Documenting our outcomes and publishing our model in the scientific literature is part of our mission of participating in and advancing a global social and scientific movement towards health equity. We must take care, however, to ensure that research only supports our fundamental service obligations to the communities in which we work rather than serving as a distraction. 

 

Overview  Mission Rationale Role of the Research Program Research Team Nyaya Health International Officer of Research and Evaluation (ORE) Nyaya Health Nepal Director of Research and Evaluation (DoR) Nyaya Health International Country Director (CD) Principle Investigators on individual research projects (PIs) Research assistants Other Nyaya Health Nepal staff and leadership Other Nyaya Health International Research Team Members Key General Characteristics of Research Team Members Process of research project design, approval, and implementation Review and Approval Process Project Implementation Incentives for Study Personnel Process for communication and transparency in research operations Research taking place in Achham outside the scope of the NHI Research Team Project Management Management and team collaboration software Finances and Accounting Collaborative Process, IRB's, Publications, and Authorship Authorship Note on Non-Intellectual Contributions Ethics and Organizational Review Nepal Health Research Council Approval Process Publication Charges Post-Publication Dissemination  Note on General Interest Pieces, Abstracts, and Commentaries  Note on Protocols Submissions

 

Overview 

Mission

To make Nyaya Health a leader in implementation science in rural, resource-limited settings.  This research should advance advocacy, service, and policy efforts to reduce health injustices in Nepal, South Asia, and beyond.

 

Rationale

While Nyaya has a responsibility to the communities we work in, the actions of precedent setting and demonstration of evidence through the formal publication of research can result in more widely effective policy changes. As such, publishing our data and insights, soliciting feedback, and encouraging further discussion and analysis, can have broad-based impacts for persons in similar resource-deprived settings that Nyaya does not immediately work with. Therefore, participating in the larger research discourse is within Nyaya's mandate and achieves three aims: 

a) by publishing our data, we solicit feedback and conversation that can enable our own programs to improve through continued critical analysis and peer-review;

b) as with organizations such as PIH or MSF, the publishing of our data provides other organizations, and their own patients, the opportunity to share in Nyaya's evidence-based approach and results, consequently expanding the geographic reach of Nyaya's work; and

c) through publication, we can increase the exposure of Nyaya's work, facilitating further opportunities for future collaborations, volunteers, and funding - all of which can directly benefit the communities in which we work.

 

We post our previous publications here for public dissemination and in an effort to achieve each of these 3 goals.

 

Role of the Research Program

The goals of the Nyaya Health International research team are two-fold: 1) to conduct implementation research and 2) to support, but not implement nor oversee, the service operations and monitoring and evaluation of Nyaya Health Nepal.  There should be a strict delineation between that which is performed, managed, and financed for research purposes and that which is done for service.   The research team will support the service objectives of Nyaya Health Nepal by providing overall capacity to the implementation team, but should be clear not to manage or otherwise hold responsibility or accountability for any clinical services.  This delineation extends to the fiscal realm as well: funding streams for service and research, including facilities and administrative costs, must be kept entirely in separate accounts.

 

Research Team

This needs to be a team, because 1) the costs of attrition are high, and the probability of attrition is also high; 2) the effectiveness of a team in Achham tends to be higher than that of individuals; 3) team approaches allow for division of labor/skills and capitalize on shared efficiency.  This team will need to be based both domestically in Nepal and abroad, because 1) some team members (due to professional and personal commitments) may only be available to work from outside Nepal; and 2) many on-site research leaders will only be able to commit to short-term commitments (1-2 years).  Long-term and effective research demands committed individuals over the 5-10 year time-frame (at minimum) and thus, this team approach will act to recruit diverse individuals who can provide guidance and continuity both from within Nepal and from abroad.

