Science Speed Dating to Spur Inter-Institutional Collaborative Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper lays out the method that RCMI used to foster new collaborative methods to build inter-disciplinary research teams. The outcomes seem to suggest that this effective approach produced funding results that were a desired outcome of the method. The paper reads well and is easily described as a model for identifying collaborators for pilot projects and early stage investigators got a chance to connect.

 The paper presented a methodological approach to building inter-institutional teams for joint research. Since the mandate of the RCMI is to improve minority health and to reduce ethnic and geographic disparities in health, this coordination effort has good outcomes (as reported by the successful research proposals) that support meeting the goals of the NIH through the NIMHD's research centres and further the more specialized centres, the coordinating centres and the CRECD. It is quite amazing to have this scaffolded and embedded structures) that produce results. The geographic locations are interesting that they mostly exist on the exterior parts of the US, leaving the middle to its own devices and this geographic division is obvious in the politics of America today. 

This is particularly useful and innovative since most of the researchers are in the early career phase. The national conference was (is) and ideal place to bring both senior scholars/directors (as facilitators/guides/moderators) and early career scholars together. The collaboration and mentorship piece is very valuable for early scholars and shows real support (3) of its mandate: professional development and mentoring of early stage investigators. Since 2019 the IDC workshop has steadily built up a conference theme that supports the goal to build the Clinical Research Pilot Projects Program. 

The unique nature of the "speed dating" allowed efficiencies as well as focus for the interaction. This high-level interactive design shows how important it is to build networks so that the research can be shared and can be more effective in terms of understanding ethnic and geographic disparities. The commitment from Directors for this work is exemplary. And to have early career investigators to present their work with the focus to identify collaborators also shows an interest in hierarchical dismantling. 

Commentary:
Instead of using his or her, perhaps using they is more appropriate (gender competencies)
Very simply written and easily understood - much appreciated that
Evaluation response percentages while good, could have been built into the design so that everyone evaluated - disappointing that only 3 of the 20 Directors completed the survey (design shortfall)
Unsure of the diversity (gender/ethnicity/age etc. ) of the investigators (could this have been gathered too to understand WHO is doing the research and where there are gaps in diversity and representation - "nothing about us without us")

Author Response

 Reviewer #1 Comments:

• Instead of using his or her, perhaps using they is more appropriate (gender competencies)
  • Line 150 has been revised to read “their” instead of “his or her”

• Very simply written and easily understood - much appreciated that

  • Thank you for this favorable comment.
• Evaluation response percentages while good, could have been built into the design so that everyone evaluated - disappointing that only 3 of the 20 Directors completed the survey (design shortfall)

  • While all workshop participants were encouraged to complete the survey, the IDC Directors may have felt that it was inappropriate to do so, since they were involved in organizing the workshop.
• Unsure of the diversity (gender/ethnicity/age etc.) of the investigators (could this have been gathered too to understand WHO is doing the research and where there are gaps in diversity and representation - "nothing about us without us")
  • We did not collect data on gender, ethnicity or age in this survey. Rather, we focused on career stage which, in many cases, may be used as a surrogate for age.  In addition, workshop participants were from 20 minority-serving institutions, including 11 HBCUs.  HBCU participation has been added on line 182.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for your contribution to the literature particularly in the area of networking and mentorship for early career scientists. 

For the groups, were the 3-5 min presentations ppt presentations or discussion format?

For the findings, were there any differences in satisfaction between postdoctoral fellows and new faculty members?

Your manuscript is well written and you have done a great job describing the mission of the NIH, the purpose of the RCMI, past RCMI consortium conferences, and the IDC workshop. It would help to provide context if you discuss how the topic for the 2024 IDC workshop was chosen. 
The workshop format was clearly described, and there is sound justification for why the “speed-dating” format was chosen. It would be helpful if you could elaborate on whether any additional guidance was provided for the presentation in terms of how they should set up their presentations other than the 3 areas to be covered; also, whether they presented using a ppt presentation or oral only. It would also be useful to know whether contact information for each group was shared with all group members to allow contact at a later date or if it was entirely up to the individuals to exchange information at the end of each session. 
The results are presented in a clear and concise manner. It would provide additional context if you could include if there were any differences in evaluation results based on rank. 
The discussion is well written. The authors do  good job of synthesizing their findings and expanding on the importance of workshops such as this.

Author Response

Reviewer #2 Comments:

• For the groups, were the 3-5 min presentations ppt presentations or discussion format?
  • Details on the presentation length and format have been added (lines 133 to 147).
• For the findings, were there any differences in satisfaction between postdoctoral fellows and new faculty members?
  • Analysis of the survey data are presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences between the various groups.
• It would help to provide context if you discuss how the topic for the 2024 IDC workshop was chosen. 

