dissemination of research findings ppt

What you need to know about research dissemination

Last updated

5 March 2024

Reviewed by

In this article, we'll tell you what you need to know about research dissemination.

• Understanding research dissemination

Research that never gets shared has limited benefits. Research dissemination involves sharing research findings with the relevant audiences so the research’s impact and utility can reach its full potential.

When done effectively, dissemination gets the research into the hands of those it can most positively impact. This may include:

Politicians

Industry professionals

The general public

What it takes to effectively disseminate research will depend greatly on the audience the research is intended for. When planning for research dissemination, it pays to understand some guiding principles and best practices so the right audience can be targeted in the most effective way.

• Core principles of effective dissemination

Effective dissemination of research findings requires careful planning. Before planning can begin, researchers must think about the core principles of research dissemination and how their research and its goals fit into those constructs.

Research dissemination principles can best be described using the 3 Ps of research dissemination.

This pillar of research dissemination is about clarifying the objective. What is the goal of disseminating the information? Is the research meant to:

Persuade policymakers?

Influence public opinion?

Support strategic business decisions?

Contribute to academic discourse? 

Knowing the purpose of sharing the information makes it easy to accurately target it and align the language used with the target audience.

The process includes the methods that will be used and the steps taken when it comes time to disseminate the findings. This includes the channels by which the information will be shared, the format it will be shared in, and the timing of the dissemination.

By planning out the process and taking the time to understand the process, researchers will be better prepared and more flexible should changes arise.

The target audience is whom the research is aimed at. Because different audiences require different approaches and language styles, identifying the correct audience is a huge factor in the successful dissemination of findings.

By tailoring the research dissemination to the needs and preferences of a specific audience, researchers increase the chances of the information being received, understood, and used.

• Types of research dissemination

There are many options for researchers to get their findings out to the world. The type of desired dissemination plays a big role in choosing the medium and the tone to take when sharing the information.

Some common types include:

Academic dissemination: Sharing research findings in academic journals, which typically involves a peer-review process.

Policy-oriented dissemination: Creating documents that summarize research findings in a way that's understandable to policymakers.

Public dissemination: Using television and other media outlets to communicate research findings to the public.

Educational dissemination: Developing curricula for education settings that incorporate research findings.

Digital and online dissemination: Using digital platforms to present research findings to a global audience.

Strategic business presentation: Creating a presentation for a business group to use research insights to shape business strategy

• Major components of information dissemination

While the three Ps provide a convenient overview of what needs to be considered when planning research dissemination, they are not a complete picture.

Here’s a more comprehensive list of what goes into the dissemination of research results:

Audience analysis: Identifying the target audience and researching their needs, preferences, and knowledge level so content can be tailored to them.

Content development: Creating the content in a way that accurately reflects the findings and presents them in a way that is relevant to the target audience.

Channel selection: Choosing the channel or channels through which the research will be disseminated and ensuring they align with the preferences and needs of the target audience.

Timing and scheduling: Evaluating factors such as current events, publication schedules, and project milestones to develop a timeline for the dissemination of the findings.

Resource allocation: With the basics mapped out, financial, human, and technological resources can be set aside for the project to facilitate the dissemination process.

Impact assessment and feedback: During the dissemination, methods should be in place to measure how successful the strategy has been in disseminating the information.

Ethical considerations and compliance: Research findings often include sensitive or confidential information. Any legal and ethical guidelines should be followed.

• Crafting a dissemination blueprint

With the three Ps providing a foundation and the components outlined above giving structure to the dissemination, researchers can then dive deeper into the important steps in crafting an impactful and informative presentation.

Let’s take a look at the core steps.

1. Identify your audience

To identify the right audience for research dissemination, researchers must gather as much detail as possible about the different target audience segments.

By gathering detailed information about the preferences, personalities, and information-consumption habits of the target audience, researchers can craft messages that resonate effectively.

As a simple example, academic findings might be highly detailed for scholarly journals and simplified for the general public. Further refinements can be made based on the cultural, educational, and professional background of the target audience.

2. Create the content

Creating compelling content is at the heart of effective research dissemination. Researchers must distill complex findings into a format that's engaging and easy to understand. In addition to the format of the presentation and the language used, content includes the visual or interactive elements that will make up the supporting materials.

Depending on the target audience, this may include complex technical jargon and charts or a more narrative approach with approachable infographics. For non-specialist audiences, the challenge is to provide the required information in a way that's engaging for the layperson.

3. Take a strategic approach to dissemination

There's no single best solution for all research dissemination needs. What’s more, technology and how target audiences interact with it is constantly changing. Developing a strategic approach to sharing research findings requires exploring the various methods and channels that align with the audience's preferences.

Each channel has a unique reach and impact, and a particular set of best practices to get the most out of it. Researchers looking to have the biggest impact should carefully weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the channels they've decided upon and craft a strategy that best uses that knowledge.

4. Manage the timeline and resources

Time constraints are an inevitable part of research dissemination. Deadlines for publications can be months apart, conferences may only happen once a year, etc. Any avenue used to disseminate the research must be carefully planned around to avoid missed opportunities.

In addition to properly planning and allocating time, there are other resources to consider. The appropriate number of people must be assigned to work on the project, and they must be given adequate financial and technological resources. To best manage these resources, regular reviews and adjustments should be made.

• Tailoring communication of research findings

We’ve already mentioned the importance of tailoring a message to a specific audience. Here are some examples of how to reach some of the most common target audiences of research dissemination.

Making formal presentations

Content should always be professional, well-structured, and supported by data and visuals when making formal presentations. The depth of information provided should match the expertise of the audience, explaining key findings and implications in a way they'll understand. To be persuasive, a clear narrative and confident delivery are required.

Communication with stakeholders

Stakeholders often don't have the same level of expertise that more direct peers do. The content should strike a balance between providing technical accuracy and being accessible enough for everyone. Time should be taken to understand the interests and concerns of the stakeholders and align the message accordingly.

Engaging with the public

Members of the public will have the lowest level of expertise. Not everyone in the public will have a technical enough background to understand the finer points of your message. Try to minimize confusion by using relatable examples and avoiding any jargon. Visual aids are important, as they can help the audience to better understand a topic.

• 10 commandments for impactful research dissemination

In addition to the details above, there are a few tips that researchers can keep in mind to boost the effectiveness of dissemination:

Master the three Ps to ensure clarity, focus, and coherence in your presentation.