 

The core members of the research leadership will include:

 

Nyaya Health International Officer of Research and Evaluation (ORE)

• Primary responsibilities:
• An internationally-based position, with the expectation of at least annual travel to Achham to work directly with Achham-side team members—specifically the Country Director (CD) and the Director of Reseach and Evaluation (DoR)—and strengthen team relations trans-nationally;
• Not responsible for being directly involved with any other Achham-side NHN staff besides the CD and DoR, who will be responsible for all other Achham-side staff oversight;
• Oversee the data collection, management, and monitoring and evaluation operations in Achham by working directly with the DoR, with the goal of ensuring high-quality data output from Achham-side programs;
• Oversee the writing and submission all research team grants, working directly with Achham-side and international research team members;
• Management of research team clerical work such as ensuring timely reimbursement and effective management of all grants to the research team;
•  Preparation of abstracts, conference presentations, manuscripts for publication and other dissemination-related items for the research team;
• Provide mentorship and support in research implementation for international and Achham-side research team members. 
• NB: This is not an Achham-side management position, and despite involvement in overseeing monitoring and evaluation, data management, and other Achham-side operations, care should be taken that this individual not be involved in micromanaging work flows of the Achham service-provision team nor in providing accountability (which are the proper responsibilities of Achham-side managerial staff). 

 

• Characteristics:       
• Minimum three-year commitment;
• Preferably a long-term Nyaya team leader with extensive lived experience in Achham;
• Previous experience and capabilities in monitoring and evaluation, data management, and research design;
• Previous experience in writing research grant applications, and managing granter requirements (e.g. reporting, financial guidelines, etc.);
• Previous experience in drafting research dissemination pieces (e.g. abstracts, conference presentations, manuscripts for publication, etc.);  
• Flexibility to engage in regular phone and email communication with the Achham-side research and data teams;
• Willingness and commitment to deferring all management of Achham-side operations to the proper managerial staff in Achham; 
• A passionate commitment to the human right to health, to scale-up of health services in remote resource-poor settings, and to Achham specifically.  

 

Nyaya Health Nepal Director of Research and Evaluation (DoR)

• Primary responsibilities:
• An Achham-side position;
• Primarily oversight of all research implementation in Achham;
• Primary oversight of all Nepali Health Research Council (NHRC) ethics review board;
• Primary oversight and local recruitment of research assistants and support staff (e.g. translators, surveyors, data entry assistants, etc); 
• Primary oversight of all data collection and management operations in Achham, including quality control and assurance of data (with the understanding that only minimal data analysis should ever be required from the Achham-side team members, given that it will be managed primarily by the international research team members);
• Not responsible for research project design, which is the job of the Primary Investigators (PIs);
• Participation in, but not oversight of, the final preparation of research results for dissemination (e.g. conference presentations, publications, etc.). 
• Characteristics:
• Preferred minimum two-year commitment;
• Preferred Nepali language fluency or conversational ability;
• Previous experience living and working in rural Nepal;
• Previous experience with health-care related research and service delivery; 
• Previous experience in project management, research design, data management, data analysis, research dissemination (e.g. conference presentations, publications, etc.);
• A passionate commitment to the human right to health, to scale-up of health services in remote resource-poor settings, and to Achham specifically. 

 

Nyaya Health International Country Director (CD)

• Primary responsibilities:
• An Achham-side position;
• Primary oversight of all NHI and NHN operations in Achham, including participation in oversight of all research implementation as an NHI function;
• Direct responsibility for working with the ORE and DoR to ensure high-quality output of data and research implementation in Achham-side programming;
• Not responsible for attending to the granular details of exact data output or research program implementation (which is the job of the ORE and DoR), only the broad oversight of programmatic output;
• Primary oversight of the DoR and his/her performance in Achham in tandem with the ORE from abroad;
• Characteristics: 
• Selected by NHN and NHI independently of the Research Team. 

