https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/issue/feed 2026-02-19T16:34:47+00:00 Simon Kerridge s.r.kerridge@kent.ac.uk Open Journal Systems <p>The <em><strong>Journal of Research Management and Administration</strong></em> is an international peer reviewed aimed at those interested in the management of research in any sector or organization. We publish articles, essays, and papers covering all aspects of research management and administration. <em>JoRMA </em>is an open access journal published by Coventry University.</p> <p>JoRMA welcomes submissions on topics relevant to RMA - the management and administration of research and innovation, namely: s<span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">trategy and policy; g</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">overnance, management and leadership; i</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">nformation systems, processes, procedures and administrative systems; f</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">inance and compliance; r</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">esearcher development; c</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">ommunication, impact, and enterprise; r</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">esponsible research and innovation, and research integrity; c</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">areer progression for researchers and research-related professionals; e</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">quality, diversity, inclusion, and research culture; o</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">pen research, open science, open access, open innovation; a</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">ssessment &amp; evaluation; and p</span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">artnerships and collaborations.</span></p> https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1285 2025-09-01T16:34:14+00:00 Malcolm Townes malcolm.townes@att.net

<table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Trends in university technology transfer practices in the United States of America and proposed modifications to U.S. public policy underscore the need for validated instruments to assess the maturity of technologies. The NASA TRL scale appears to be the most widely adopted instrument for measuring technology maturity but anecdotal testimony from university technology transfer practitioners and evidence in the literature indicate that the NASA TRL scale poses challenges in its use, is likely subject to idiosyncratic variation, and has not been thoroughly validated.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Content analysis was used to develop a generalized TRL (GTRL) scale to demonstrate that the NASA TRL scale can be modified and generalized in a way that increases its practicality and minimizes idiosyncratic variation both within and across contexts. A pilot study to assess its content validity, intra-rater reliability, and inter-rater reliability was performed to determine whether standard approaches for validating measurement instruments can be applied to validate the GTRL scale.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The findings of the study suggest that the GTRL scale has promise as a potentially more useful measurement instrument for technology transfer practitioners than the traditional NASA TRL scale, demonstrate the viability of a methodology for evaluating its validity and reliability, highlight areas where the GTRL scale can be improved, and reveal potential methodological issues that researchers may encounter when conducting validity and reliability studies of the GTRL scale as well as strategies for coping with those challenges.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The modifications and generalizations of the NASA TRL scale, as represented in the GTRL scale, have the potential to improve university technology transfer practices. With a valid and reliable measurement instrument, university technology transfer practitioners will be able to better determine how much a given technology needs to be matured and provide better guidance to university researchers. This will also enable practitioners to better allocate scarce resources.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2026-01-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Malcolm Townes https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1290 2025-10-29T10:28:36+00:00 Karey Iron karey.iron@torontomu.ca Karen Soldatić ksoldatic@torontomu.ca

<table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>In the current evolving research landscape, the implementation of academic research has expanded into a complex and active paradigm. Research and its output are expected not only to be robust and innovative, but also to be responsive to evolving societal norms and governance requirements. Where there is a disconnect between the expectations and the operational support provided by institutions and other research-related organizations, it is often the role of administrators in research teams to pragmatically translate, design and implement this dialogue into research practice. Referred to as Responsible Research by Design (RRbD) we propose a new framework that draws upon previously documented research governance models that aim to marry ethics, community engagement, data governance, and evolving cultural norms such as transparency, equity and fairness, while supporting research practice.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Through a case study of a large, Canadian funded research program that focuses on Health Equity and Community Wellbeing (HECW) in Toronto, Canada, we describe the creation of a comprehensive research operational framework that offers unique and critical insights into building rigorous yet pragmatic processes that weave inter-relational dialogue across research operations, governance, participant privacy protections, and equity principles.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The importance of this RRbD case study is that it: a) extends and adapts existing integrated research governance models to interdisciplinary research across the social sciences and health equity academic paradigms; b) creates a comprehensive operational structure that blends ethics, data governance, privacy, and equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility (EDIA) research principles, imperatives and requirements for funding; c) inserts training and human resources practices into routine practice; d) provides a practical example of how an integrated operational framework can be feasibly created and implemented within a large, interdisciplinary research program.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The RRbD framework is rooted in a set of principles – integrity, responsibility, co-creation, transparency, and capacity – that mirror the research program itself and weaves operational design across the research lifecycle. As such, the RRbD framework acts as both a conceptual and a practical guide for researchers and research administrators by integrating research, governance and administrative imperatives.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Karey Iron, Karen Soldatić https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1371 2025-12-10T11:35:06+00:00 Amber van den Akker avda21@bath.ac.uk Elizabeth McGill Elizabeth.McGill@lshtm.ac.uk Nason Maani Nason.maani@ed.ac.uk Nancy Karreman nak34@cam.ac.uk Alice Fabbri af987@bath.ac.uk Jeff Collin jeff.collin@ed.ac.uk Anna Gilmore abcg20@bath.ac.uk