Establish and maintain a public profile for all the researchers involved.

When possible, encourage active participation and feedback from the audience.

Use real-time platforms to enable communication and feedback from viewers.

Leverage open-access platforms to reach as many people as possible.

Make use of visual aids and infographics to share information effectively.

Take into account the cultural diversity of your audience.

Rather than considering only one dissemination medium, consider the best tool for a particular job, given the audience and research to be delivered.

Continually assess and refine your dissemination strategies as you gain more experience.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 17 January 2024

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

How to disseminate your research

Published: 01 January 2019

Version: Version 1.0 - January 2019

This guide is for researchers who are applying for funding or have research in progress. It is designed to help you to plan your dissemination and give your research every chance of being utilised.

What does NIHR mean by dissemination?

Effective dissemination is simply about getting the findings of your research to the people who can make use of them, to maximise the benefit of the research without delay.

Research is of no use unless it gets to the people who need to use it

Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health

Principles of good dissemination

Stakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving them from the planning of the study to the dissemination of findings. This should create ‘pull’ for your research i.e. a waiting audience for your outputs. You may also have secondary audiences and others who emerge during the study, to consider and engage.

Format: Produce targeted outputs that are in an appropriate format for the user. Consider a range of tailored outputs for decision makers, patients, researchers, clinicians, and the public at national, regional, and/or local levels as appropriate. Use plain English which is accessible to all audiences.

Utilise opportunities: Build partnerships with established networks; use existing conferences and events to exchange knowledge and raise awareness of your work.

Context: Understand the service context of your research, and get influential opinion leaders on board to act as champions. Timing: Dissemination should not be limited to the end of a study. Consider whether any findings can be shared earlier

Remember to contact your funding programme for guidance on reporting outputs .

Your dissemination plan: things to consider

What do you want to achieve, for example, raise awareness and understanding, or change practice? How will you know if you are successful and made an impact? Be realistic and pragmatic. 

Identify your audience(s) so that you know who you will need to influence to maximise the uptake of your research e.g. commissioners, patients, clinicians and charities. Think who might benefit from using your findings. Understand how and where your audience looks for/receives information. Gain an insight into what motivates your audience and the barriers they may face.

Remember to feedback study findings to participants, such as patients and clinicians; they may wish to also participate in the dissemination of the research and can provide a powerful voice.

When will dissemination activity occur? Identify and plan critical time points, consider external influences, and utilise existing opportunities, such as upcoming conferences. Build momentum throughout the entire project life-cycle; for example, consider timings for sharing findings.

Think about the expertise you have in your team and whether you need additional help with dissemination. Consider whether your dissemination plan would benefit from liaising with others, for example, NIHR Communications team, your institution’s press office, PPI members. What funds will you need to deliver your planned dissemination activity? Include this in your application (or talk to your funding programme).

Partners / Influencers: think about who you will engage with to amplify your message. Involve stakeholders in research planning from an early stage to ensure that the evidence produced is grounded, relevant, accessible and useful.

Messaging: consider the main message of your research findings. How can you frame this so it will resonate with your target audience? Use the right language and focus on the possible impact of your research on their practice or daily life.

Channels: use the most effective ways to communicate your message to your target audience(s) e.g. social media, websites, conferences, traditional media, journals. Identify and connect with influencers in your audience who can champion your findings.

Coverage and frequency: how many people are you trying to reach? How often do you want to communicate with them to achieve the required impact?

Potential risks and sensitivities: be aware of the relevant current cultural and political climate. Consider how your dissemination might be perceived by different groups.

Think about what the risks are to your dissemination plan e.g. intellectual property issues. Contact your funding programme for advice.

More advice on dissemination

We want to ensure that the research we fund has the maximum benefit for patients, the public and the NHS. Generating meaningful research impact requires engaging with the right people from the very beginning of planning your research idea.

More advice from the NIHR on knowledge mobilisation and dissemination .

Disseminating Research

• First Online: 17 November 2020

Cite this chapter

• Jay D. Gatrell 5 ,
• Gregory D. Bierly 6 ,
• Ryan R. Jensen 7 &
• Rajiv R. Thakur 8  

594 Accesses

Once the proposal has been approved or grant monies awarded and research completed, scholars are obliged to share their research with their colleagues and community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Chappell J (1989) Relations between geography and other disciplines. In: Kenzer (ed) On becoming a professional geographer. Merrill, Columbus, OH pp. 17–31

Google Scholar  

Flaherty C (2019). There’s a movement for better scientific posters. But are they really better? Inside Higher Ed, June 24.

Jakle J (1989) The writing of scholarly books in geography. In: Kenzer (ed) Columbus, OH: Merrill, pp. 124–134.

Wilson MW, Starkweather S (2014) Web presence of academic geographers: a generational divide? Prof Geograp 66(1):73–81

Article   Google Scholar  

Wu C, Murray A (2003) A cokriging method for estimating population density in urban areas. In: Abstracts of the annual meeting of the association of American geographers, New Orleans, LA. (PDF Document)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geology and Geography, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA

Prof. Dr. Jay D. Gatrell

Department of Earth and Environmental Systems, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, USA

Gregory D. Bierly

Department of Geography, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Dr. Ryan R. Jensen

Department of Geosciences, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA

Dr. Rajiv R. Thakur

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jay D. Gatrell .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Gatrell, J.D., Bierly, G.D., Jensen, R.R., Thakur, R.R. (2020). Disseminating Research. In: Research Design and Proposal Writing in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60019-8_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60019-8_7

Published : 17 November 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-60018-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-60019-8

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Open and Reproducible Research Group, Institute of Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology and Know-Center GmbH, Graz, Austria

Affiliation Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity, University of Paris, Paris, France

Affiliation Freelance Researcher, Vilnius, Lithuania

Affiliation University and National Library, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Affiliation Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, National Research Council, Rome, Italy

Affiliation Open Knowledge Maps, Vienna, Austria

Affiliation National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Affiliation Center for Digital Safety and Security, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria

• Tony Ross-Hellauer, 
• Jonathan P. Tennant, 
• Viltė Banelytė, 
• Edit Gorogh, 
• Daniela Luzi, 
• Peter Kraker, 
• Lucio Pisacane, 
• Roberta Ruggieri, 
• Electra Sifacaki, 
• Michela Vignoli

Published: April 16, 2020

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704
• Reader Comments

Author summary

How we communicate research is changing because of new (especially digital) possibilities. This article sets out 10 easy steps researchers can take to disseminate their work in novel and engaging ways, and hence increase the impact of their research on science and society.

