You are the most valuable reagent in the lab: mental health before and during the pandemic.

No one maps out their tenure as a postdoc anticipating a life-altering tragedy. But mental health crises of all kinds affect academic trainees and staff at similar or higher levels than the general public. While the mental health resources available to trainees are often set by healthcare providers, all levels of university leadership can work to remove material and immaterial obstacles that render such resources out of reach. I describe how access to care via telemedicine helped me following a loss in my family.

The impact of COVID-19 on the clinical trial.

The objective of this study was to explore the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic on ongoing and upcoming drug clinical trials. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinical trial staff and clinical trial subjects were surveyed by questionnaire in this study. The results of interviews and questionnaire showed that coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to many changes in the implementation of drug clinical trials, including: a variety of meetings being held online webinars using various platforms, telemedicine and follow-up by video, A large number of deviations from protocol and losses of follow-up, delivery of clinical trial drugs by express, additional workload caused by screening for coronavirus, and anxiety of subjects. These results suggest that the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak has hindered the progress and damaged the quality of clinical trials. The online meeting, remote follow-up, express delivery of drugs and remote monitoring in the epidemic environment can ensure the progress of clinical trials to a certain extent, but they cannot fully guarantee the quality as before.

Knowledge management process, knowledge based innovation: Does academic researcher's productivity mediate during the pandemic of covid-19?

Drucker's knowledge-worker productivity theory and knowledge-based view of the firm theory are widely employed in many disciplines but there is little application of these theories in knowledge-based innovation among academic researchers. Therefore, this study intends to evaluate the effects of the knowledge management process on knowledge-based innovation alongside with mediating role of Malaysian academic researchers' productivity during the Pandemic of COVID-19. Using a random sampling technique, data was collected from 382 academic researchers. Questionnaires were self-administered and data was analyzed via Smart PLS-SEM. Knowledge management process and knowledge workers' productivity have a positive and significant relationship with the knowledge-based innovation among academic researchers during the Pandemic of COVID-19. In addition, knowledge workers' productivity mediates the relationship between the knowledge management process (knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization) and knowledge-based innovation during the Pandemic of COVID-19. Results have also directed knowledge sharing as the key factor in knowledge-based innovation and a stimulating task for management discipline around the world during the Pandemic of COVID-19. This study provides interesting insights on Malaysian academic researchers' productivity by evaluating the effects of knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing, and application on the knowledge-based innovation among academic researchers during the Pandemic of COVID-19. These useful insights would enable policymakers to develop more influential educational strategies. By assimilating the literature of defined variables, the main contribution of this study is the evaluation of knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing, and utilization into knowledge-based innovation alongside the mediating role of knowledge workers productivity in the higher education sector of Malaysia during the Pandemic of COVID-19.

Spatial proximity matters: A study on collaboration.

As scientific research becomes increasingly cross-disciplinary, many universities seek to support collaborative activity through new buildings and institutions. This study examines the impacts of spatial proximity on collaboration at MIT from 2005 to 2015. By exploiting a shift in the location of researchers due to building renovations, we evaluate how discrete changes in physical proximity affect the likelihood that researchers co-author. The findings suggest that moving researchers into the same building increases their propensity to collaborate, with the effect plateauing five years after the move. The effects are large when compared to the average rate of collaboration among pairs of researchers, which suggests that spatial proximity is an important tool to support cross-disciplinary collaborative science. Furthermore, buildings that host researchers working in the same or related fields and from multiple departments have a larger effect on their propensity to collaborate.

The challenges of lockdown for early-career researchers.

Thousands of UK doctoral students and early-career researchers shared the repercussions of lockdown on their work and wellbeing.

Struggling to get started.

As the world attempts to cope with the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers about to start PhDs and postdocs face particular challenges.

Systematic review automation tools improve efficiency but lack of knowledge impedes their adoption: a survey.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated systematic review automation tool use by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developerst. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online, 16-question survey was distributed across several evidence synthesis, health technology assessment and guideline development organizations. We asked the respondents what tools they use and abandon, how often and when do they use the tools, their perceived time savings and accuracy, and desired new tools. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. RESULTS: A total of 253 respondents completed the survey; 89% have used systematic review automation tools - most frequently whilst screening (79%). Respondents' "top 3" tools included: Covidence (45%), RevMan (35%), Rayyan and GRADEPro (both 22%); most commonly abandoned were Rayyan (19%), Covidence (15%), DistillerSR (14%) and RevMan (13%). Tools saved time (80%) and increased accuracy (54%). Respondents taught themselves to how to use the tools (72%); lack of knowledge was the most frequent barrier to tool adoption (51%). New tool development was suggested for the searching and data extraction stages. CONCLUSION: Automation tools will likely have an increasingly important role in high-quality and timely reviews. Further work is required in training and dissemination of automation tools and ensuring they meet the desirable features of those conducting systematic reviews.