https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma <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> Coventry University en-US Journal of Research Management and Administration 2753-9245 <p>(CC BY-NC 4.0) This article is licensed to you under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. When you copy and redistribute this paper in full or in part, you need to provide proper attribution to it to ensure that others can later locate this work (and to ensure that others do not accuse you of plagiarism). You may (and we encourage you to) adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any non-commercial purposes. This license does not permit you to use this material for commercial purposes.</p> https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1285 <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> Malcolm Townes Copyright (c) 2026 Malcolm Townes https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-01-18 2026-01-18 5 1 2026011801 2026011801 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1285 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1349 <table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>There is a growing recognition of the need to strengthen research management capacity in West African institutions, yet limited structured training programs exist to address capacity gaps in this field. This study presents original findings from a multi-country initiative aimed at filling that gap.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The study employed a pre–post evaluation design using structured surveys administered to participants of three five-day intensive workshops held in Nigeria and Senegal between September and December 2024. The training focused on research support, research strategy, grant writing, budgeting, research communications, integrity, project management, contracts, intellectual property, and gender issues.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The results revealed significant improvements in participants' self-reported knowledge and competencies across all training areas. The study contributes empirical evidence to the field of Research Management and Administration (RMA), demonstrating the effectiveness of targeted capacity-building interventions in enhancing research support functions in low-resource settings.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The positive outcomes highlight the potential of structured, context-specific training to build a more competent research management workforce, thereby supporting stronger institutional research environments across West Africa.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Eme Owoaje Adebowale Adetayo Dembo Kanteh Copyright (c) 2026 Prof. Eme Theodora Owoaje, Dr. Adebowale Jeremy Adetayo, Dembo Bakary Kanteh https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-06-21 2026-06-21 5 1 2026062101 2026062101 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1349 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1290 <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> Karey Iron Karen Soldatić Copyright (c) 2026 Karey Iron, Karen Soldatić https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-04-30 2026-04-30 5 1 2026043001 2026043001 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1290 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1371 <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> Amber van den Akker Elizabeth McGill Nason Maani Nancy Karreman Alice Fabbri Jeff Collin Anna Gilmore Copyright (c) 2026 Amber van den Akker, Elizabeth McGill, Nason Maani, Nancy Karreman, Alice Fabbri, Jeff Collin, Anna Gilmore https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-03-02 2026-03-02 5 1 2026030201 2026030201 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1371 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1298 <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> Iván R. Gutiérrez Rojas Susi Poli Hipólito Peralta Benítez Yurisan Espinosa Ponce Adelaida Ballbé Valdés Silvia Fittipaldi Copyright (c) 2026 Iván R. Gutiérrez Rojas, Susi Poli, Hipólito Peralta Benítez, Yurisan Espinosa Ponce, Adelaida Ballbé Valdés, Silvia Fittipaldi https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-04-05 2026-04-05 5 1 2026040501 2026040501 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1298 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1379 <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> Bor Luen Tang Copyright (c) 2026 Bor Luen Tang https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-03-17 2026-03-17 5 1 2026031701 2026031701 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1379 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1382 <table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>This paper addresses the critical challenge of sustaining research innovation and productivity during periods of instability in federal funding by examining long-term U.S. research funding trends and behaviors. It is original in its integrated analysis of federal, industry, state, and philanthropic funding dynamics as a unified strategy for institutional resilience.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The study employed a scholarly and policy literature review combined with secondary data analysis. It synthesized historical U.S. research funding trends using data from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), alongside. The analysis incorporated quantitative funding metrics and qualitative assessments across federal, industry, state, and philanthropic sectors to evaluate shifts in research investment patterns and ecosystem behavior.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The findings demonstrate that while federal funding has historically underpinned the U.S. research enterprise, it is increasingly unstable and complemented by growing industry dominance and strategic philanthropic investment. Importantly, the study shows that research expenditures remain relatively stable despite federal budget fluctuations due to lag effects, institutional buffering, and diversified funding streams.