Citation: Ross-Hellauer T, Tennant JP, Banelytė V, Gorogh E, Luzi D, Kraker P, et al. (2020) Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research. PLoS Comput Biol 16(4): e1007704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704

Editor: Russell Schwartz, Carnegie Mellon University, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2020 Ross-Hellauer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was partly funded by the OpenUP project, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 710722. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: We have read the journal's policy and have the following conflicts: TR-H is Editor-in-Chief of the open access journal Publications . JT is the founder of the Open Science MOOC, and a former employee of ScienceOpen.

Introduction

As with virtually all areas of life, research dissemination has been disrupted by the internet and digitally networked technologies. The last two decades have seen the majority of scholarly journals move online, and scholarly books are increasingly found online as well as in print. However, these traditional communication vehicles have largely retained similar functions and formats during this transition. But digital dissemination can happen in a variety of ways beyond the traditional modes: social media have become more widely used among researchers [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], and the use of blogs and wikis as a specific form of ‘open notebook science’ has been popular for more than a decade [ 4 ].

Professional academic social networks such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu boast millions of users. New online formats for interaction with the wider public, such as TED talks broadcast via YouTube, often receive millions of views. Some researchers have even decided to make all of their research findings public in real time by keeping open notebooks [ 5 , 6 ]. In particular, digital technologies invoke new ways of reaching and involving audiences beyond their usual primary dissemination targets (i.e., other scholars) to actively involve peers or citizens who would otherwise remain out of reach for traditional methods of communication [ 7 ]. Adoption of these outlets and methods can also lead to new cross-disciplinary collaborations, helping to create new research, publication, and funding opportunities [ 8 ].

Beyond the increase in the use of web-based and computational technologies, other trends in research cultures have had a profound effect on dissemination. The push towards greater public understanding of science and research since the 1980s, and an emphasis on engagement and participation of non-research audiences have brought about new forms of dissemination [ 9 ]. These approaches include popular science magazines and science shows on television and the radio. In recent years, new types of events have emerged that aim at involving the general public within the research process itself, including science slams and open lab days. With science cafés and hackerspaces, novel, participatory spaces for research production and dissemination are emerging—both online and offline. Powerful trends towards responsible research and innovation, the increasing globalisation of research, and the emergence and inclusion of new or previously excluded stakeholders or communities are also reshaping the purposes of dissemination as well as the scope and nature of its audiences.

Many now view wider dissemination and public engagement with science to be a fundamental element of open science [ 10 ]. However, there is a paradox at play here, for while there have never been more avenues for the widespread dissemination of research, researchers tend nonetheless to value and focus upon just a few traditional outputs: journal articles, books, and conference presentations [ 11 ].

Following Wilson and colleagues [ 12 ], we here define research dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences, consideration of the settings in which research findings are to be received, and communicating and interacting with wider audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake and understanding. Innovative dissemination, then, means dissemination that goes beyond traditional academic publishing (e.g., academic journals, books, or monographs) and meetings (conferences and workshops) to achieve more widespread research uptake and understanding. Hence, a citizen science project, which involves citizens in data collection but does not otherwise educate them about the research, is not here considered innovative dissemination.

We here present 10 steps researchers can take to embrace innovative dissemination practices in their research, either as individuals or groups ( Fig 1 ). They represent the synthesis of multidimensional research activities undertaken within the OpenUP project ( https://www.openuphub.eu/ ). This European Coordination and Support Action grant award addressed key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape and proposed recommendations and solutions addressing the needs of researchers, innovators, the public, and funding bodies. The goal is to provide stakeholders (primarily researchers but also intermediaries) with an entry point to innovative dissemination, so that they can choose methods and tools based on their audience, their skills, and their requirements. The advice is directed towards both individual researchers and research teams or projects. It is similar to other entries in the Ten Simple Rules series (e.g., [ 13 , 14 ]). Ultimately, the benefit here for researchers is increased recognition and social impact of their work.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704.g001

Rule 1: Get the basics right

Despite changes in communication technologies and models, there are some basic organisational aspects of dissemination that remain important: to define objectives, map potential target audience(s), target messages, define mode of communication/engagement, and create a dissemination plan. These might seem a bit obvious or laborious but are critical first steps towards strategically planning a project.

Define objectives

The motivation to disseminate research can come in many forms. You might want to share your findings with wider nonacademic audiences to raise awareness of particular issues or invite audience engagement, participation, and feedback. Start by asking yourself what you want to achieve with your dissemination. This first strategic step will make all other subsequent steps much simpler, as well as guide how you define the success of your activities.

Map your audience

Specify who exactly you want your research results to reach, for which purposes, and what their general characteristics might be (e.g., policy makers, patient groups, non-governmental organisations). Individuals are not just ‘empty vessels’ to be filled with new knowledge, and having a deeper contextual understanding of your audience can make a real difference to the success of your engagement practices. Who is most affected by your research? Who might find it most valuable? What is it that you want them to take away? Get to know your target audiences, their needs and expectations of the research outcomes, as well as their preferred communication channels to develop a detailed understanding of their interests and align your messages and media with their needs and priorities. Keep in mind, too, that intermediaries such as journalists or science communication organisations can support or mediate the dissemination process.

Target/frame your messages

Target and frame the key messages that you want to communicate to specific groups. Think first from the perspective of what they might want or need to hear from you, rather than what you want to tell them. Choosing media and format of your communication strongly depends on your communication objectives, i.e., what you want to achieve. There are many ways to communicate your research; for example, direct messages, blog/vlog posts, tweeting about it, or putting your research on Instagram. Form and content go hand in hand. Engage intermediaries and leverage any relevant existing networks to help amplify messages.

Create a dissemination plan

Many funded research projects require a dissemination plan. However, even if not, the formal exercise of creating a plan at the outset that organises dissemination around distinct milestones in the research life cycle will help you to assign roles, structure activities, as well as plan funds to be allocated in your dissemination. This will ultimately save you time and make future work easier. If working in groups, distribute tasks and effort to ensure regular updates of content targeted to different communities. Engage those with special specific skills in the use and/or development of appropriate communication tools, to help you in using the right language and support you in finding the suitable occasions to reach your identified audience. Research is not linear, however, and so you might find it best to treat the plan as a living document to be flexibly adapted as the direction of research changes.

