{"id":7641,"date":"2020-11-20T11:34:26","date_gmt":"2020-11-20T11:34:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/?p=7641"},"modified":"2021-03-05T15:08:45","modified_gmt":"2021-03-05T15:08:45","slug":"meeting-report-summary-of-session-2-of-the-8th-emwa-symposium","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/2020\/11\/20\/meeting-report-summary-of-session-2-of-the-8th-emwa-symposium\/","title":{"rendered":"Meeting report: summary of session 2 of the 8th EMWA Symposium"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The 8th<\/sup> European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) symposium, entitled \u2018Research Integrity & The Medical Communicator: What We Do When No One Is Watching\u2019<\/strong> took place on 6th<\/sup> November. Researchers, journal publishers and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry and medical communication agencies joined together in this virtual event, to share their perspectives on the importance of research integrity and how it can be achieved.<\/p>\n

A summary of session 2 of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend, and as a timely reminder of the key topics for those who did.<\/p>\n

Read our summaries of session 1<\/a> and session 3<\/a> of the meeting.<\/p>\n

Session 2: how we can strengthen research integrity<\/h3>\n

Evolving approaches to improve research integrity<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Marcus Munaf\u00f2 (University of Bristol) gave a fascinating account of the <\/span>UKRN<\/a> (United Kingdom Reproducibility Network), including why it was established, its structure, its activities, and the ways in which it is facilitating conversations across different levels of the academic and research ecosystem.<\/span><\/p>\n

Background<\/h5>\n

We have a scientific method that has provided unparalleled insights into nature for over 400 years. There are concerns, however, that the scientific method has become distorted over time by changes in technology and pressures on academia to publish and obtain grants (a seminal moment being the publication of the essay titled \u2018Why Most Published Research Findings Are False<\/a>\u2019 by Ioannidis in 2005).<\/p>\n

Compounding the less-than-ideal incentive structures is the fact that researchers are human and bring to their work certain cognitive biases such as the tendency to see a pattern where there isn\u2019t one. In addition, scientists are incentivised to find something because discovery is prioritised over replication. This prompts the question:<\/p>\n

\n

How can we protect against bias and create incentives that benefit science rather than scientists and their individual careers?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Structure<\/h5>\n

The \u2018systems\u2019 nature of the research integrity issue means that responsibility does not sit with any one group and so the UKRN was launched in 2019 to bring together different stakeholders to fill that gap. UKRN comprises:<\/p>\n