 

Principle Investigators on individual research projects (PIs)

• Primary responsibilities:
• Primary strategy and research project design;
• Primary oversight, design, and authorship of all research proposals and related grant applications for project financing;
• Liaising with ORE, DoR, and other research team members to ensure quality of data collection and project implementation;
• Primary responsibility for data analysis working directly with the ORE;
• Primary responsibility for oversight of all data dissemination, whether in the public (e.g. wiki, blog, etc.) or academic domain (e.g. conference presentations, publications, etc.), working directly with the ORE;  
• Responsible for submitting one-page concept notes for any/all planned research projects to the ORE for review once per annum (likely to coincide with the NHI Strategy and Development Committee annual meeting).
• Characteristics:
• Requisite doctorate level training in an appropriate health-related field;
• Planned career trajectory with substantial component of research time/focus;
• Previous experience working in research projects in remote, resource-poor areas;
• Previous experience in leading rigorous and high-quality research projects at the PI and Co-I level;
• Previous experience in research dissemination in high-quality journals and international conferences;
• A passionate commitment to the human right to health, to scale-up of health services in remote resource-poor settings, and to Achham specifically.  

 

Research assistants

Research assistants will function under the DoR and be responsible for the direct implementation of all research projects. The DoR will be primarily responsible for the recruitment and oversight of these research assistants. Ideally, they should be recruited from the local area in Achham or the neighboring districts. Particular skill sets and previous experience will be determined on a project-by-project basis. Recruitment for these assistants should be prioritized early in the course of research projects to ensure that experienced and dedicated staff are able to be recruited as needed by the project.

 

Other Nyaya Health Nepal staff and leadership

The CD will be primarily responsible for work flow, management, and accountability of the DoR. Otherwise, NHN staff members will rarely be involved in any research-related work. As NHN clinical / service–implementation staff, their time should be devoted explicitly and solely to service provision, and research-related work should never distract them from their service-oriented job descriptions. There will, on occasion, be either full-time or part-time NHN employees who will have research-related work (e.g. research assistants), but these research-related work responsibilities will be explicitly outlined in their job descriptions and contracts, and all salary and related expenses will be paid accordingly via the NHI research team funding. At no point should NHN operations budgets be used to pay for these employees’ salaries or other costs (including lodging, food, travel, translation services, etc.), even though they will be directly employed by NHN (which is the legally-registered Nepali organization). This is a nuanced differentiation, but is of critical importance to ensuring both high-quality healthcare delivery services and high-quality research output.

 

Other Nyaya Health International Research Team Members

In addition to the roles as outlined, there is also need for other members of the NHI community to be involved as advisers to the ongoing research initiatives that the NHI research team works on. These team members will be determined on an as-needed basis depending on the research projects being undertaken, and will be overseen by the ORE and PI of each individual project. Roles and expectations for general research team members include:

• A previous training and/or significant experience in formal health-related research;
• A healthy and clear understanding of NHI’s and NHN’s missions, aims, and commitment to health services implementation in Achham and globally;
• An understanding that the role of general research team members is not to micromanage or discuss minor details of research implementation (which is the job of the DoR with input from the CD, PIs, and ORE), but to offer greater perspective and insight to the process at large, and to assist the ORE and PIs as needed;
• A long-term commitment to the development of the NHI research team and its mission – all general team members should expect to be involved for a minimum of two years; such time commitments are important to gaining broader perspective and offering support accordingly. 

 

Key General Characteristics of Research Team Members

The following are general characteristics to be expected of all research team members.

• Initiative and motivation: self-starter style with passionate and hard-working dedication to pushing forward protocol-driven research agenda;
• Integrity: believes in the sanctity of data; refuses to hide errors, missteps, uncertainties, or confusions.
• Commitment to transparency and open-source research: believes firmly that all data and research must be shared in its raw and pure form; that other populations around the world should benefit from the lessons learnt in Achham; and that, regardless of readership, all data should be treated with the highest degree of scrutiny and quality assurance.
• Communication: effectively, regularly responds to and initiates communication with team members and members.
• Vision:  has a vision of what good research is, what good data is, and the reasons to pursue both: for the benefit of not only the Achhami people but for all people globally who stand to benefit from the lessons of Achham.  