Rule 2: Keep the right profile

Whether communicating as an individual researcher, a research project, or a research organisation, establishing a prominent and unique identity online and offline is essential for communicating. Use personal websites, social media accounts, researcher identifiers, and academic social networks to help make you and your research visible. When doing this, try to avoid any explicit self-promotion—your personal profile naturally will develop based on your ability to be an effective and impactful communicator.

Academia is a prestige economy, where individual researchers are often evaluated based on their perceived esteem or standing within their communities [ 15 ]. Remaining visible is an essential part of accumulating esteem. An online presence maintained via personal websites, social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), researcher identifiers (e.g., ORCID), and academic social networks (e.g., ResearchGate, institutional researcher profiles) can be a personal calling card, where you can highlight experience and demonstrate your expertise in certain topics. Being active on important mailing lists, forums, and social media is not only a good chance to disseminate your findings to those communities but also offers you the chance to engage with your community and potentially spark new ideas and collaborations.

Using researcher identifiers like ORCID when disseminating outputs will ensure that those outputs will be unambiguously linked back to the individual researcher (and even automatically updated to their ORCID profile). The OpenUP survey showed that nearly half of the respondents (41%) use academic social networks as a medium to disseminate their research, and a quarter of respondents (26%) said that these networks informed their professional work [ 16 ].

Create a brand by giving your project a unique name, ideally with some intuitive relation to the issue you are investigating. Create a striking visual identity, with a compelling logo, core colours, and a project slogan. Create a website that leverages this visual identity and is as simple and intuitive as possible, both in its layout and in the way content is formulated (limit insider jargon). Create associated appropriate social media accounts (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, SlideShare, YouTube) and link to this from the project website. Aim for a sustained presence with new and engaging content to reinforce project messaging, and this can help to establish a core following group or user base within different platforms. Include links to other project online presences such as social media accounts, or a rolling feed of updates if possible. Consider including a blog to disseminate core findings or give important project updates. A periodical newsletter could be released in order to provide project updates and other news, to keep the community informed and activated regarding project issues. Depending on the size of your project and budget, you might want to produce hard copy material such as leaflets or fact sheets, as well as branded giveaways to increase awareness of your project. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, try not to come across as a ‘scientific robot’, and make sure to communicate the more human personality side of research.

Rule 3: Encourage participation

In the age of open research, don’t just broadcast. Invite and engage others to foster participation and collaboration with research audiences. Scholarship is a collective endeavour, and so we should not expect its dissemination to be unidirectional, especially not in the digital age. Dissemination is increasingly done at earlier stages of the research life cycle, and such wider and more interactive engagement is becoming an integral part of the whole research workflow.

Such participative activities can be as creative as you wish; for example, through games, such as Foldit for protein folding ( https://fold.it/portal/ ). You might even find it useful to actively engage ‘citizen scientists’ in research projects; for example, to collect data or analyse findings. Initiatives such as Zooniverse ( https://www.zooniverse.org/ ) serve as great examples of allowing anyone to freely participate in cutting-edge ‘people-powered research’.

Disseminating early and often showcases the progress of your work and demonstrates productivity and engagement as part of an agile development workflow. People like to see progress and react positively to narrative, so give regular updates to followers on social media, for example, blogging or tweeting early research findings for early feedback. Alternatively, involving businesses early on can align research to industry requirements and expectations, thus potentially increasing commercial impact. In any case, active involvement of citizens and other target audiences beyond academia can help increase the societal impact of your research [ 17 ].

Rule 4: Open science for impact

Open science is ‘transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks’, as defined by one systematic review [ 18 ]. It encompasses a variety of practices covering a range of research processes and outputs, including areas like open access (OA) to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation including open peer review [ 19 ]. Open science is rooted in principles of equitable participation and transparency, enabling others to collaborate in, contribute to, scrutinise and reuse research, and spread knowledge as widely as possible [ 20 ]. As such, innovative dissemination is a core element of open science.

Embracing open science principles can boost the impact of research. Firstly, OA publications seem to accrue more citations than their closed counterparts, as well as having a variety of possible wider economic and societal benefits [ 21 ]. There are a number of ways to make research papers OA, including at the journal site itself, or self-archiving an accepted manuscript in a repository or personal website.

Disseminating publications as preprints in advance of or parallel to journal submission can increase impact, as measured by relative citation counts [ 22 ]. Very often, traditional publishing takes a long time, with the waiting time between submission and acceptance of a paper being in excess of 100 days [ 23 ]. Preprinting speeds up dissemination, meaning that findings are available sooner for sharing and reuse. Potential platforms for disseminating preprints include the Open Science Framework, biorXiv, or arXiv.

Dissemination of other open science outputs that would usually remain hidden also not only helps to ensure the transparency and increased reproducibility of research [ 24 ], but also means that more research elements are released that can potentially impact upon others by creating network effects through reuse. Making FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) research data and code available enables reuse and remixing of core research outputs, which can also lead to further citations for projects [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Published research proposals, protocols, and open notebooks act as advertisements for ongoing research and enable others to reuse methods, exposing the continuous and collaborative nature of scholarship.

To enable reuse, embrace open licenses. When it comes to innovative dissemination, the goal is usually that the materials are accessible to as large an audience as possible. If appropriate open licenses are not used, while materials may be free to access, they cannot be widely used, modified, or shared. The best in this case is the widely adopted Creative Commons licenses, CC BY or CC 0. Variations of these licenses are less permissive and can constrain reuse for commercial or derivative purposes. This limitation, however, prevents the use of materials in many forms of (open) educational resources and other open projects, including Wikipedia. Careful consideration should be given to licensing of materials, depending on what your intended outcomes from the project are (see Rule 1). Research institutes and funding bodies typically have a variety of policies and guidance about the use and licensing of such materials, and should be consulted prior to releasing any materials.

Rule 5: Remix traditional outputs

Traditional research outputs like research articles and books can be complemented with innovative dissemination to boost impact; for example, by preparing accompanying nonspecialist summaries, press releases, blog posts, and visual/video abstracts to better reach your target audiences. Free media coverage can be an easy way to get results out to as many people as possible. There are countless media outlets interested in science-related stories. Most universities and large research organisations have an office for public affairs or communication: liaise with these experts to disseminate research findings widely through public media. Consider writing a press release for manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in journals or books and use sample forms and tools available online to assist you in the process. Some journals also have dedicated press teams that might be able to help you with this.

