ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2797-1686
Current Organisations
University of Stirling
,
University of Ottawa Heart Institute
,
University of Ottawa
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Research Topics
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Top 3 Research Topics
ANZSRC Field of Research (FoR)
Earth sciences | Other earth sciences | Geoinformatics
ANZSRC Socio-Economic Objective (SEO)
There are no SEO codes available for Kelly Cobey
Related Links
Publications
Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 11-09-2017
NSF 19-501 AccelNet Proposal: Community of Open Scholarship Grassroots Networks (COSGN)
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 30-01-2020
Abstract: The Community of Open Scholarship Grassroots Networks (COSGN), includes 120 grassroots networks, representing virtually every region of the world and every research discipline. These networks communicate and coordinate on topics of common interest. We propose, using an NSF 19-501 Full-Scale implementation grant, to formalize governance and coordination of the networks to maximize impact and establish standard practices for sustainability. In the project period, we will increase the capacity of COSGN to advance the research and community goals of the participating networks in idually and collectively, and establish governance, succession planning, shared resources, andcommunication pathways to ensure an active, community-sustained network of networks. By the end of the project period, we will have established a self-sustaining network of networks that leverages disciplinary and regional ersity, actively collaborates across networks for grassroots organizing, and shares resources for maximum impact on culture change for open scholarship.
Establishing a core set of open science practices in biomedicine: a modified Delphi study
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 28-06-2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.06.27.22276964
Abstract: Mandates and recommendations related to embedding open science practices within the research lifecycle are increasingly common. Few stakeholders, however, are monitoring compliance to their mandates or recommendations. It is necessary to monitor the current state of open science to track changes over time and to identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. Monitoring open science practices requires that they are defined and operationalized. Involving the biomedical community, we sought to reach consensus on a core set of open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions. To establish consensus in a structured and systematic fashion, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants in Round 1 were 80 in iduals from 20 biomedical research institutions that exhibit interest in or actively support open science. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In Rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices that could be important and meaningful to monitor in an automated institutional open science dashboard. Participants voted on the inclusion of each item and provided a rationale for their choice. We defined consensus as 80% agreement. Between rounds, participants received aggregated voting scores for each item and anonymized comments from all participants, and were asked to re-vote on items that did not reach consensus. For Round 3, we hosted two half- day virtual meetings with 21 and 17 participants respectively to discuss and vote on all items that had not reached consensus after Round 2. Ultimately, participants reached consensus to include a 19 open science practices. A group of international stakeholders used a modified Delphi process to agree upon open science practices to monitor in a proposed open science dashboard for biomedical institutions. The core set of 19 open science practices identified by participants will form the foundation for institutional dashboards that display compliance with open science practices. They will now be assessed and tested for automatic inclusion in terms of technical feasibility. Using user-centered design, participating institutions will be involved in creating a dashboard prototype, which can then be implemented to monitor rates of open science practices at biomedical institutions. Our methods and approach may also transfer to other research settings–other disciplines could consider using our consensus list as a starting point for agreement upon a discipline-specific set of open science practices to monitor. The findings may also be of broader value to the development of policy, education, and interventions.
Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Researchers’ Practices and Perceived Barriers Related to Open Science: An International, Cross-Sectional Survey
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 25-10-2023
Predatory journals: no definition, no defence
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 11-12-2019
An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors’ perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 04-09-2017
DOI: 10.12688/F1000RESEARCH.12400.1
Abstract: Background: Scientific editors (i.e., those who make decisions on the content and policies of a journal) have a central role in the editorial process at biomedical journals. However, very little is known about the training needs of these editors or what competencies are required to perform effectively in this role. Methods: We conducted a survey of perceptions and training needs among scientific editors from major editorial organizations around the world, followed by a modified Delphi process in which we invited the same scientific editors to rate the importance of competency-related statements obtained from a previous scoping review. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey of perceptions and training needs. At least 80% of participants agreed on six of the 38 skill and expertise-related statements presented to them as being important or very important to their role as scientific editors. At least 80% agreed on three of the 38 statements as necessary skills they perceived themselves as possessing (well or very well). The top five items on participants’ list of top training needs were training in statistics, research methods, publication ethics, recruiting and dealing with peer reviewers, and indexing of journals. The three rounds of the Delphi were completed by 83, 83, and 73 participants, respectively, which ultimately produced a list of 23 “highly rated” competency-related statements and another 86 “included” items. Conclusion: Both the survey and the modified Delphi process will be critical for understanding knowledge and training gaps among scientific editors when designing curriculum around core competencies in the future.
Evaluating prospective study registration and result reporting of trials conducted in Canada from 2009-2019
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 02-09-2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.09.01.22279512
Abstract: Adherence to study registration and reporting best practices are vital to foster evidence-based medicine. Poor adherence to these standards in clinical trials conducted in Canada would be detrimental to patients, researchers, and the public alike. All registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov conducted in Canada as of 2009 and completed by 2019 were identified. A cross-sectional analysis of those trials assessed prospective registration, subsequent result reporting in the registry, and subsequent publication of study findings. The lead sponsor, phase of study, clinical trial site location, total patient enrollment, number of arms, type of masking, type of allocation, year of completion, and patient demographics were examined as potential effect modifiers to these best practices. A total of 6,720 trials met the inclusion criteria. From 2009-2019, 59% (n=3,967) of them were registered prospectively and 39% (n=2,642) reported their results in the registry. Of the trials registered between 2009-2014, 55% (n=1,482) were subsequently published in an academic journal. Of the 3,763 trials conducted exclusively in Canada, 3% (n=123) met all 3 criteria of: prospective registration, reporting in the registry, and publishing findings. In contrast, of the remaining 2,957 trials with both Canadian and international sites, 41% (n=1,238) had an overall compliance to these three criteria. Overall, the odds of having adherence to all three practices concurrently in Canadian trials decreases by 95% when compared to international trials (OR = 0.05 95CI: 0.04 – 0.06). Canadian clinical trials substantially lacked adherence to study registration and reporting best practices. Knowledge of this widespread non-compliance should motivate stakeholders in the Canadian clinical trials ecosystem to address and continue to monitor this problem. The data presented provides a baseline against which to compare any improvement in the registration and reporting of clinical trials in Canada.
A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 02-02-2016
Related Organisations
University Of Stirling
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
University Of Liverpool
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Related Funding Activities
A Digital Dashboard To Support Institutions Implementing Open Science: Establishing A Core Set Of Open Science Metrics To Track
Start Date: 2022
End Date: 2023
Funder: Wellcome Trust
View Funded Activity