 

Process of research project design, approval, and implementation

Review and Approval Process

While NHI’s research strategy is necessarily separate from NHI’s development strategy, all research initiatives should nonetheless fall within the larger realm of NHI’s strategic priorities. Accordingly, the protocol should be as follows for the design, approval, and implementation of research projects: 

• Project PI’s design a research project and write  the draft proposal; 
• PI’s present  the project proposal to the rest of the NHI research team members for approval and modifications as needed; 
• NB: As a member of the NHI research team, it is the CD’s responsibility to ensure that the proposed project is in line with NHN operations constraints, adheres to guidelines regarding clear delineations of NHN healthcare service delivery staff and research-implementation staff, and is reasonable and feasible with regards to current circumstances in Achham; 
• If declined by the NHI research team, PI’s may either revise accordingly and re-submit to the research team for approval, or abandon the project entirely; 
• If approved by the NHI research team members, PIs formally present the project proposal to the NHI Development and Strategy Committee for approval from NHI as an organization; 
• If approved by NHI Development and Strategy Committee, PI’s proceed with funding proposals and implementation;
•  If approved by NHI Development and Strategy Committee, PI’s proceed with Institutional Review Board (IRB) proposals and approvals;  
• If declined by NHI Development and Strategy Committee, PI’s either revise as needed and re-submit to the Committee or abandon the project; 
• No research project, under any circumstances, should be permitted to be implemented in the setting of NHN operations without the explicit prior approval of both the NHI research team and the NHI Development and Strategy Committee; 
• Any PI who wishes to renew the timeline of an on-going research project (e.g. extend an initial 36 month project to 72 months) must seek approval from both the NHI research team  members and, subsequently, the NHI Strategy and Development Committee. 

NB: Please see the following process maps for research project design, approval, and implementation.

Project Implementation

 

Incentives for Study Personnel

In all cases, anyone working on research in a substantial fashion should be compensated appropriately.  All staff should be expected to cooperate with research projects, in terms of referring patients or providing data, but if staff are entering data or administering surveys outside of that provided in their routine clinical or service duties, they should be compensated.  Staff are compensated in one of two ways: 

1) through their regular stipend via their current role.

In this case, the specific role of participating in research MUST be included in their Job Description.   This is a more involved process and would require the specific direction and buy-in from the Medical Director or other appropriate supervisors.  This can be a very sensitive subject, and should be considered only in the special circumstances.

2) through small incentives for administering surveys of patients or community members

In this case, the Project Research Team Lead, the Director of Research, and the staff and relevant immediate clinical leadership (e.g., Nurse-in-Charge, Medical Director, Director of Community Health) will agree to an incentive that is appropriate to the task.  This will necessarily vary with the project and should be done by consensus with the final say/approval given by the Director of Research.  One example from early 2012 was a study on deliveries in which midwives and staff nurses administered a 20-45 minute interview to all post-partum women in the hospital.  They received 100 NRs for each survey.  In this case, we did discuss the possibility of a shared pool among all the nurses (ie, 100 Rs per interview shared among all nurses), but ultimately they preferred to have individual compensation on a per-survey basis.  

 

Mechanism #2, incentives per survey, will be the most typical.  For example, in a hypothetical study on pneumonia in the emergency department, if a health assistant or nurse is asked simply to refer patients with pneumonia to a research coordinator, no compensation is needed.  However, if the health assistant or nurse is asked to administer research surveys to the patients, they would typically receive compensation via mechanism #2.  If for that same study it required an on-call quality improvement health assistant to oversee aspects of the implementation and that health assistant would be participating in a deeper/longer term way in the project, then a separate line within the JD should be added, and specific time alloted within their duty schedule.  But much preferred would to have the research team hire a specific new person for that purpose, rather than re-allocating clinical personnel to research. 

 

In all cases, the payment of staff for research purposes must be clearly documented via the accountant and must go through the research bank account.  

 

Open, direct communication with clear guidelines and expectations, posting of all relevant protocols and incentives in public places in Nepali and English will help to prevent some of the interpersonal conflicts that can arise on the difficult subject of compensation for work on research projects.