Another useful tool to disseminate traditional research outputs is to release a research summary document. This one- or two-page document clearly and concisely summarises the key conclusions from a research initiative. It can combine several studies by the same investigator or by a research group and should integrate two main components: key findings and fact sheets (preferably with graphical images to illustrate your point). This can be published on your institutional website as well as on research blogs, thematic hubs, or simply posted on your social media profiles. Other platforms such as ScienceOpen and Kudos allow authors to attach nonspecialist summaries to each of their research papers.

To maximise the impact of your conference presentations or posters, there are several steps that can be taken. For instance, you can upload your slides to a general-purpose repository such as Figshare or Zenodo and add a digital object identifier (DOI) to your presentation. This also makes it easier to integrate such outputs with other services like ORCID. You can also schedule tweets before and during any conferences, and use the conference hashtag to publicise your talk or poster. Finally, you can also add information about your contributions to email signatures or out-of-office messages [ 28 ].

Rule 6: Go live

In-person dissemination does not just have to be at stuffy conferences. With research moving beyond the walls of universities, there are several types of places for more participatory events. Next to classic scientific conferences, different types of events addressing wider audiences have emerged. It is possible to hit the road and take part in science festivals, science slams, TEDx talks, or road shows.

Science slams are short talks in which researchers explain a scientific topic to a typically nonexpert audience. Similar to other short talk formats like TED talks, they lend themselves to being spread over YouTube and other video channels. A prominent example from the German-speaking area is Giulia Enders, who won the first prize in a science slam that took place in 2012 in Berlin. The YouTube video of her fascinating talk about the gut has received over 1 million views. After this success, she got an offer to write a book about the gut and the digestive system, which has since been published and translated into many languages. You never know how these small steps might end up having a wider impact on your research and career.

Another example is Science Shops, small entities which provide independent, participatory research support to civil society. While they are usually linked to universities, hacker and maker spaces tend to be community-run locations, where people with an interest in science, engineering, and art meet and collaborate on projects. Science festivals are community-based showcases of science and technology that take place over large areas for several days or weeks and directly involve researchers and practitioners in public outreach. Less formally, Science Cafés or similar events like Pint of Science are public engagement events in casual settings like pubs and coffeehouses.

Alternatively, for a more personal approach, consider reaching out to key stakeholders who might be affected by your research and requesting a meeting, or participating in relevant calls for policy consultations. Such an approach can be especially powerful in getting the message across to decision-makers and thought-leaders, although the resources required to schedule and potentially travel to such meetings means you should target such activities very carefully. And don’t forget the value of serendipity—who knows who you’ll meet in the course of your everyday meetings and travels. Always be prepared with a 30 second ‘elevator pitch’ that sums up your project in a confident and concise manner—such encounters may be the gateways to greater engagement or opportunities.

Rule 7: Think visual

Dissemination of research is still largely ruled by the written or spoken word. However, there are many ways to introduce visual elements that can act as attractive means to help your audience understand and interpret your research. Disseminate findings through art or multimedia interpretations. Let your artistic side loose or use new visualisation techniques to produce intuitive, attractive data displays. Of course, not everyone is a trained artist, and this will be dependent on your personal skills.

Most obviously, this could take the form of data visualisation. Graphic representation of quantitative information reaches back to ‘earliest map-making and visual depiction’ [ 29 ]. As technologies have advanced, so have our means of visually representing data.

If your data visualisations could be considered too technical and not easily understandable by a nonexpert reader, consider creating an ad hoc image for this document; sometimes this can also take the form of a graphical abstract or infographic. Use online tools to upload a sample of your data and develop smart graphs and infographics (e.g., Infogr.am, Datawrapper, Easel.ly, or Venngage).

Science comics can be used, in the words of McDermott, Partridge, and Bromberg [ 30 ], to ‘communicate difficult ideas efficiently, illuminate obscure concepts, and create a metaphor that can be much more memorable than a straightforward description of the concept itself’. McDermott and colleagues continue that comics can be used to punctuate or introduce papers or presentations and to capture and share the content of conference talks, and that some journals even have a ‘cartoon’ publication category. They advise that such content has a high chance of being ‘virally’ spread via social media.

As previously discussed, you may also consider creating a video abstract for a paper or project. However, as with all possible methods, it is worth considering the relative costs versus benefits of such an approach. Creating a high-quality video might have more impact than, say, a blog post but could be more costly to produce.

Projects have even successfully disseminated scientific findings through art. For example, The Civilians—a New York–based investigative theatre company—received a three-year grant to develop The Great Immensity , a play addressing the complexity of climate change. AstroDance tells the story of the search for gravitational waves through a combination of dance, multimedia, sound, and computer simulations. The annual Dance Your PhD contest, which began in 2007 and is sponsored by Science magazine, even asks scientists to interpret their PhD research as dance. This initiative receives approximately 50 submissions a year, demonstrating the popularity of novel forms of research dissemination.

Rule 8: Respect diversity

The academic discourse on diversity has always included discussions on gender, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, digital literacy, and epistemic, ideological, or economic diversity. An approach that is often taken is to include as many diverse groups into research teams as possible; for example, more women, underrepresented minorities, or persons from developing countries. In terms of scientific communication, however, not only raising awareness about diversity issues but also increasing visibility of underrepresented minorities in research or including more women in science communication teams should be considered, and embedded in projects from the outset. Another important aspect is assessing how the communication messages are framed, and if the chosen format and content is appropriate to address and respect all audiences. Research should reach all who might be affected by it. Respect inclusion in scientific dissemination by creating messages that reflect and respect diversity regarding factors like gender, demography, and ability. Overcoming geographic barriers is also important, as well as the consideration of differences in time zones and the other commitments that participants might have. As part of this, it is a key responsibility to create a healthy and welcoming environment for participation. Having things such as a code of conduct, diversity statement, and contributing guidelines can really help provide this for projects.

The 2017 Progression Framework benchmarking report of the Scientific Council made several recommendations on how to make progress on diversity and inclusion in science: (1) A strategy and action plan for diversity should developed that requires action from all members included and (2) diversity should be included in a wide range of scientific activities, such as building diversity into prizes, awards, or creating guidance on building diversity and inclusion across a range of demographics groups into communications, and building diversity and inclusion into education and training.

