality , that is not something compatible with responsible researchers .’ Though deemed essential to responsible research practices, team-oriented attitudes are not seen as core characteristics that are essential for researchers. If they want to further in their career, team oriented is something that is often being valued but never recognized in current evaluation forms: ‘There are quite a lot of researchers who really make it , but who are not team players’ (Junior Researcher UMC 2 ) . On the contrary, the ‘system’ seems to discourage team science by focusing on individual recognition: ‘Because it is almost the case that you remain a team player despite the system . Because the system holds individuals accountable of course’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Currently, the assessment criteria are predominantly focusing on achievements made by an individual. But when the research community deems relational responsibilities as important as individual achievement, then the assessment criteria should take such responsibilities into account. Below we describe the 3 themes that were highlighted by our participants as potential instruments to assess relational responsibilities.

Relational assessment theme 1: Reward team effort and team science.

The current assessment criteria are mainly focused on individual publications and metrics performance and not rewarding team efforts. Since collaboration is considered one of the cornerstones of responsible biomedical research, more emphasis on team science in assessment and promotion criteria would help. This will also put less pressure on individual performance and reward a wider range of researchers for their contribution. Currently, the researchers who value collective performance as at least as important as individual achievement and may not focus solely at obtaining tenure or full professorship, do not feel recognized while they are very much involved in collaborative projects. As one researcher suggests: ‘According to me , the biggest bottleneck is that these criteria always apply to the individual . While we , in this conversation , emphasize that it is a collective effort , a team process’ (senior research UMC 3). A second way of better assessing teamwork would be to reward academic leaders who show that you can lead a flourishing team on several levels. Only if you can fulfill these criteria, you will have a chance to get promoted: ‘ That you say something like : you only become a leader when you can really keep a team on track . And that is what you have to show . That is one of the competences that is assessed . And this means that you can manage this team , it means that you can see the broader scope of a research field …’ (senior researcher UMC 1)

A third and final suggestion would be to better reward a diverse set of roles in teams. This is not often part of current assessment systems but is a crucial factor in good team work. You need a diverse team with a wide variety of research qualities–and persons who possess such qualities–to make your research endeavor both responsible and successful. Rewarding team efforts here means that you have eyes for all the different perspectives and types work that are needed in a team and think of a way to make visible how an individual human being functions inside it: ‘And to really give weight to this without that Hirsch-index type of thing . I don’t know how to exactly do that . So : recognize the diversity inside the team and your role in this’ (senior researcher UMC 3).

Relational assessment theme 2: Provide 360 degrees of feedback.

In the focus group discussions, participants also addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the ‘360 degrees feedback’-model. On the positive side, this is a form of assessment where you can explore multiple dimensions of a person such as collaborative skills, motivation and personality by (anonymously) interviewing co-workers, subordinates, or bosses. One participant highlighted one of the benefits: ‘my supervisor did not see all my qualities . Other ranks should have a better picture of your qualities and what you can improve (senior researcher UMC 3)’. A senior researcher, who is part of a committee that keeps track of PhD student well-being, comments upon the ‘enormous number of dysfunctional labs , that you would never think of’ (Senior researcher UMC 2). To get a grip on existing lab culture and the problems that might otherwise remain hidden, the participant advocates ‘the idea of interviewing also people who are junior’ to get unbiased and open feedback: ‘ I mean , personally I also did this and it’s really interesting to see what people think of me , what I need to tone down , what I need to improve on , and I think that’s something that would be important in the assessment of senior PIs’ (senior researcher UMC 2). Introducing 360 degrees of feedback would allow the institute to find out what people think of the leadership, the environment and the (lack of) transparency.

On the downside, it can potentially be influenced by negative attitudes of others who are begrudged, are unkind and can be subjective. Another limitation is the fact that it is time consuming for both the institution and the researcher to complete. Among the participants, this sparked the discussion on audits, a thorough (and time-consuming) way to explore responsible research practices on the shop floor by auditing research teams and practices in laboratories. The participants directly stated that for some disciplinary fields this would be easier to implement than other fields (e.g. audits may potentially have most impact in research labs, and may be less feasible for departments that conduct clinical research).