 

Process for communication and transparency in research operations

To ensure transparent, regular, and efficient communication regarding all research team operations, the primary modality for the research team should be via the research@nyayahealth.org listserv. While it is understood that many conversations regarding the implementation of day-to-day research, as well as the planning thereof, may take place “in-real-life” or via separate phone/email conversations, update emails and regular reporting of all research initiatives should take place via the research@ list. This is to ensure that members of the research team remain up to date on the multiple research initiatives occurring and so that each initiative may benefit from the insight and guidance of the research team as a whole, ensuring that it is consistent with NHI’s vision and strategy. Importantly, this also ensures that any conversations happening off email between internationally-based research team members (PI’s, ORE, et al) subsequently include and update all Achham-side research team members (CD, DoR, et al).

 

Research taking place in Achham outside the scope of the NHI Research Team

Occasionally, there will be collaborators or volunteers who agree to work with Nyaya Health Nepal in health service implementation in Achham, who also wish to undertake surveys or other forms of research.  In such cases, the Nyaya Health Nepal leadership (e.g. Country Director and/or Board of Directors as is relevant) will approve of such research if s/he feels it will benefit Achham without the consultation or approval of the NHI Research Team, as is appropriate given the independent nature of Nyaya Health Nepal.  In these cases, when research is not designed and/or overseen by the NHI Research Team, it is only for the purposes of facilitating service delivery in Achham that the Nyaya Health Nepal leadership should approve this research. The merits of externally-led research may be minimal in many cases, especially when the external research team is inexperienced in managing research projects in Achham, and the NHI Research Team explicitly discourages these types of projects without its direct involvement or oversight. To protect the integrity of the NHI research endeavor, in the absence of an NHI PI participating in such research, the research is considered wholly in the domain of the collaborating partner.  This means that NHI cannot and should not be included as a research participant, does not assist with the ethics review board application, does not provide any research assistants, data management support, financial support, translators.  This is because the NHI research team can only be responsible for the scientific quality of research that is overseen by its approved, committed, qualified, long-term PIs, and can only commit funds and resources specific to research grants under those PIs. 

 

Project Management

Management and team collaboration software

We use Asana for project management on all research endeavors, and participation is mandatory for all members substantially involved in the research project.

 

Finances and Accounting

The ORE will be primarily responsible, in conjunction with the PIs, CD, and the DoR, for managing all financial accounting of the research program.  Other NHN staff, such as the Hospital Administrator and Accountant, will be involved on an as-needed basis, and under the direction of the CD exclusively.

 

As stated above, at no point should even a single dollar of NHN operations budget be used for any research-related costs. All research-related costs, including salaries, travel, food/lodging, translation costs, etc, must be paid exclusively with funding provided by the NHI research team from research-specific granting and funding sources.

 

Research team funding must be kept in separate bank accounts, overseen by the CD and other NHN administrative staff as needed. There are currently two primary bank accounts; all research funds should ideally only pass between these two:

• NHI Bank of America (BoA) Research Account in Boston, MA, USA
• NHN Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) Research Account in Sanfebagar, Achham, Nepal

 

Expenses in Nepal, including those paid directly to research assistants and other staff, will be billed via the NHN ADB research account locally; funds will flow from international grants to the ADB account via NHI’s BoA Account.  Accounting sheets and receipts for the NHI research team are currently located at: Dropbox\Nyaya Health\Financial\NHI Finances (Private)\Research

 

Collaborative Process, IRB's, Publications, and Authorship

The process of research should be open and efficient.   There are many pitfalls to group authorship.  A few key principles apply:  