Rule 9: Find the right tools

Innovative dissemination practices often require different resources and skills than traditional dissemination methods. As a result of different skills and tools needed, there may be higher costs associated with some aspects of innovative dissemination. You can find tools via a more-complete range of sources, including the OpenUP Hub. The Hub lists a catalogue of innovative dissemination services, organised according to the following categories, with some suggested tools:

• Visualising data: tools to help create innovative visual representations of data (e.g., Nodegoat, DataHero, Plot.ly)
• Sharing notebooks, protocols, and workflows: ways to share outputs that document and share research processes, including notebooks, protocols, and workflows (e.g., HiveBench, Protocols.io, Open Notebook Science Network)
• Crowdsourcing and collaboration: platforms that help researchers and those outside academia to come together to perform research and share ideas (e.g., Thinklab, Linknovate, Just One Giant Lab)
• Profiles and networking: platforms to raise academic profile and find collaboration and funding opportunities with new partners (e.g., Humanities Commons, ORCID, ImpactStory)
• Organiding events: tools to help plan, facilitate, and publicise academic events (e.g., Open Conference Systems, Sched, ConfTool)
• Outreach to wider public: channels to help broadcast your research to audiences beyond academia, including policy makers, young people, industry, and broader society (e.g., Famelab, Kudos, Pint of Science)
• Publishing: platforms, tools, and services to help you publish your research (e.g., Open Science Framework, dokieli, ScienceMatters)
• Archive and share: preprint servers and repositories to help you archive and share your texts, data, software, posters, and more (e.g., BitBucket, GitHub, RunMyCode)

The Hub here represents just one attempt to create a registry of resources related to scholarly communication. A similar project is the 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication project, which contains different tools and services for all parts of a generalised research workflow, including dissemination and outreach. This can be broadly broken down into services for communication through social media (e.g., Twitter), as well as those designed for sharing of scholarly outputs, including posters and presentations (e.g., Zenodo or Figshare). The Open Science MOOC has also curated a list of resources for its module on Public Engagement with Science, and includes key research articles, organisations, and services to help with wider scientific engagement.

Rule 10: Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate

Assess your dissemination activities. Are they having the right impact? If not, why not? Evaluation of dissemination efforts is an essential part of the process. In order to know what worked and which strategies did not generate the desired outcomes, all the research activities should be rigorously assessed. Such evaluation should be measured via the use of a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators (which should be already foreseen in the planning stage of dissemination; see Rule 1). Questionnaires, interviews, observations, and assessments could also be used to measure the impact. Assessing and identifying the most successful practices will give you the evidence for the most effective strategies to reach your audience. In addition, the evaluation can help you plan your further budget and minimise the spending and dedicating efforts on ineffective dissemination methods.

Some examples of quantitative indicators include the following:

• Citations of publications;
• alternative metrics related to websites and social media platforms (updates, visits, interactions, likes, and reposts);
• numbers of events held for specific audiences;
• numbers of participants in those events;
• production and circulation of printed materials;
• media coverage (articles in specialised press newsletters, press releases, interviews, etc.); and
• how much time and effort were spent on activities.

Some examples of qualitative indicators include the following:

• Visibility in the social media and attractiveness of website;
• newly established contacts with networks and partners and the outcomes of these contacts;
• feedback from the target groups; and
• share feedback within your group on what dissemination strategies seemed to be the most effective in conveying your messages and reaching your target audiences.

We recognise that researchers are usually already very busy, and we do not seek to pressurise them further by increasing their burdens. Our recommendations, however, come at a time when there are shifting norms in how researchers are expected to engage with society through new technologies. Researchers are now often partially evaluated based on such, or expected to include dissemination plans in grant applications. We also do not want to encourage the further fragmentation of scholarship across different platforms and ‘silos’, and therefore we strongly encourage researchers to be highly strategic in how they engage with different methods of innovative dissemination. We hope that these simple rules provide guidance for researchers and their future projects, especially as the tools and services available evolve through time. Some of these suggestions or platforms might not work across all project types, and it is important for researchers to find which methods work best for them.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to everyone who engaged with the workshops we conducted as part of this grant award.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 19. Pontika N, Knoth P, Cancellieri M, Pearce S. Fostering Open Science to Research Using a Taxonomy and an ELearning Portal. In: iKnow: 15th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data Driven Business, 21–22 Oct 2015, Graz, Austria [cited 2020 Mar 23]. Available from: http://oro.open.ac.uk/44719/
• 29. Friendly M. A Brief History of Data Visualization. In: Handbook of Data Visualization . Chen C, Härdle W, Unwin A, editors. Springer Handbooks Comp.Statistics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33037-0_2 . 2008. Pp.15–56.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can J Hosp Pharm
• v.68(6); Nov-Dec 2015

Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to Practice Change

Introduction.

As the medication experts in the health care system, pharmacists manage the medication needs of individual patients. Engaging in research, however, offers the opportunity not only to improve the health of those individuals encountered in daily practice but also to make a significant impact on the lives of patients across the country and internationally through the translation of research into clinical practice. Yet practice change cannot occur if clinicians are unaware of the research that has been performed. Hung and Duffet 1 reviewed the status of residency projects conducted in Canada between 1999 and 2009. They identified a total of 518 projects, but less than one-third (32.2%) had been published in any format, and only 107 (20.6%) were ultimately published as full-length papers. Similar results were observed in an analysis of pharmacy residency projects conducted in the United States. 2

Although there are a number of constraints associated with residency projects that lead many to be unsuitable for publication, these figures suggest that a considerable volume of hospital pharmacy research in Canada cannot be accessed by practitioners. It should be emphasized that researchers have an ethical obligation to at least attempt to disseminate their research findings. 3 While it is tempting not to publish disappointing results, this can distort the literature on a particular topic. For example, clinicians, as well as the general public, are justifiably concerned when a pharmaceutical company elects not to publish the results of an unfavourable clinical trial, a practice that has led to a push for the creation of publicly available clinical trial databases. However, all who engage in research should be held to the same level of accountability, even if the research is not on the same scale as a multicentre clinical trial. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with an overview of the most common methods by which research results are disseminated to the practice community and to introduce some of the concepts and barriers associated with knowledge translation.