Relational assessment theme 3: Engage in narrative assessment.

A third way of assessing whether a researcher is responsible according to our participants is by using the narrative in assessment procedure. In narratives you assess the quality of a researcher in terms of research aims, individual motivation and responsible research practices and can answer the following questions. How does someone behave vis-à-vis others? What do colleagues say about the research or researcher? How compliant is their engagement with open science practices and what are the virtues of someone as a person? In line with what we remarked earlier, our participants were ambivalent about the idea that relational responsibilities can actually be directly assessed as they are not so easy to detect or measure. Or, as one senior researcher expressed it: ‘These soft skills are very difficult to capture in criteria that you can also put on a list’ (Senior Researcher UMC 2). But assessment in a narrative form could help out here: ‘perhaps people should be interviewed by commissions or something like that . That you get a way better picture of the person and how he operates in such a team’ (Senior research UMC 1). Another participant pointed to the possibilities of a narrative assessment in differentiating between qualities someone possesses. This comes back to the notion that you will not have a one size, fits all assessment and that most researchers have different qualities. Some researchers in specific disciplines do not publish much but have other important academic qualities that should be acknowledged and considered. To get a hold on these qualities, a narrative can shine light on them. Only with this, you will get a better idea what the researcher is like and what his qualities are.

Although relational responsibilities are valued as part of responsible research behavior and practices, some ambivalence remains here. Some participants also raised concerns that these alternative assessments would lead to too much assessment procedures for researchers: ‘shouldn’t you be afraid , at least I am , that we are going to design a whole system to get the non-responsible people in line ? That the instrument is in fact a bit of an overkill ?’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Other participants do not see the strife for recognition from others as an evil per se. They argue that ‘a little narcissism here and there is not so bad in itself because it will get you a long way and you can do many useful things with it in the end’ (junior researcher UMC 1). This point of view is in a certain way partially incongruent with other findings as this does emphasize the need for individual recognition and fewer relational responsibilities from narcissists.

In general, current evaluation criteria in academia have received severe criticism in the past years [ 4 – 7 , 9 , 13 ]. Several initiatives have pleaded for a different approach when assessing research and researchers and often conventional metrics, such as the impact factor or the H-index are considered weak and unidimensional. However, the use of these metrics is widespread and engrained in academic culture [ 5 ]. 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 of the focus groups 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. After our systematic analysis of these ‘relational responsibilities’, we focused on the solutions that the participants came up with: how can these duties be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria? Participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science, 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.

Our study sheds a new light on the assessment discussions as it is emphasizing the assessment of relational responsibilities. Besides, our study also provides a number of suggestions how these skills should be assessed and how these skills are closely related and connected to responsible research. Our findings also fit well with the national initiative in the Netherlands entitled ‘ room for everyone’s talent’ that is initiated by the Dutch Royal Academy of Science and recognized by all universities, funding agencies and other stakeholders in the Netherlands. In their position paper, they plead for a radical change in assessing researchers with an emphasis on diversity, focus on quality, stimulating open science and encouraging academic leadership [ 21 ]. Although not specifically focusing on relational responsibilities as a different entity, the way these responsibilities should be recognized is reflected in their position paper.

Interpretation of data

Our study identifies the need for alternative assessment criteria that are related to responsible research practices and outlines how relational responsibilities should be valued in the assessment of research and researchers. Our study proposes alternatives that, although they may be a bit more difficult to implement and requires that assessment procedures are revised so as to enable them to incorporate qualitative evaluations. This is possibly challenging in its novelty, and requires additional research to further develop these evaluations. Moreover, the suggestions from the participants can help policy makers to redesign their current assessment criteria. They also are a plea for more elaborate discussions on the criteria and invite policymakers to use a different strategy to assess researchers. For example, 360 degree evaluations can form the basis of the yearly evaluation conversations where researchers have to reflect on the responsibilities they have towards others–not just their achievements. Before we turn to the introduction of these new forms of assessment in institutional settings it is necessary to emphasize the limitations of these assessment themes. There are (at least) three.

