Appendix K — BCW Step 6 – Identifying policy categories
Instructions [1]:
Use the APEASE criteria to identify appropriate policy categories based on the intervention functions identified in Step 5:
- Affordability
- Practicability
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness
- Acceptability
- Side-effects/safety
- Equity
Favourite policy routes:
CS: Environmental
JH: Environmental first. Once environmental is better, then can look at guidelines – we’re swimming in guidelines now. Service provision after guidelines and comms, due to scalability
JdB: Environmental first; once it is done, then we can share with communication and guidelines and service provision
PL: Environmental first and then guidelines and communication – they need each other to work
SK: Environmental and communication more easily changed by us
Consensus: legislation and fiscal would be more acceptable once environmental, communication, and guidelines are done ‘right’, not fair here yet
| POLICY CATEGORY | EXAMPLE | APEASE |
|---|---|---|
| Communication / marketing | Eg: Conducting mass media campaigns Newsletters Adverts/posts on social media Newspaper articles? Blog posts People sharing their good practice Editorials in journals Articles in professional publications Webinars Hotline/chat function? |
Affordability: some are and some aren’t affordable Practicability: all practical and not difficult to do, except the chat (Cost)-Effectiveness: it will be cost-effective if the right marketing professionals are available to help planning Acceptability: there won’t be problems of acceptability Side-effects/safety: overload? (which can be prevented by proper planning) Equity: equity can be good if targeting is adequately planned |
| Guidelines | Eg: Producing and disseminating treatment protocols. Recommendations for curricula (from accreditation orgs? To unis?) Research organisations telling their staff what they recommend Funders recommending good reporting practice Guidance for publishers on how to use RGs Updated instructions for authors (from publishers/journals to authors) Guidance for authors Guidance for guideline developers |
Affordability: development of sets of rules required work hours; implementation is not a problem for cost (lawyers can cost a lot!) - it depends on who works Practicability: not difficult to write new rules/guidance, especially when using existing frameworks (Cost)-Effectiveness: cost-effectiveness depends on whether the guidance is actually used, which is likely to require some form of enforcement (someone to check). There is also a cost to folks using guidance, as takes time – is that time commitment giving them something? Acceptability: possibly low, if things are rules that researchers HAVE to follow – might feel dictated to. Acceptability possibly dependent on who produces the guidance – some researchers are looking for help and might appreciate Side-effects/safety: researchers exodus, when talking about dictated rules? Equity: independent researchers (who don’t get institutional support) will have problems. Language that guidance is available in. Accessibility of guidance. |
| Fiscal measures | Eg: Increasing duty or increasing anti-smuggling activities Changing APCs for good/bad reporting Funders adding incentives (more money for good reporting, less money for poor reporting, funding being conditional on good reporting) |
Affordability: Would cost publishers / funders a great deal. But the measures proposed increase the affordability of good reporting for authors. Practicability: difficult because it requires additional checks. Publisher/funder has to make a judgement of good reporting, which might be challenging, particularly when guidance isn’t clear. (Cost)-Effectiveness: Acceptability: Publishers might not like having to do more work. Authors already struggle with reporting – can see push back particularly from those who are judged negatively. Side-effects/safety: Bias when publishers/funders judge reporting quality Equity: Issues around who can access and use the guidance, who gets support and education. to report well. |
| Legislation | Eg: Prohibiting sale or use Publishers/journals refusing to publish poorly reported articles Publishers require that their journals must enforce RG use Legislation requiring journals/publishers to use reporting standards (research police) Mandating that funders use reporting quality of protocols as a condition for funding (eg, UKRI could make this a condition of the way MRC etc gives out funding; could be done via wider orgs, such as the way the EU has mandated OA) |
Affordability: Publishers’ policies: cheap for us, some campaigning needed. Could be less affordable for publishers, if they lose authors or if they need to enforce. ‘Research police’: expensive: lots of campaigning, development, etc. Practicability: ‘Research police’: impractical, a lot of work, difficult to do. Publishers: we have existing relationships to lean on, difficult but plausible. A lot of time, money, knowledge for publishers to check RG use – high barrier? If authors find RGs difficult to use, why would publishers be any different? (Cost)-Effectiveness: Unsure, but feeling is that it would be a lot of work for potentially little gain, potentially much gain, depending on whether things worked and whether enforcement was done or not. Acceptability: Researcher pushback? Publisher pushback? Side-effects/safety: Authors might avoid publishers/funders that mandate RGs. Equity: Authors from lower resource areas could be negatively affected – it isn’t fair to be penalised if they haven’t had education / unable to access guidance (due to copyright). |
| Environmental / social planning | Adding Q&As and forums to the EQUATOR website / RG websites Improving the design of the EQUATOR website / RG websites to make them easier to use Changing journal submission systems Posters/reminders in physical environments where researchers are (e.g., universities, hospitals) |
Affordability: Some of affordable, and are scalable (can make a few small changes at a time). Journal submission system changes could expensive for publishers. Practicability: Many of these are practical for us and RG developers. Journal submission systems are trickier though. (Cost)-Effectiveness: small change, big impact for many of these. Reporting clinics could be less cost effective, as reaching fewer people. Acceptability: RG developers likely to be happy with us making these changes or recommendations, as close relationships. Researchers likely to really like these options, as often looking for help and guidance Side-effects/safety: Potentially overwhelming for us Equity: Time zones, languages, |
| Service provision | Training, e.g. Pubschool, in person, MOOC, Interactive chat ‘Reporting clinics’ where people can get help University’s own ‘reporting guideline help space’ Writing centres, publication officers Third-party services, like a reporting quality check from a company Funders offering help to their recipients. Sponsors offering help to their recipients’ research Journals offering help to their authors Universities offering help to their members |
Affordability: Depends on the service, but many would be less affordable for EQUATOR: lots of time to reach only a small number of people. Could be something that we provide commercially. Could be an affordable way for funders / journals / universities to provide help, meeting their research integrity requirements Practicability: For EQUATOR, a lot of time required. Possibly not practical unless could get specific funding for it. Services offered by funders / journals / universities: could be sensible at scale, but specific support might be lost in the generic support that everyone would need. (Cost)-Effectiveness: Depends on the amount of benefit to providing organisation. If automated, could be a very cost-effective option. Acceptability: Researchers appreciate offered help, but they need to know it exists and that it is helpful. Danger that it could be seen as another red tape thing to get through when designing research. Depends on the format of the help – is it timeous, actionable, how much work does it make for the researchers? Side-effects/safety: Would need to be effective help / to a quality standard to ensure researchers aren’t negatively affected by the help. Eventually the only people using it would be junior / new researchers. Would need to be clear that the help doesn’t mean a guarantee of publication / don’t mislead Equity: If a paid service, then not equitable. If by funder / sponsor, then only people connected to more wealthy funders / sponsors would be benefit |