• Lead authors should have a clear direction they want the piece to take.  The lead authors should have a clear direction to help guide the co-authors and avoid multiple rounds of revisions/re-envisioning.   
• Extensive email threads and editing are not efficient modes of pushing forward big ideas on a paper.  As we discuss in our collaboration page, best to have phone (individual or conference) calls early on to establish the vision for the paper and clear roles.  
• Avoid the urge to copy-edit.  Copy-editing duties rest almost exclusively in the hands of the "primary writer" who may or may not be the first author.  This ensures 1) that the piece reads in a single voice; and 2) that In the final pass, select co-authors can suggest copy-edits, but copy-editing should be viewed as a very downstream process.  It can be very difficult to separate the big picture from the micro-edits, and the urge to edit is strong, but most co-authors' roles are not to manage the micro-edits.
•  Identify clear tasks and time-lines. The first author should delegate clear tasks, such as finding this or that reference, adding a particular methodology, etc. 
•  Communicate openly about authorship and contributions.  See below.  

 

Authorship

We are open within our team about authorship.  Prior to submission of any piece that involves Nyaya's work, the first author will email the submission to our team list.  Any member who would like to comment on the piece may do so.  If a member feels that the research is unethical, misleading, or otherwise misrepresents Nyaya's work, s/he may initiate an open dialogue as to whether the paper should even be submitted at all. 

 

Members will also discuss openly if they feel that they should be included as a co-author.  Only those members who meet international standards for authorship will be co-authors on the piece, as stated by the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors): 

1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

See: http://www.icmje.org/index.html#author

 

It is the job of the first author (together, as needed and if applicable, with the senior author) to be the arbiter of authorship.  The first author will decide whether someone who has requested authorship should be a co-author and the order of all the co-authors.  Order of authors is often difficult to navigate and be completely unbiased or just.  Order, as with authorship itself, notably does not go simply according to who put the most time or effort into the piece but rather also must take into account the substantive intellectual contributions made by the co-author.  The first author will be courteous and respectful and open in dealing with all potential co-authors, including those who have requested to be co-authors but who the first author has decided does not meet criteria.  This is not always easy; from the co-authors end, we ask that they be open about their feelings and also be open to listening to where the first author is coming from.  In the end, the most important thing is that the piece gets published and honestly a slight difference in the order of the author will not be too important in the grand scheme of things.

 

Touchy or sensitive discussions should be done in person or over the phone; email is not an appropriate communicative medium for potentially emotional issues.  The first author is also responsible for ensuring that all authors declare any potential conflicts of interests BEFORE submission, which is critical to avoid editorial/acceptance problems subsequently.  

 

It is important to note that while this seems somewhat bureaucratic, it really will increase the work load of the first author only minimally, since for the most part members are understanding and saavy and honest about these things.  The key to efficiency is openness and communication from the beginning.

 

Note on Non-Intellectual Contributions

The ICMJE recommends and most Principal Investigators practice that they not include research assistants or other staff as authors unless they have made substantive intellectual contributions.  This certainly values cognitive contributions over time or physical ones, but that is what professionally the research community has come up with.  We should of course work to engage staff members so they can make such contributions.  Research is a hugely collaborative effort, and the fact that someone is not a co-author does not mean their work is not valued or that it is not meaningful, simply that their contributions do not merit authorship.  

 

Ethics and Organizational Review

All research must be approved by the appropriate institutional review boards at the home institution of the Principal Investigator, with the Nepali Health Research Council in Nepal, and with other IRB's as appropriate (which will be under the jurisdiction of the PI and senior author to determine).

 

Nepal Health Research Council Approval Process

These are guidelines for IRB approval from Nepal

1. Start as early in advance as possible. Delays are highly likely.  Also, the proposal is rather extensive.

2. Go to http://www.nhrc.org.np/ and download the "Approval Proposal Format".  Example NHRC protocols are available by emailing research(AT)nyayahealth.org

3. You will need at least one Nepali citizen as a co-investigator. 

4. A passport size photograph is required for the PI.

5. Need the signature from the head of department of the PI.

6. After completing the application, contact a Nyaya Kathmandu-based contact to submit a paper copy. You can also try emailing them but best to submit a paper copy. As noted in the instructions, submit an electronic copy as well: either in a CD or floppy disk or via email. Again, CD and paper copy in Kathmandu is best.