First, our results are still a first step and these types of assessment criteria are still in its infancy and need rigorous testing before they can be put into practice. Furthermore, the participants recommend a blended approach in which both the conventional criteria (JIF, H-index, funding acquisition) as the new criteria should inform assessment of researchers. We thus should exercise caution to avoid discarding valuable elements or aspects when making comprehensive changes or judgments, as prematurely eliminating the essential along with the dispensable may lead to unintended consequences.

Second, taking disciplinary differences into account, we are aware that we only included biomedical researchers. However, we think that the emphasized relational responsibilities such as leadership, collaboration or supervision are not skills that are solely displayed in biomedical research and most likely the results can be generalized to other disciplines.

Third, it is good to reflect on both reliability and validity of our findings in other research contexts (both disciplinary fields and other countries) since we only included 3 Dutch UMCs in our analysis. Future research could address these limitations by including other disciplines in our methods when designing and testing novel assessment criteria, systematically ask for reasons for non-response and try to organize larger focus groups in other disciplines.

Finally, the results also underline the relation between relational responsibilities and responsible research. Earlier research concluded that responsible research is strongly shaped by research cultures. In these cultures, norms and unwritten rules play a significant role in how researchers behave and which social skills are encouraged [ 21 – 24 ]. Assessing these skills may have an impact on more responsible research practices on the shop floor.

We also would like to highlight the CRediT taxonomy initiative as an initiative to improve researcher assessment. The CrediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) is a classification system developed to provide standardized categories for describing the contributions of individuals to scholarly work. It was created to address the need for more transparent and granular acknowledgment of individual contributions within scholarly publications. The taxonomy outlines various roles that individuals may play in the research process, going beyond traditional authorship credits. This is a better way to give credit where credit is due and further details on the roles authors play and thus give better insight in roles that can help in the assessment of researchers. Another welcome initiative is CoARA, the Coalition for advancing Research Assessment. This European coalition tries to change the current assessment system by improving the assessment of research, researchers and research organizations by recognizing and rewarding the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximize the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.

Evaluation labs

Since our project only explored the perspective of biomedical researchers, we wanted to corroborate whether these newly formulated evaluation ideas actually can be implemented in real life settings. Therefore, we conducted two evaluation labs. In these labs, we invited stakeholders (policy makers working at funding bodies in the Netherlands, and policy makers working at the eight University medical centers) to discuss the results of our study and let them reflect on whether the suggestions are implementable and feasible. They were encouraged to think what solutions that were highlighted by the participants of the focus groups could actually be useful for their institution. We asked them to discuss whether and how the themes from the focus group study could help shape new assessment criteria in their institution (exercise 1). After the discussion of the themes, we asked them to rank the themes on importance and feasibility (exercise 2).

Exercise 1.

The participants think that integrity should be an overall assessment criterium that should be included in all themes and included the work environment as part of research integrity. They agree that assessing relational responsibilities remains a very complicated matter as the participants consider assessing them as something subjective and incomplete. However, they do consider it potentially interesting to assess leadership skills as relational responsibility. They specifically highlighted supervision, and the participants suggested that PhD students should evaluate the supervisor and this knowledge should be available to include in promotion and assessment.

As for assessing relational responsibilities, they suggest that 360 degree assessment can be an interesting tool and should be expanded to international colleagues as well. Furthermore, they suggest to include the evaluation of the researchers by their patients and students as well. Finally, the assessment by narrative has the potential to be important. The main concern is that it may expand the workload of researchers even more with administrative work. It is also prone for opportunistic behaviour and manipulation. Besides, achieving trust in the narrative-method can be challenging.

