Good Research Practice Awards

Nominations are invited in 4 categories:

 1. Good research citizenship 

Good research citizenship can take many forms and is not limited to those in leadership and management roles or to “official” University activities. It includes

• contributions to formal and informal mentoring and support

• leading or participating in projects to improve research

• involvement in peer-led initiatives to increase awareness and provide training in good research practices

• involvement in peer-led initiatives to address issues of equity, diversity and inclusion 

• increasing awareness and providing training in good research practices

• Promoting public and societal engagement with research processes 

• Supporting and engendering flourishing and diverse research teams 

• Actions which support greater inclusion in research activity of those who would not otherwise be able to contribute 

• Commenting on drafts of applications, grants and papers, participating in practice interviews and practice presentations 

• Encouraging reflection on how we do research and our research culture 

• Peer review, internal and external grant awarding panels 

• Promoting the public understanding of science 

Note: this is a non-exhaustive list. We are interested in individuals or teams who have gone beyond the usual expectations of their role in contributing to research citizenship.

2. Responsible Research 

“Responsible Research and Innovation” occurs where researchers carefully consider the consequences of their research and how these align with society’s expectations, with the aim of pursuing research which is inclusive (including co-creation of research approaches), sustainable, and done both with and for society. Such research involves diverse stakeholders, encompasses multiple (and sometimes conflicting) value systems, has open and transparent processes and communications, and is adaptive to feedback and experience.  

We are interested in recognising individuals or teams at the University who have used their platform as researchers to create opportunities for involvement, dialogue, engagement and exchange with communities beyond the University of Edinburgh.

3. Open research award 

Open-ness in relation to research makes important contributions to participation, collaboration, dissemination, and reproducibility. It includes:

• Openness in research designs (eg study protocols)  

• Open access to publications 

• Open availability of study materials (questionnaires, reagents, psychological tests) 

• Open availability of study data such that it is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (“FAIR” data)  

• Openness of research platforms, tools and software 

• Openness of the conduct of research, both with scientific colleagues and with wider publics 

• Openness of grant funding applications, of peer review processes and of research and researcher evaluations 

We are interested in research outputs and research projects which show openness across multiple dimensions.

4. Positive disruptor award 

As individuals and as an institution, we like to operate in familiar circumstances, and this can make us reluctant to embrace change. But disrupting our normal way of thinking about things can open up opportunities to do things differently, to do things better. Positive disruptors in research don’t just point to problems, but are able to see a different way of doing things, and to convince others to at least be open to the possibility of change. Key characteristics include[1]: 

• Being able to influence and enthuse people 

• Being prepared to be knocked back, and to keep going 

• Not being put off when people ask why you’re wasting your time with irrelevant stuff 

• Believing in a different future, and having the courage to propose different ways of doing things – willing to try, fail and learn 

• Not just criticising, but proposing solutions 

• Knowing where internal rules have some flexibility, and when you are overstepping a mark and will fail to carry your colleagues 

• Knowing when to stop 

We’re looking for individuals or teams who have improved our research practice, or culture, or environment, by challenging the status quo.

[1] Derived from Ian Rodgers, reported here