Het platform voor open en praktijkgericht onderzoek

product

Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research, Development and Innovation in SME's

In December of 2004 the Directorate General for Research and Technological Development (DG RTD) of the European Commission (EC) set up a High-Level Expert Group to propose a series of measures to stimulate the reporting of Intellectual Capital in research intensive Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Expert Group has focused on enterprises that either perform Research and Development (R&D), or use the results of R&D to innovate and has also considered the implications for the specialist R&D units of larger enterprises, dedicated Research & Technology Organizations and Universities. In this report the Expert Group presents its findings, leading to six recommendations to stimulate the reporting of Intellectual Capital in SMEs by raising awareness, improving reporting competencies, promoting the use of IC Reporting and facilitating standardization.

PDF

Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research, Development and Innovation in SME's

product

Standard for Public Code

The Standard for Public Code gives public organizations a model for preparing open source solutions to enable collaborations with similar public organizations in other places. It includes guidance for policy makers, city administrators, developers and vendors.

MULTIFILE

product

On the Accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking Support

Abstract-Architecture Compliance Checking (ACC) is useful to bridge the gap between architecture and implementation. ACC is an approach to verify conformance of implemented program code to high-level models of architectural design. Static ACC focuses on the modular software architecture and on the existence of rule violating dependencies between modules. Accurate tool support is essential for effective and efficient ACC. This paper presents a study on the accuracy of ACC tools regarding dependency analysis and violation reporting. Seven tools were tested and compared by means of a custom-made test application. In addition, the code of open source system Freemind was used to compare the tools on the number and precision of reported violation and dependency messages. On the average, 74 percent of 34 dependency types in our custom-made test software were reported, while 69 percent of 109 violating dependencies within a module of Freemind were reported. The test results show large differences between the tools, but all tools could improve the accuracy of the reported dependencies and violations.

PDF

On the Accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking Support

product

Determinants of reporting cybercrime

Although the prevalence of cybercrime has increased rapidly, most victims do not report these offenses to the police. This is the first study that compares associations between victim characteristics and crime reporting behavior for traditional crimes versus cybercrimes. Data from four waves of a Dutch cross-sectional population survey are used (N = 97,186 victims). Results show that cybercrimes are among the least reported types of crime. Moreover, the determinants of crime reporting differ between traditional crimes and cybercrimes, between different types of cybercrime (that is, identity theft, consumer fraud, hacking), and between reporting cybercrimes to the police and to other organizations. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818773610 This article is honored with the European Society of Criminology (ESC) Award for the “Best Article of the Year 2019”. Dit artikel is bekroond met de European Society of Criminology (ESC) Award for the “Best Article of the Year 2019”.

MULTIFILE

product

Benchmarken met SBR

Sinds 1 januari 2013 kunnen bedrijven – of hun financiële intermediair – voor het indienen van belastingaangiften, jaarrekeningen en financiële rapportages gebruik maken van een nieuwe elektronische standaard: Standard Business Reporting (SBR).

PDF

product

Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.

PDF

Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

product

Medical students as junior adverse drug event managers facilitating reporting of ADRs

The Junior Adverse Drug Event Manager (J-ADEM) team is a multifaceted intervention focusing on real-life education for medical students that has been shown to assist healthcare professionals in managing and reporting suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. The aim of this study was to quantify and describe the ADRs reported by the J-ADEM team and to determine the clinical potential of this approach. The J-ADEM team consisted of medical students tasked with managing and reporting ADRs in hospitalized patients. All ADRs screened and reported by J-ADEM team were recorded anonymously, and categorized and analysed descriptively. From August 2018 through January 2020, 209 patients on two wards in an academic hospital were screened for ADR events. The J-ADEM team reported 101 ADRs. Although most ADRs (67%) were first identified by healthcare professionals and then reported by the J-ADEM team, the team also reported an additional 33 not previously identified serious ADRs. In 10% of all reported ADRs, the J-ADEM team helped optimize ADR treatment. The ADR reports were largely well-documented (78%), and ADRs were classified as type A (66%), had a moderate or severe severity (85%) and were predominantly avoidable reactions (69%). This study shows that medical students are able to screen patients for ADRs, can identify previously undetected ADRs and can help optimize ADR management. They significantly increased (by 300%) the number of ADR reports submitted, showing that the J-ADEM team can make a valuable clinical contribution to hospital care.

MULTIFILE

Medical students as junior adverse drug event managers facilitating reporting of ADRs

product

Transparency in conducting and reporting research

Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey’s overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.

MULTIFILE

product

Reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level issues in the Netherlands

There appears to be some hesitation within the forensic biology community to formally evaluate and report on findings given activity level propositions. This hesitance in part stems from concerns about the lack of relevant data on the dynamics of biological traces and doubt about the relevance of such expert opinions to the trier of fact. At the Netherlands Forensic Institute formal evaluative opinions on the probability of case findings given propositions at the activity level are provided since 2013, if requested by a mandating authority. In this study we share the results from a retrospective analysis of 74 of such requests. We explore which party initiates requests, the types of cases that are submitted, the sources of data being used to assign probabilities to DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) events, the conclusions that were drawn by the scientists, and how the conclusions were used by the courts. This retrospective analysis of cases demonstrates that published sources of data are generally available and can be used to address DNA TPPR events in most cases, although significant gaps still remain. The study furthermore shows that reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level propositions has been generally accepted by the district and appeal courts, as well as the other parties in the criminal justice system in the Netherlands.

PDF

Zoekresultaten

Producten 2.545

Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research, Development and Innovation in SME's

Standard for Public Code

On the Accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking Support

Determinants of reporting cybercrime

Benchmarken met SBR

Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Medical students as junior adverse drug event managers facilitating reporting of ADRs

Transparency in conducting and reporting research

Reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level issues in the Netherlands

Navigeer naar

Categorieën

Filters

Producten 2.545

Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research, Development and Innovation in SME's

Standard for Public Code

On the Accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking Support

Determinants of reporting cybercrime

Benchmarken met SBR

Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Medical students as junior adverse drug event managers facilitating reporting of ADRs

Transparency in conducting and reporting research

Reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level issues in the Netherlands