Exercise 2.

We asked the participants to rank the themes by whether they consider this the most essential theme. After careful deliberation, the participants ranked collaboration, integrity and supervision as most essential. After this exercise, they included diversity as an important theme that is extensively discussed in the past years and should be considered as an evaluation criterion. Research groups can benefit from diversity with respect to competences and qualities.

Two main concerns remain in place according to the participants. In their discussions they repeatedly highlighted that there is a natural overlap between the teams and some themes are also covered by other themes (e.g. Is good supervision part of research integrity?). They also noted that scientific rigor and quality are not assessed anywhere and suggested that this should be operationalized as they relate closely with responsible research and are connected with the research integrity theme.

Strengths and limitations

There are some strengths and limitations to this study to bear in mind. First of all, this is the first study that investigates responsible research as a criterion in assessment of researchers in a qualitative way. Qualitative methods are helpful if you want to explore new perspectives or formulate new hypothesis and offers a complimentary contribution to prior quantitative and hypothesis driven research. Secondly, the participants highlight that it is possible to assess relational responsibilities. Since the current practices predominantly rely on quantitative output criteria, this is an important message that may help policymakers to adopt alternative criteria in their assessment procedures. Finally, we were able to test the results of the focus groups in the evaluation labs. This has resulted in interesting thoughts on potential implementation issues, but shine also new light on the discussion of what is actually possible, warranted and needed for policy makers and funders.

Our study also comes with some limitations. First, we only included biomedical researchers. Although we are convinced that most criteria can be generalized to other disciplinary fields, one may argue that in other disciplines (e.g. the humanities) slightly different assessment criteria might apply. Biomedicine was purposefully considered as a strategic research site. Evidence suggests that biomedical research assessment is prone for quantification [ 25 ]. Also, biomedicine is the largest discipline in the Netherlands (and abroad). Besides, dominant organisational forms in biomedical research—research projects, groups and labs—are increasingly found in the social sciences and humanities as well [ 26 , 27 ]. Our findings will thus have implications beyond biomedicine. Future research is thus needed to explore these potential disciplinary differences and should test the proposed assessment criteria. Second, a form of response bias cannot be ruled out. We have sent out invitations to a large set of participants. Most of the invited researchers were asked for the reason for non-participation. Most often, lack of time was the main reason not to participate. Third, it could be that we are still missing perspectives. Some focus groups were rather small and although we reached data saturation for most themes, it could well be that some perspectives are not highlighted.

Changing the system

It is a daunting task to change assessment criteria that have been used for decades in various institutions. The academic enterprise is a complex system and change is often met with a certain skepticism, both by established researchers that have made careers by older assessment criteria (survivor bias) and by the fear that future assessment criteria will change academia into a system where only ‘soft skills’ are assessed. However, change starts with awareness and it helps that there are successful initiatives that have shown their value. Besides, implementation has started by some of the most important stakeholders. From our results we draw the conclusion that responsible research, constituted of both relational responsibilities and more quantifiable assessment criteria, should be a major element of researchers assessment in the future. This entails both 1) rigorous testing of reformed assessment criteria before implementing them in practice and 2) communicating this transparently with researchers, so they know what to expect in future assessments. More attention is still needed on relational responsibilities that, taken into account that they are highly influencing responsible research, should therefore play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria.

In conclusion, our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as these relational responsibilities are reckoned beneficial for the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions on how to make these skills measurable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy and future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice.

Supporting information

S1 file. medical ethical review approval_metc_tijdink..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.s001

S1 Table. Translation Dutch quotes focus groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI

You have exceeded your limit for simultaneous device logins.

Your current subscription allows you to be actively logged in on up to three (3) devices simultaneously. click on continue below to log out of other sessions and log in on this device., read-alikes for ‘the life impossible’ by matt haig | libraryreads.

The Life Impossible by Matt Haig is the top holds title of the week. LibraryReads and Library Journal offer read-alikes for patrons waiting to read this buzziest book.

Four years after the death of her husband, retired math teacher Grace Winters is still trudging through life in her bungalow in Yorkshire, with an unchanging routine, no real interests, and a sense of fading away. Then a letter arrives to inform Grace that Christina, an old university friend, has bequeathed Grace her house on the Spanish island of Ibiza. Grace soon learns that Christina’s suspicious death is under investigation. Compelled to find out about the mysterious circumstances, she packs her bags and sets out to find out exactly what happened to her old friend. As Grace reaches out to Christina’s family and friends, strange and mystifying experiences challenge her to assess her own emotional well-being. After years of denying herself simple pleasures and paying penance for past missteps, Grace must overcome her lifelong feelings of guilt and inadequacy in order to save those who need her in their lives. VERDICT Bestselling Haig ( The Midnight Library ) skillfully and humorously wraps a fantastical tale around his exploration of the transformative nature of emotions as individuals connect with each other, much like in the work of Fredrik Backman.— Joy Gunn

Appeared on the March 2022 LibraryReads list

After her mother Carol dies, Katy escapes to Positano on the dream trip they were supposed to take. When she arrives, she meets a 30 year old version of Carol, and discovers what she really wants out of life. A captivating read that makes you want to jump on a plane to Italy and rediscover the magic. For readers of The Butterfly’s Daughter and The Storied Life of A. J. Fikry. — Alicia Ahlvers, Henrico County Public Library, Henrico, VA

Appeared on the March 2021 LibraryReads list

A list of recommended classics helps a widower spark a friendship with a teen librarian dealing with overwhelming family issues. An uplifting tearjerker about libraries and the books that touch our soul. For fans of Ellie and the Harpmaker and Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine .— Kimberly McGee, Lake Travis Public Library, Austin, TX

Appeared on the November 2020 LibraryReads list

A small cafe has something odd and magical—if someone sits in a particular chair and a cup of coffee is poured, they can travel to the past for as long as it takes their cup to cool. In this slender story, the lives of visitors and staff intertwine, and four hopeful people sit in the chair. While this book deals with different kinds of loss, it's ultimately warm and uplifting. Give to readers who liked The Immortalists and Oona Out of Order .— Julie Graham, Yakima Valley Libraries, Yakima, WA

Get Print. Get Digital. Get Both!

Add comment :-, comment policy:.

• Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
• Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
• Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.
• Comments may be republished in print, online, or other forms of media.
• If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.

First Name should not be empty !!!

Last Name should not be empty !!!

email should not be empty !!!

Comment should not be empty !!!

You should check the checkbox.

Please check the reCaptcha

Ethan Smith

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.

Posted 6 hours ago REPLY

Jane Fitgzgerald

Posted 6 hours ago

Michael Woodward

Continue reading.

Libraries are always evolving. Stay ahead. Log In.

Added To Cart

Related , read-alikes for ‘here one moment’ by liane moriarty | libraryreads, read-alikes for ‘daydream’ by hannah grace | libraryreads, 15 romances to make the season merry and bright, read-alikes for ‘spirit crossing’ by william kent krueger | libraryreads, read-alikes for ‘angel of vengeance’ by douglas preston & lincoln child | libraryreads, "what is this" design thinking from an lis student.

Run Your Week: Big Books, Sure Bets & Titles Making News | July 17 2018

Materials on Hand | Materials Handling

LGBTQ Collection Donated to Vancouver Archives

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, --> Log In

You did not sign in correctly or your account is temporarily disabled

REGISTER FREE to keep reading

If you are already a member, please log in.

Passwords must include at least 8 characters.

Your password must include at least three of these elements: lower case letters, upper case letters, numbers, or special characters.

The email you entered already exists. Please reset your password to gain access to your account.

Create a Password to complete your registration. Get access to:

Uncommon insight and timely information

Thousands of book reviews

Blogs, expert opinion, and thousands of articles

Research reports, data analysis, -->