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>This study is essential in assisting researchers and research administrators with understanding how to maintain research innovation and productivity during unstable periods of government funding by providing historic research funding trends and funding behaviors. Additionally, this review contributes to the field of Research Management and Administration by:</p> <p>· Providing a systems-level framework for understanding multi-sector research funding dynamics</p> <p>· Demonstrating the resilience mechanisms within the U.S. research ecosystem</p> <p>· Reframing funding diversification as a strategic necessity rather than an option</p> <p>· Offering evidence-based insight into how funding shifts toward applied and translational research are reshaping institutional strategies</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Quincy Quick Kimberley R. Sudler Melissa Harrington Xiaofei Wang Neelam Azad Anand Iyer Yalan Ning Jason E. Ikpatt John Solomon Vijaya Rangari Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Quincy Quick, Dr. Kimberley R. Sudler, Dr. Melissa Harrington , Dr. Xiaofei Wang, Dr. Neelam Azad, Dr. Anand Iyer, Dr. Yalan Ning, Dr. Jason E. Ikpatt, Dr. John Solomon, Dr. Vijaya Rangari https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-06-21 2026-06-21 5 1 2026062102 2026062102 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1382 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1429 <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> Bor Luen Tang Copyright (c) 2026 Bor Luen Tang https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-04-30 2026-04-30 5 1 2026043002 2026043002 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1429 https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/jorma/article/view/1440 <table width="605"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is new?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Research Management and Administration Professionals (RMAPs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are critical to research quality and equitable partnerships but face fragmented, under-resourced and poorly professionalised development pathways, with limited access to context-appropriate capacity strengthening initiatives.</p> <p>Despite growing recognition of their importance, there has been no prior systematic or scoping review describing which capacity strengthening programmes exist for RMAPs in LMICs, which competencies they target, how they are delivered or evaluated, or where key gaps remain. This review addresses that gap and provides the first framework-based mapping of such initiatives.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What was the approach?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>A scoping review was conducted following the methodological framework “Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review” and reported in line with PRISMA‑ScR guidelines.</p> <p>Eligibility criteria focused on capacity strengthening interventions for RMAPs involved in research management or support in LMIC settings, including training, workshops, mentorship, workplace learning and professional frameworks.</p> <p>Searches of Medline, ASSIA, AMED, Business Source Ultimate, Educational Administration Abstracts, Regional Business News and Scopus (2004 onwards) were undertaken in January 2025 with an updated search in September 2025, supplemented by structured Google-based grey literature searches and purposive identification of initiatives via professional networks.</p> <p>Citations were screened in Rayyan using a multi reviewer process.</p> <p>Data were extracted using a piloted template and synthesised narratively; interventions were categorised into five capacity strengthening types and mapped against the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) Professional Competency Framework using a three-level evidence scale.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the academic impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>Fifteen identified initiatives were implemented between 2011 and 2025, predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa with one in Brazil and none documented from Asia, the Pacific or the Middle East, indicating both emerging activity and substantial geographic gaps in the published and grey literature.</p> <p>Across these initiatives, systems level capacity strengthening was most common (11/15), followed by mentorship and peer-to-peer support (10/15), short-term training (9/15), embedded or long-term training (8/15) and professional frameworks or standards (5/15), reflecting a strong orientation towards organisational reform complemented by varied people-focused approaches.</p> <p>Mapping to the SARIMA Professional Competency Framework showed concentrated strengths in operational domains, particularly organisation and delivery of research management services, pre-award funding, and aspects of post-award management and data and information management, while strategic domains such as planning and policy development, researcher development, partnerships and collaboration, and research uptake and impact were inconsistently or only indirectly addressed.</p> <p>Only seven initiatives reported any evaluation of outcomes relevant to RMAPs, with considerable heterogeneity in methods and a predominance of short term or descriptive assessments; robust, competency-aligned evaluation of long-term individual and institutional change was rare.<br />By consolidating this evidence, classifying intervention models and systematically mapping competency coverage and evaluation practices, the review contributes a structured overview of how research management capacity is currently conceptualised and strengthened in LMICs and highlights critical gaps in strategic competency development, professionalisation and evidence on effectiveness within Research Management and Administration studies.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="180"> <p>What is the wider impact?</p> </td> <td width="425"> <p>The findings underscore that strengthening research management in LMICs cannot rely solely on short-term training or isolated system reforms; institutional leaders and funders need to invest in sustained, competency-based pathways that integrate RMAP roles into human resource structures, support career progression and embed research management into organisational governance.</p> <p>Practitioners designing capacity strengthening initiatives should explicitly incorporate strategic and leadership competencies, alongside operational skills, to position RMAPs as strategic actors in research systems rather than purely as compliance-focused support staff.</p> <p>The review highlights mentorship, peer learning and communities of practice as recurrent and valued components of initiatives, suggesting that formalising and resourcing such networks through regional associations, consortia and institutional partnerships could be a scalable, context-appropriate mechanism for ongoing professional development.</p> <p>Addressing geographic underrepresentation and improving documentation, evaluation and sharing of RMAP capacity strengthening efforts, potentially through curated repositories of tools and training materials, would support more equitable access to high-quality resources and enable cross-regional learning among research and management practitioners.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Dionysia Kordopati Julie Mytton Jude McClellan Anastasia Diamantopoulou Copyright (c) 2026 Dionysia Kordopati, Julie Mytton, Jude McClellan, Anastasia Diamantopoulou https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-06-17 2026-06-17 5 1 2026061701 2026061701 10.18552/jorma.v5i1.1440