The REWARD statement

At the REWARD/EQUATOR Conference, 28-30 September 2015, Edinburgh UK we discussed the REWARD statement, and asked individuals and organisations to sign up.

Read the REWARD statement and join the campaign.

http://www.thelancet.com/campaigns/efficiency

“We recognise that, while we strive for excellence in research, there is much that needs to be done to reduce waste and increase the value of our contributions. We maximise our research potential when:

• we set the right research priorities;
• we use robust research design, conduct and analysis;
• regulation and management are proportionate to risks;
• all information on research methods and findings are accessible;
• reports of research are complete and usable.

We believe we have a responsibility not just to seek to advance knowledge, but also to advance the practice of research itself. This will contribute to improvement in the health and lives of all peoples, everywhere. As funders, regulators, commercial organisations, publishers, editors, researchers, research users and others – we commit to playing our part in increasing value and reducing waste in research.”

This statement aims to encapsulate the aims of the 17 Recommendations for Action proposed in the Lancet series on Waste in Research.

If you have comments, suggestions, or are interested in signing up please contact Melanie Vermeulen at mvermeul@bond.edu.au

We would be grateful if you could spend 15 minutes on a survey about the Recommendations at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WQTLK76

 

13 comments on “The REWARD statement
  1. I think it is important to link this Statement not just to recommendations (such as Helsinki) but to Policy agreements and mandates from the countries where the authorities have agreed on key elements on standards for research reporting and transparency. For example, the WHO Strategy on Research for Health, the Policy on Research for Health for the Americas. These specifically address many of the issues raised in the series, and follow objectives that seem quite harmonized with this.

    The Statement needs to speak to audiences beyond those attending the event. Build on Liz Wager’s list and promote that these issues are linked to research management requirements and practices (approval of ethics review, funding disbursements, and other options to integrate the administrative processes in ways that increase adherence).

  2. Hans Lund says:

    I fully support the statement

  3. David Moher says:

    I support the REWARD statement and the REWARD campaign,

  4. Felipe Aizpuru Barandiaran says:

    I support the REWARD statement and the REWARD campaign,

  5. Patricia Ayala says:

    I fully support the REWARD statement, REWARD campaign and all efforts in disseminating its value.

  6. Myeong Soo Lee says:

    I support both the REWARD statement and campaign.

  7. Gerd Antes says:

    Of Course, I fully support the statement. However, in the list of target populations, two groups are missing: First, members of parliament and lawmakers and the whole parliament should be addressed. Second, ethics boards and the ethics process should be addressed or mentioned explicitly.

  8. I am very pleased to see that the wording of this statement has been modified from the original draft to make it more inclusive. The field of biomedical research and public health has led the way on this, and now the statement accommodates the importance of addressing waste in research in other fields as well. That is as it should be. As an educationalist, I fully support to the statement.

  9. Farhad Shokraneh says:

    I support the REWARD statement and campaign.

  10. I and GIMBE Foundation support the REWARD statement and the REWARD campaign

  11. Ying MA says:

    I support the REWARD statement and campaign.

  12. Lee Aymar NDOUNGA DIAKOU says:

    I fullly support the REWARD and all efforts performed to increase the reseach value.

  13. Me and the Society for Evidence Based Medicine support the REWARD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*