This is not a comprehensive list of resources, but some topical resources that may be of interest. If you are aware of other resources that you feel are important to highlight, please forward to us at

Reducing Bias

Patient Engagement

  • Patient engagement:
  • Black A et al. (2018). What constitutes meaningful engagement for patients and families as partners on research teams? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 23(3):158–67.
  • Oliver K et al. (2019). The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Research Policy and Systems, 17:33. This literature-informed commentary proposes a series of questions that researchers, funders and participants should consider in their decisions about and planning of co-produced research.
  • Salamone JM et al. (2018). Promoting Scientist–Advocate Collaborations in Cancer Research: Why and How. Cancer Research, 78(20): 5723–8. Provides practical solutions for the establishment of scientist-advocate relationships based on the experience of the Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, a volunteer group dedicated to supporting breast cancer research at Georgetown University and the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington DC. A framework for a successful scientist–advocate collaboration is provided in Figure 1.
  • Staniszewska S et al. (2017). GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ, 358:j3453. Provides international guidance for reporting of patient and public involvement in health and social care research, which has been widely adopted. The BMJ, for example, encourages active patient and public involvement in clinical research as part of its patient partnership strategy and requests that authors provide a Patient and Public Involvement statement in the methods section of their papers and advise authors to consult the GRIPP2 for guidance on reporting of patient and public involvement.

Research Reporting and Predatory Practices

  • Centre for Journalogy at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute offers resources for researchers to help enhance the quality of research reporting. Resources cover predatory journals, reporting guidelines, and research(er) assessment. See
  • Grudniewicz A et al. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786):210-212. Definition of predatory journals and consensus process undertaken to arrive at this definition.
  • Sharma H, Verma S. (2020). Predatory conferences in biomedical streams: An invitation for academic upliftment or predator’s looking for prey. Saudi Journal of Anesthesia, 14(2):212–6. Describes tactics used by companies organizing predatory conferences.
  • Wood KE, Krasowski MD. (2020). Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of “Academic Spam.” Academic Pathology, 21:7: 2374289519898858. Strategies for managing e-mail are discussed and include unsubscribing, blocking senders or domains, filtering e-mails, managing one’s inbox, limiting e-mail access, and e-mail etiquette.

Science Communication

Team Science

  • The US National Cancer Institute’s Science of Team Science (SciTS) Team offers the Team Science Toolkit (, a user-generated collection of information and resources that support the practice and study of team science. The Toolkit connects professionals from many disciplines, providing a forum for sharing knowledge and tools to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of team science initiatives.

Trainee Support