<table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Conflicts of interest in public health research are often addressed through disclosure alone, which is insufficient to protect research integrity. This paper reflects on the process of developing and implementing a conflict of interest policy for a complex, multi-institutional and multi-sector research consortium.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The research uses a reflective case study approach, drawing on documents and reflexive notes to document the development and implementation of a COI policy in a research consortium on the commercial determinants of health.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The paper identifies practical steps and considerations for managing conflicts of interest in complex collaborative research settings, reflecting on key questions and challenges encountered during this process. It details an empirically grounded framework for governing conflicts of interest in research and advances understanding of how such policies can be operationalised in practice.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The paper offers actionable guidance on designing and embedding conflict of interest policies in complex collaborations, supporting more robust research governance and helping to safeguard the integrity of public health research.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2026-03-02T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Amber van den Akker, Elizabeth McGill, Nason Maani, Nancy Karreman, Alice Fabbri, Jeff Collin, Anna Gilmore https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1298 2025-12-17T09:56:34+00:00 Iván R. Gutiérrez Rojas ivanramongutierrezrojas@gmail.com Susi Poli susi.poli@unibo.it Hipólito Peralta Benítez hperalta@infomed.cav.sld.cu Yurisan Espinosa Ponce susi.poli@unibo.it Adelaida Ballbé Valdés susi.poli@unibo.it Silvia Fittipaldi sv.fittipaldi@gmail.com

<table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="174"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="431"> <p>Despite its critical role in research ecosystems, Research Management and Administration (RMA) does not yet have standardised recognition and training frameworks in underdeveloped regions, such as Latin America/Cuba. This article addresses this gap by proposing a comprehensive model for systematising that profession. A Holistic-Configurational model of RMA training is presented, adapted for regions with incipient RMA systems and framed as an emerging discipline.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="174"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="431"> <p>The application of Holistic-Configurational Theory is used to define the conceptual elements of RMA and prioritise training processes, creating a scalable framework.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="174"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="431"> <p>The Academic Impact establishes RMA as a distinct discipline in understudied regions, advances theoretical discourse on research management, and paves the way for future empirical studies.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="174"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="431"> <p>While the wider impact lies in contributing to global research collaboration, improving the competitiveness of funding in under-represented regions, and supporting policy alignment for innovation ecosystems.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2026-04-05T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Iván R. Gutiérrez Rojas, Susi Poli, Hipólito Peralta Benítez, Yurisan Espinosa Ponce, Adelaida Ballbé Valdés, Silvia Fittipaldi https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1379 2025-12-23T02:06:46+00:00 Bor Luen Tang bchtbl@nus.edu.sg

<table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Behavioral misconduct (BM), felonious or abusive acts within research settings, are often by definition segregated from research misconduct (RM); with the latter confined to instances of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism (FFP). Some have called for BM in research settings to be included under RM, and even papers coauthored by perpetrators of BM to be retracted. However, this notion is confounded by an apparent lack of a direct link between acts in BM with research integrity violation (i.e. the authenticity, veracity, and reproducibility of research data and publications).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Here, I posit that even if BM might not be considered RM, suspicions of the latter would arise from confirmation of the former for at least two reasons.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Firstly, BM might be linked to personality and organizational deficiencies that are also important for RM. Secondly, abusive and exploitative behaviors by people in power tend to promote RM. As such, confirmation of cases of BM in research should prompt suspicions if not preliminary inquiries into possible RM.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>BM and RM erode discipline and trust in academia. Realising that these transgressions are plausibly connected or could co-occur with or around a perpetrator of either forms of misconduct is important. Investigations could then be conducted, with sanctions delivered, in a more thorough and effective manner.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2026-03-17T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Bor Luen Tang https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1429 2026-02-19T16:34:47+00:00 Bor Luen Tang bchtbl@nus.edu.sg

<table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>A prominent issue that hampers criminalization of scientific or research misconduct (RM) is the criminal demarcation problem. Criminalization is often deemed to be applicable to widely adopted core RM acts of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP). However, it has been argued that this FFP limit or demarcation might be unwieldy, being potentially either under-inclusive or overly exclusive.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Here, I suggest that constructing technical boundaries for RM criminalization is neither critical nor useful. The criminal nature of an act of RM would be better defined by its intent, imposed risk, consequences, severity of harm to others, as well as whether it violates prevailing laws. Albeit small in number, perpetrators of egregious acts of RM, both within the FFP realm or otherwise, have indeed been punished by the state. Criminalizing egregious acts of RM is within the current academic and legal capacity of most research-active nations and can be facilitated by a proposed dual or two-tier academic and criminal-legal investigational structure.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>In close communication and collaboration with academia that would provide domain expertise to navigate the technical intricacies of a case of RM, the legal system can then seamlessly and effectively institute follow-up criminal prosecutions if and when appropriate. This two-tier academic and criminal-legal investigational structure would enhance investigational coverage and efficacy.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The two-tier academic and criminal-legal investigational framework might also be applicable to other forms of misdemeanour or fraud by those within the academia.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Bor Luen Tang