7. Follow up by calling them (see contact info below) regarding status of the application.

CONTACT (check website for current info)

http://www.nhrc.org.np/contactus.php

 

Publication Charges

In keeping with our overall open-source mission, we prefer to have publish our work in open-access journals.  This often carries publication fees.  Upon acceptance of our piece, we should request a waiver on the publication fees on the basis of the fact that we work in a resource-denied setting.  This is true  for grant-supported research as well, since research dollars are best spent in Nepal.   In very uncommon circumstances, where for example a very high impact journal has accepted our piece but refuses to waive the fees and there is grant money that cannot be spent in Nepal, then we can consider using those specific, earmarked grant funds to cover publication fees.  Otherwise, we are better off publishing in a different journal; in such cases, our open-access objective would be secondary to our fundamental service and resource redistribution mission within Nepal.

 

Post-Publication Dissemination 

A critical component of the research and advocacy process is post-publication dissemination of the piece via email, blogs, and list-serves.  Our theory of change in doing research is: do innovative work-->collect, document, analyze, and publish our processes and outcomes-->share results with others-->leverage the work to advocate for policy change.  A published piece as such is only the beginning of the global health delivery improvement and advocacy process, and does not represent an end in itself.  We cannot allow our work to not be heard and read and effect change; it is in fact our ethical obligation to the folks participating in the research to make sure that the fruits of the research actually reach those individuals in the greatest need.

 

Here's the strategy:

1) Immediately after the embargo period is over, email out to the relevant blogs, list-serves, colleagues, academics, activists, and implementers;

2) Document these contacts on the sheet (is private because has contact information): 

https://spreadsheets.google.com/a/nyayahealth.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtZQBHyI2oBYdEZ0VE1sZ3JidGZQNy1kTkJGbTZDd1E&hl=en_US

3) Post on the Nyaya Health blog, email out over the Nyaya Health team list, add to tumblr, facebook

 

Note on General Interest Pieces, Abstracts, and Commentaries 

In contradistinction to research studies, general pieces, commentaries, and abstracts can be drafted in near-final form and then sent to the team list.  This is because such pieces are typically driven by the first author's time and efforts.  The first author is encouraged to send along ideas early on in any stage of development, and to use the ResearchIdeas page collaboratively.  Inclusive in these pieces are brief abstracts based on analysis of already collected data that have been open-sourced by Nyaya Health and do not require IRB review.  Typically, however, research projects, even involving retrospective open-sourced data, should follow the protocol below in "Note on Research Studies".

The first author will request co-authorship at that time, for example: 

All of us have contributed to making this happen, and I want to encourage anyone who feels that s/he would like to be a coauthor and would meet the criteria on our research page to email me personally to let me know (just email me to avoid cluttering the team list). 

 

Note on Protocols Submissions

Some open-access journals are publishing protocols.  On the one hand, these are nice opportunities to engage in transparency and dialogue in an academic setting.  On the other hand, it requires work to get these published, and they are not particularly valued by many academic departments or funding agencies.  The primary downside is the time involved given the uncertain benefits.  The potential benefits of publishing are: 

Transparency: Publishing our protocols forces us to put our protocols in a public, peer-reviewed format.  However, for transparency, we can certainly publish all our protocols on the wiki.  

Dialogue: Protocol publication facilitates dialogue in academic circles, reaching out to groups that may not read our wiki or blog or otherwise be privy to our protocols.  Again, however, we can share these protocols with our colleagues via the wiki and blog.

Legitimacy: While many agencies and academics do not value protocols as bonafide publications per se, some colleagues may, and be more likely to comment or provide meaningful feedback if the protocol is already published in a peer reviewed venue. 

Given this is a relatively new phenomenon in academic publishing, it is unclear exactly our protocol publishing will pan out.  Given this uncertainty, it is worth evaluating individual protocols for the relative merits and de-merits of publishing protocols in a peer-reviewed format.  It is unlikely that publication charges would ever be worth it if these are not waived.