RESEARCH DISSEMINATION AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES

A variety of approaches are available for the dissemination of research findings, but by far the most common are publications in biomedical journals (discussed in detail later in this article) and presentations at professional meetings. The latter may take the form of either oral (platform) or poster presentations. Presenting clinical or practice research at a professional meeting offers the opportunity to disseminate research findings quickly, since the lag time between completing the research and presenting at a conference may be short. Furthermore, conferences are often attended by leaders in the field, who are more likely to be early adopters of research into practice. The poster format offers the additional advantage of facilitating a personal interaction between researcher and practitioner. Researchers can explain their project in detail and receive feedback that may be helpful for additional studies. Surveys of attendees at professional meetings indicate respondents’ belief that knowledge transfer is enhanced when authors are available to explain and discuss their research findings at a poster session. 4 Researchers should recognize that posters need to be visually appealing, to attract the widest audience at poster sessions. 4 , 5 Presenters are competing with each other for the attention of conference attendees, and knowledge transfer will be greatest for those who do the best job of “selling” their research.

Although there is value to disseminating research findings at professional conferences, there are also disadvantages. Chief among them is a lack of depth when the results of a study are compressed into an abstract or a poster. 5 One of the key tenets of research is that it must be reproducible, and the strict word limits imposed on abstracts preclude a detailed explanation of the methods used to conduct a research project. This limitation becomes less relevant if the research is later published as a full-length paper, but too often this does not occur. Prohaska and others 6 examined the publication rates of abstracts submitted to 5 national pharmacy meetings in the United States. Of 2000 published abstracts, less than 20% were subsequently published in journals that could be accessed through PubMed or Google Scholar. This issue is not unique to pharmacy and has been observed in medicine as well. 7 , 8

PREPARATION OF A RESEARCH PAPER

For research results to reach the widest possible audience and be available to practitioners not just today but permanently, they must be published in a journal. The gold standard is publication in a peer-reviewed journal that is indexed by the National Library of Medicine and other abstracting or indexing services, since this will ensure that anyone conducting a literature search will be able to locate the study. Novice researchers should be aware that the process of preparing a manuscript for publication begins before the research is even started. A well-written protocol will not only ensure successful review by the ethics committee but also form the basis for the introduction, background, and methods in the final paper. The following sections outline important considerations when preparing a paper for publication.

Authorship and Journal Selection Guidelines

As described by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 9 authors are expected to have made substantial contributions to the design or execution of the study or analysis of the data and must also be engaged in writing or editing of the manuscript. All authors must approve the final version of the paper. Conventions around the order of author names in the byline vary, but a general rule is that the first author has made the greatest contribution, with subsequent authors having made lesser contributions. The senior researcher may choose the final author position and will often serve as the corresponding author, particularly if the lead author is a student who may be moving on to a different institution.

Selecting an appropriate journal for each manuscript is important and must be done before the writing process begins. All journals have criteria with respect to the scope of research that is of interest to their readership, as well as style guidelines, and this information is typically provided online in “Instructions for Authors”. 10 Careful review of this information will ensure that the manuscript will not be rejected outright, for purely technical reasons, during editorial review. As an example, a researcher who has completed a study demonstrating the effectiveness of a drug in a rabbit model of disease should be aware that CJHP “does not accept original research articles involving animal research”. 10

Ideally, the choice of journal should be based on the audience that would benefit most from learning about the research. When there are multiple journals in a field, factors such as circulation and impact factor may come into play. The impact factor measures the rate of citation of articles published in a journal over the previous 2 years, with higher values suggesting that papers appearing in the journal have more impact. Prestigious medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine , have impact factors above 50, whereas most pharmacy practice journals in North America tend to have impact factors below 3, and some are not indexed in MEDLINE. 11 A low impact factor does not mean that a pharmacy journal is of poor quality; rather, it may reflect the relatively small readership and the fact that most readers are not researchers and thus are less likely to subsequently write a paper citing an article that they have read.

Organization of a Research Paper

The body of the paper begins with the Introduction, which should concisely outline the rationale for conducting the research and state the purpose or hypothesis being tested. Given the large number of papers that practitioners must review to stay current, the potential value of the research to practice must be made evident to the reader as early as possible.

The Methods section should present an overview of how the research was conducted, in sufficient detail that others could duplicate the work. Chan and Altman 12 reviewed over 500 clinical trials and reported that fewer than half provided adequate descriptions of items such as sample size calculation, primary outcomes, method of randomization, and handling of attrition. This problem can be largely avoided through the use of reporting guidelines, which provide detailed recommendations and checklists. For example, the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network has compiled 276 reporting guidelines covering a wide range of study designs used in clinical, preclinical, epidemiologic, and cost-effectiveness research. 13 For pharmacokinetic studies, Kanji and others 14 have recently developed a comprehensive checklist of 24 items that should be reported.

The Results section presents the key findings of the research without commentary or discussion, through a combination of text, tables, and figures. A well-designed figure can convey complex research data in a way that readers will find much more understandable than if the same information were presented in the text, but a figure should not duplicate data presented in the text or tables. Importantly, the results should match the methods. In other words, there should be results for all of the procedures listed in the Methods, and the reader should not find results for which no methods are described.

The Discussion typically includes a summary of the major research findings, an assessment of the importance of the results in the context of previously published studies, the limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research. The conclusions may be part of the Discussion or a separate section, depending on journal policy, and should address the original hypothesis or purpose. Authors should provide a balanced and unbiased evaluation of the validity and value of the results. Contradictory findings from previous studies should be addressed, not ignored. In addition, care should be taken to ensure that the conclusions are not overstated. Although it is tempting to speculate about the broad applicability of the findings, the external validity of studies with highly controlled conditions and extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria may be limited.

The Writing Process

It can be difficult for many researchers, particularly those who are also practitioners, to find an extended block of time to write. This challenge is often cited as the primary reason why data remain in file cabinets and manuscripts go unwritten. If the thought of preparing a 3000-word paper is intimidating, consider breaking it up into smaller chunks that can be written in short blocks of time. A single double-spaced page can be written in 1 to 2 hours, and writing for this period of time every day or two should produce a completed first draft of a manuscript in only a few weeks. Given the time constraints that every clinician-researcher faces, spending hours trying to craft the perfect sentence is a luxury that cannot be afforded. Writers should keep in mind that first drafts will not be widely distributed, and it is important to get something down on paper, even if it only roughly expresses the point to be made.

Health care professionals usually receive little or no formal training in writing. It is therefore important to find a mentor who not only is willing to take the time to read early drafts but also can be trusted to provide constructive criticism. Authors must learn to be receptive to suggestions and not defensive about their writing. Other health care professionals who are not pharmacists may also provide valuable advice. Because they will typically not be “content experts”, they may be able to provide a more unbiased critique with respect to the paper’s readability. The use of jargon and acronyms that are in widespread use in pharmacy should be avoided, particularly if the potential audience will include individuals with a wide range of backgrounds.

The Peer Review Process

Once a manuscript has been submitted to the journal of choice, it undergoes an initial editorial review to ensure that the paper meets expected standards for quality and style and that the content fits with the journal’s scope. Peer reviewers are then identified who have the expertise to provide an unbiased assessment of the quality and importance of the research.

The peer review process is not without fault. It is an unpaid activity that reviewers volunteer to undertake out of a sense of professional duty. However, not all reviewers have the appropriate expertise or take the time to conduct a thorough review. As discussed by Walker and Rocha da Silva, 15 problems related to peer review can include failure to recognize the importance of truly novel discoveries, lack of consensus among reviewers, failure to detect serious errors in study design, and unethical practices by some reviewers, who may deliberately delay publication, reject the work of competitors in their field, or even steal ideas for their own research. Research that fails to show a difference in the hypothesized outcome is more likely to be rejected and remain unpublished, a phenomenon referred to as “bias against the null hypothesis”. Koren and others 16 reported that research indicating that a drug is teratogenic is more likely to be published and publicized than studies demonstrating no damaging effect on the fetus.

Attempts to improve peer review have included making papers available online before publication to allow for open commentary from the scientific community. Bias during peer review may be minimized by masking the identity of the authors of manuscripts or by creating a transparent process whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers are known to each other. This approach is meant to discourage anonymous reviewers from providing harsh and unsubstantiated criticism that they would be unlikely to write if their identity were known to the authors.

Despite these problems with peer review, it continues to be the cornerstone of the review process in professional journals, and most reviews supply helpful comments that will ultimately improve a paper. Authors must address, but need not necessarily agree with, all of the reviewers’ comments, and inexperienced authors should be aware that rejection of a manuscript does not mean that the research has no value. A number of important papers that have resulted in significant knowledge translation were not accepted by the first journal to which they were submitted.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION

Researchers should not expect that practice change will inevitably occur once their research results are published. A commonly quoted estimate is that it takes an average of 17 years for 14% of published evidence to be widely incorporated into clinical practice. 17 Efforts to close this gap between evidence and practice are referred to as “knowledge translation”, a term defined by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as a “dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health care system”. 18 As discussed in a recent editorial in CJHP , 19 knowledge translation is a complex process that is subject to multiple barriers, including factors such as the personality characteristics and culture of the members of a profession. 20

Researchers have historically considered their work to be complete once a paper based on their research has been presented and published. However, it is clear that this passive, unfocused approach, referred to as diffusion, 21 is often ineffective in changing practice. More active efforts to increase the exchange of knowledge between researcher and clinician are termed “dissemination” and may include the development of targeted messages for professional organizations or other stakeholders, the establishment of practice guidelines, and the use of knowledge brokers. 21 The latter are individuals who possess communication skills, clinical experience, and scientific expertise, specifically hired by organizations to improve practice by bridging the gap between researchers and clinicians. 21 , 22

Efforts by researchers to actively disseminate knowledge to targeted audiences are also referred to as a “push” process. 21 An example is the report by Truong and others, 23 who prepared a letter summarizing the results of the SCRIP-HTN trial in which an intervention by a pharmacist–nurse team was able to produce better clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension. This communication was forwarded to 22 professional pharmacy organizations in Canada but, unfortunately, only 3 used this information to engage in any knowledge translation activities over the following 6-month period. A significant barrier was that many of these organizations did not view knowledge translation as a priority or as part of their mandate. Clinicians and policy-makers can contribute to knowledge translation using a “pull” approach, whereby evidence from the literature is used to prepare a systematic review or develop practice guidelines or is disseminated throughout a practice network. 21

The dissemination of research is an important first step on the path toward knowledge translation and practice change. Presenting research at professional meetings allows for more rapid dissemination of research findings, but the audience may be narrow, and the depth of information that can be provided in this format is limited. Pharmacists engaging in clinical or practice research should pursue the publication of their research in peer-reviewed journals, to ensure that the information is permanently available to the widest possible audience. Where appropriate, researchers are also encouraged to develop targeted messages for key stakeholders regarding their research, to enhance knowledge translation, and knowledge users can facilitate this process through systematic reviews, guideline development, and communication through practice networks.

This is the 15th and final article in the CJHP Research Primer Series, an initiative of the CJHP Editorial Board and the CSHP Research Committee. The 2-year series was designed to appeal to relatively inexperienced researchers, with the goal of building research capacity among practising pharmacists. The articles, presenting simple but rigorous guidance to encourage and support novice researchers, were solicited from authors with appropriate expertise.

Complete list of articles in this series:

Bond CM. The research jigsaw: how to get started. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):28–30.

Tully MP. Research: articulating questions, generating hypotheses, and choosing study designs. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):31–4.

Loewen P. Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(2):133–7.

Tsuyuki RT. Designing pharmacy practice research trials. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(3):226–9.

Bresee LC. An introduction to developing surveys for pharmacy practice research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(4):286–91.

Gamble JM. An introduction to the fundamentals of cohort and case–control studies. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(5):366–72.

Austin Z, Sutton J. Qualitative research: getting started. C an J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(6):436–40.

Houle S. An introduction to the fundamentals of randomized controlled trials in pharmacy research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015; 68(1):28–32.

Charrois TL. Systematic reviews: What do you need to know to get started? Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(2):144–8.

Sutton J, Austin Z. Qualitative research: data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(3):226–31.

Cadarette SM, Wong L. An introduction to health care administrative data. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68(3):232–7.

Simpson SH. Creating a data analysis plan: what to consider when choosing statistics for a study. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68(4):311–7.

Dolovich L. Playing in the sandbox: considerations when leading or participating on a multidisciplinary research team. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(5):401–5.

Kanji S. Turning your research idea into a proposal worth funding. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(6):458–64.

Edwards DJ. Dissemination of research results: on the path to practice change. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(6):465–9.

Competing interests: None declared.

For a complete list of articles in the Research Primer series, see page 469.