  • A description of the topic selection process is provided, beginning on line 106.
• It would be helpful if you could elaborate on whether any additional guidance was provided for the presentation in terms of how they should set up their presentations other than the 3 areas to be covered; also, whether they presented using a ppt presentation or oral only. 
  • Guidance for presentations is described, beginning on line 133.
• It would also be useful to know whether contact information for each group was shared with all group members to allow contact at a later date or if it was entirely up to the individuals to exchange information at the end of each session. 

  • Additional information on how participant contact information was shared is provided on line 164.
• It would provide additional context if you could include if there were any differences in evaluation results based on rank. 

  • Please see response to comment no. 2.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is not a manuscript for a typical research paper, but is a report on a small project that evaluated IDC Consortium Workshop held in 2024 as a part of RCMI Consortium National Conference. This conference is held every year, bringing scientists from all RCMI U54 Centers for exchange of information and networking for potential collaborative opportunities. Especially, the IDC Consortium Workshop is organized in close partnership with IDC directors, attracting participation by the IDC Directors themselves and early stage faculty or post-doc fellow investigators from across RCMI U54 Centers. The workshop aimed at promoting inter-institutional collaboration. This manuscript particularly aims to report on the evaluation of 2024 Workshop, which was attended by 63 participants (43 RCMI investigators and 20 IDC directors).

In this evaluation study, 23 (53%) among RCMI investigators responded to the evaluation survey, but it is a pity that only three of 20 IDC Directors completed the survey- that makes this evaluation a somewhat a dame-duck, as the sample representing the management aspects of the IDC Consortium and its workshop is poor.

If there exists data for the previous year workshop evaluation surveys, it is better to pool the data and analyze multi-year survey data that would better inform effectiveness of the workshop program in the long run. Single-year information, which is also poorly represented, cannot reflect on the impacts and far-reaching implications of the program.  

This manuscript does not show results of any scientific analysis of the evaluation data, nor the topic of research is large enough for justifying this manuscript for a full research article.

For all the reasons stated above, this manuscript should be considered as Conference Paper as part of the Special Issue of the related Conference Proceedings, which I assume it belongs to, rather than as a research article.

For improving this manuscript to the level of acceptance for publication, the following suggestions are made:

Line 136-145: How the survey data analysis was carried out must be mentioned. Because of the very small samples in each class, the following categories can be grouped for data analysis: Group 1 (Non-communicable diseases) including Cancer+Neurological Disorders and Mental Health+Metabolic Disease; (n=38), Group 2 (Infectious Diseases) including Infectious Disease +HIV/AIDs (n=17); Group 3: Environmental Health+Womens’ Health (n=17) for statistical power in the data analysis, using Chi Square. The plain description of results of individual category can still be retained for information.

Other specific comments:

Line 17: RCMI or any other acronyms must be expanded in the first time mention in the text of either abstract or main body of the paper, separately.

Line 43: Do these predominantly minority institutions include “Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) as they are widely known? If so, they should be stated in the parenthesis for clarification to readers to know what exactly they are.

Figure 1: The institution labels are not readable.

Line 120: It should read as: “The 2024 IDC Workshop started with presentation of an overview of the objectives, and its format.”

Line 173: Is this high level of overall satisfaction statistically significant by participants’ categories of academic ranks?

Author Response

Reviewer #3 Comments:

• In this evaluation study, 23 (53%) among RCMI investigators responded to the evaluation survey, but it is a pity that only three of 20 IDC Directors completed the survey- that makes this evaluation a somewhat a dame-duck [sic], as the sample representing the management aspects of the IDC Consortium and its workshop is poor.
  • While all workshop participants were encouraged to complete the survey, the IDC Directors may have felt that it was inappropriate to do so, since they were involved in organizing the workshop. Many presumably recused themselves.
• If there exists data for the previous year workshop evaluation surveys, it is better to pool the data and analyze multi-year survey data that would better inform effectiveness of the workshop program in the long run. Single-year information, which is also poorly represented, cannot reflect on the impacts and far-reaching implications of the program.
  • It would be impossible to pool the survey data from previous years, because the workshop topics and format were different. As such the survey questions were not the same from one year to the next.
• This manuscript does not show results of any scientific analysis of the evaluation data, nor the topic of research is large enough for justifying this manuscript for a full research article. For all the reasons stated above, this manuscript should be considered as Conference Paper as part of the Special Issue of the related Conference Proceedings, which I assume it belongs to, rather than as a research article.
  • The journal’s author guidelines do not provide an option for a conference paper. The three options are: research article; review; scoping review.  However, it should be noted that the journal has previously published conference proceeding articles as “research articles”.
• Line 136-145: How the survey data analysis was carried out must be mentioned. Because of the very small samples in each class, the following categories can be grouped for data analysis: Group 1 (Non-communicable diseases) including Cancer+Neurological Disorders and Mental Health+Metabolic Disease; (n=38), Group 2 (Infectious Diseases) including Infectious Disease +HIV/AIDs (n=17); Group 3: Environmental Health+Womens’ Health (n=17) for statistical power in the data analysis, using Chi Square. The plain description of results of individual category can still be retained for information.
  • Details on survey data analysis are provided in Table 2. Since the sample sizes were small, it was difficult to carry out subgroup data analysis. In addition, since there were two speed-dating cycles, participants would have joined more than one topic group, further complicating subgroup analysis.
• Line 17: RCMI or any other acronyms must be expanded in the first- time mention in the text of either abstract or main body of the paper, separately.
  • The manuscript has been rechecked, and all acronyms have been defined when first mentioned.
• Line 43: Do these predominantly minority institutions include “Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) as they are widely known? If so, they should be stated in the parenthesis for clarification to readers to know what exactly they are.
  • Line 182 describes the participation of HBCUs in the workshop. It also defines the acronym.
• Figure 1: The institution labels are not readable.
  • The resolution of Figure 1 has been enhanced.
• Line 120: It should read as: “The 2024 IDC Workshop started with presentation of an overview of the objectives, and its format.”
  • This correction has been made.
• Line 173: Is this high level of overall satisfaction statistically significant by participants’ categories of academic ranks?
  • An analysis of survey data by academic rank is provided in Table 2 and is discussed, beginning on line 196.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article highlights how this interactive networking format facilitated new research collaborations, particularly among early-stage investigators in minority-serving institutions. Although the study effectively measures immediate satisfaction and short-term collaborations, nothing is known about long term analysis or whether these partnerships led to sustained research projects or publications. The discussion would also benefit from a comparison with other networking models used in similar academic conferences.

To mention also that the study does not experiment or include a control group, that’s to say participants who engaged in traditional networking formats. This limits the ability to assess whether this is more effective than alternative approaches. Last but not least, the response rate is relatively low and that could hide possibles biases.

Author Response

ijerph-3528021

Science Speed Dating to Spur Inter-Institutional Collaborative Research

 

The authors thank the reviewers for their careful review of this manuscript and submit the following responses to their comments.

Reviewer #4 Comments:

• Although the study effectively measures immediate satisfaction and short-term collaborations, nothing is known about long term analysis or whether these partnerships led to sustained research projects or publications. 
  • This study was not designed to prospectively gather long-term data on workshop participants. However, the RCMI Coordinating Center, as well as each RCMI U45 Center, tracks the progress of investigators associated with their programs to monitor investigator productivity and sustainability and outcomes of inter-institutional collaborations.
• The discussion would also benefit from a comparison with other networking models used in similar academic conferences. 


  • A discussion of another networking model adopted by the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program and its similarity to the speed-data model has been added, beginning on line 276.
• To mention also that the study does not experiment or include a control group, that’s to say participants who engaged in traditional networking formats. This limits the ability to assess whether this is more effective than alternative approaches. 
  • This study was not designed as a randomized clinical trial and did not include a control group. Planned longitudinal follow-up of RCMI-affiliated investigators will collect related data in terms of the overall benefit of participation in the RCMI program.
• Last but not least, the response rate is relatively low and that could hide possibles biases.
  • A meta-analysis of survey response rates has shown that the average online survey response rate is 44.1%. Thus, a response rate of 56% (24 of 43 participants) is higher than the typical response rate published by others. See: Wu M-J, Zhao K, Fils-Aime F. Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis, Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Volume 7, 2022, 100206, ISSN 2451-9588, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved greatly in this version. However, this manuscript still lacks one important essential to clarify-i.e. how does speed dating workshop of researchers, healthcare workers, administrators help improve minority health and to reduce ethnic and geographic disparities in health by coordinating the development and facilitating the implementation of clinical research across the RCMI Consortium?

A good discussion backed by literature evidence on the role of healthcare workforce comprising clinicians, diagnosticians, administrators, researchers, in alleviation of health disparities through identification, prioritization and implementation of important health disparity research informing policy changes and intervention strategies would elevate this paper into a publishable material with adequate scientific contents relevant at the population level. The scientific content that pertain to environmental research and public health is minimal at this point to justify this manuscript's place in this journal which is dedicated to Environmental Research and Public Health.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf