The Sabbath (from Hebrew (שבת) means ceasing and was first used in bible context for the seventh day of creation. It is a religious day for rest, worship, party and / or activities within several religions. Sabbatical year or more precise named research term, is a good thing for academics. For many years, the universities have had this as a strategic asset because the knowledge society is international. Internationalization and stronger contact with international academic communities contribute to raising the quality of research and education. Research term is possible for permanent employed professors after six years of earning (in 100% position), allowing them to take their families abroad for a year, giving a great opportunity for new knowledge and new networks. The social dimension is also important by the ability to meet a new culture, make new friends, and come closer together as a family.

Research term abroad is strongly recommended for all permanent professors. Because the value of the university is so great, foreign stays should be a requirement for professor competence. There can of course be social reasons why this is difficult to implement. There is actually another interesting opportunity: What about spending the research term at the Center for Advanced Study in Oslo? Here you will find offices, meeting rooms and more for you and researchers you want to associate with you from home and abroad. The Center was created by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Every year there are hosts for three research groups. On the basis of proposals received, the groups are selected by the board after group leaders, proposed international partners and the projects have been through international evaluation. The Center will strengthen basic research and provide close collaboration between Norwegian and foreign researchers. The budget for each research group is 3.5 million NOK for project costs, scholarships, free purchases of foreign researchers, as well as housing, travel, conference and seminar expenses. The application deadline is mid-January 2019 for the academic year 2020-21.

I have had a research term in Boston at the Harvard Medical School in Boston and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in addition to being a postdoc at the University of Chicago. These stays have been central to my career as researcher plus that it has actually been very fun. Soon, I will go to Boston for a new stay at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, this time for six months. Eystein Husebye will be Acting Head of Department, thank you very much for that. See you all nest Spring!

Only a few weeks after my first published article I received an invitation in my email-inbox to present at an international congress. Imagine; the big scientific community wanted to hear more about my amazing research! Very flattering for a (not quite) young but still junior PhD fellow. Luckily, I had a supervisor who quickly grounded and explained that this was not an invitation as a lecturer with covered travel and stay expenses but a, for her, totally unknown congress/organization so the invitation was relocated in the spam bin. But thereafter still more and diverse variants of inquiries are being delivered: publish articles, write book chapters and immediately be appointed as co- or chief -editor!

It is not only me who receives such inquiries; The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has conducted thorough investigative journalism by their “Fake Science”-project and thoroughly documented methodology and findings in Aftenposten’s Weekly magazine last Saturday. Researchers are fooled to pay for “Open Access” (principally great that science is widely available) but not in junk journal without thorough peer review and quality assurance! If the results have been published in such a substandard “predator” journal these results may never be published in a proper scientific journal and all the hard work is wasted/worthless. And to attend a congress to present and discuss hard-earned findings to realize that the whole conference is a small room where the other speakers either do not show up (they have already received their proof of participation) or present completely different disciplines than yours (computer algorithms, cognitive psychology, literary science and packaging technology in the same session) make participation completely scientifically worthless and time & money is completely wasted.

Here are some suggestions on how to avoid being caught by predator journals/ congresses:

– Ask  your supervisor / a senior scientist or clinical colleagues. Is this a magazine / congress / congress organizer they are familiar with? It is rare to be invited to an international lecture without knowing the invitees. Additionally, it is typical that there is nothing about coverage of travel and stay.

Check the magazine / organizer’s website:

-Are the names of the editorial board stated? Are these familiar in your field of expertise’s international/national environment? I checked the organizer of Congress of Cancer diagnosis & treatment hosted in Oslo the 2nd-3rd of August 2018; not a single Norwegian co-organizer, and not one scientist I had ever heard of. Searching through PubMed I found little correspondence between the named scientists and their specified workplaces. These were definitely not renowned scientists!

-Does the journal have information about its bibliography? E.g. which databases it is indexed in.

-Avoid these organizers: WASET, OMICS, Sciencedomain and Bioevents.

-Be are aware of names that are almost entirely similar to a journal you actually know: The International Journal of your field, may be named Journal of International your field or International Clinical & Research in your field.

To avoid violation of publication ethics: This has formerly been published as a commentary in På Høyden, 21^stof August 2018.

This summer, we received the great news that Randi Bertelsen was awarded an ERC Starting Grant (K2-News week 33). In addition to obtaining a solid economical basis to build her own research and become a principal investigator, Randi’s grant acknowledges the quality of the research community she is a part of, our department and The Faculty of Medicine.

Funds from The European Union, The Norwegian Research council, The Norwegian Cancer Society, and other funding bodies, as well as our production of publications and candidates, provides the bread and butter for K2. In addition, external funding is necessary in order for investigators to conduct experimental research at all. Grants are also an important parameter when assessing applications for positions and other resources – and it will be even more important in the future.

The parable of talents (Matthew 25) is probably known to most of you; “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away”. It may seem unfair, but the parable is applicable to research funding. The road is always steepest in the beginning. For a young person or young environment it can be difficult to obtain the most competitive grants like the FRIPRO program of The Norwegian Research Council. Perhaps a better strategy is to apply more low-hanging fruits like The Regional Health Authorities of Western Norway grant program, Health and Rehabilitation programs or funds aimed at specific disease groups or treatments.

K2 and the faculty have worked systematically in recent years to improve applications and grant success rates. We have employed research advisors and built up internal procedures for application assessment and budgeting. Weekly overviews of grant opportunities are published in K2-Nytt. All these efforts are to make it easier for you to apply.

The next big opportunity is the Helse-Vest call ending on 15 September. Read the call and submit your application, so that you can get return on your talents.

Good luck

Eystein
Vice head of department

I hope everyone has had a nice holiday returning with the batteries reloaded.

At the time of writing, the students have already begun, and many K2 employees are fully occupied with teaching. It is often busy getting started after the holiday. Switching from a hopefully quiet vacation to a hectic university life takes some time. New students means some more work at the start. Research never rests. Although many have picked up email and delt with the most urgent, most have probably a lot of outstanding tasks that now need to be sorted out.

So most people do not start the autumn term with empty baskets. Nevertheless, there may be reason to look into the next six months with new eyes. The new study plan has meant that many have had to change the organization of teaching, but has the content been changed accordingly? Can it be improved and made easier and more accessible? The fall is time for scientific meetings with professional refills and interaction with other researchers. Can this opportunity be used to define new research questions and research projects so that you are better prepared when the deadlines for applying for research funding come next spring?

Autumn is a nice time with many new opportunities. Grab these. Good luck with a new term.

Pål

Dear all

The end of spring semester is approaching and along come the tasks of mid-term PhD evaluations as well as student (bachelor/master) theses evaluations. Exams have hopefully been prepared, ready to release but censoring awaits. The 20^th of June is the coming full-scale OSCE; 160 6^th semester students going through skill stations. We wish you the best taking care of this task and thanks to all contributors!

Producing written or OSCE exams, sitting though evaluations and performing censoring is not visualized in the educational schedule (as opposed to lectures), but this work is not less important! The students’ studying will often be guided by (former) exams. Thus it is important to develop tasks/questions considered of high importance for what the students really need to learn to perform in their future roles as pharmacist, doctors, nutritionists, molecular biologists or whatever field you as K2 teacher is responsible for.

And do not forget: note all your exam/evaluation work in your teaching portfolio that you have easily available at your computer. This to ensure documentation of your contribution in this part of your academic/teaching position.

And finally; when all evaluations are finished for this semester: enjoy summer without educational responsibilities.

It is not only the sunny days we can be happy about these days: 4 of 6 awards of the Medical faculty go to researchers/environments at K2! Mari Kyllesø Halle gets the award for the PhD thesis of the year for her thesis “Molecular alterations suggesting new treatment strategies in uterine carcinomas”, The Academic Quality Award (Studiekvalitetsprisen) goes to FARM295 Pharmaceutics (Galenisk farmasi) with course responsible Emmet McCormack, Gottfried Greve gets The Internationalization of Education Award (Pris for internasjonalisering i studiene) for his efforts in MED9, and Rebecca Cox and Kristin Greve-Isdahl Mohn are awarded the Dissemination award of the year for their contributions to the vaccine debate. The awards of the Medical faculty will be handed out at the Faculty day June 14th 2018 10.00-13.00 at Haukeland University Hospital, Main Auditorium. Congratulations to all of you!

So far I have not gotten any input regarding thematic area you consider important for future-oriented research that Pål wrote about in K2Nytt week 19. You still have today to come with suggestions (deadline is 1.6.), so take this opportunity to influence the future of K2!

Best regards,

Silke

FHU/ RUHS (Forskningsenhet for helseundersøkelser/ Research Unit for Health Surveys) www.uib.no/nb/fhu , www.uib.no/en/ruhs is a new core facility at K2 that was officially opened in November 2017. The aim is to undertake clinical health surveys. (Projects that need hospital facilities for the participants are performed at Haukeland University Hospital.) FHU is a collaboration between the University of Bergen and Haukeland University hospital, anchored at K2, and has received funding for establishment from the Bergen Research Foundation. Until now FHU has performed approximately 400 investigations in persons participating in the projects Psorax35 (PI Steinar Kåre Tveit) and the Carbfunc (PI Simon Dankel). We are about to start the large HUSK3 study (PI Eva Gerdts), and we are finalizing the plans for the RHINESSA 4^th generation study (PI Cecilie Svanes) that will start after the summer. These projects cover a broad spectrum of research, addressing psoriasis, obesity, cardiology and respiratory health; and different study designs such as intervention and population based studies.

FHU/ RUHS has since the opening November 2017 needed a booking system, in order to allocate dates, personnel and equipment to the participants in the research projects undertaken at the facility. The University of Bergen has since 2015 been trying to provide a booking system for its core facilities. FHU, supported by Per Bruvold at Innkjøpsavdelingen, initiated a bidding process in November 2017. Four different systems applied, two of them were assessed for further consideration, and the system EasyTrial (https://www.easytrial.net ) has been selected. EasyTrial is an online Clinical Trial Management and Electronic Data Capture System for administration of clinical trial tasks (operational and logistical). It includes a calendar and appointment system to manage correspondence with participants and allocate human resources and equipment. The system is based in Denmark, and has been used in Sweden, Germany, Portugal, England and USA. It has also been used by the Norwegian Cancer Registry. EasyTrial is compliant with good clinical practice (GCP), 21 CFR Part 11, EU GDPR and database security legislation. For those who might be interested a representative for EasyTrial will present this system at the FHU localities in Haukelandsbakken 45 June 8^th. You may contact study nurse Linda Tveit to participate.

You are welcome to contact me in the case that you want to discuss performing studies at FHU /RUHS.

Since being asked by Pål to fulfil the position of vice-head for innovation for K2, I have been wondering exactly what it is I should do? And indeed, what is the relevance of “innovation” to our research programs? These might seem very obvious questions with obvious answers, but apart from filling in the sections asking for innovative potential on our grant applications, how many of us truly pay any serious attention to the true innovation of what we do? How important is all this “innovation stuff?”

If I google “innovation”, the first hit I get is a dictionary definition:

Innovation
ɪnəˈveɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: innovation

1. the action or process of innovating.

However, most critically is the example of its use;
“innovation is crucial to the continuing success of any organization”.

All research groups have their research questions they want to get funded and want to explore, but maybe fail to realize the innovative potential of their scientific endeavors. However, truly wanting to make meaning from research is the first step towards innovation. When you decide upon the type of meaning you make, try to find 2 or 3 words that describe why that meaning (innovation) should exist. Do your processes, methodologies or philosophies follow a well-worn path, or are they paradigm shifting? Great innovation and research jumps the curve, thereby creating progress. It certainly requires rolling of the dice, but no risk, no reward. You may not achieve perfection, but jumping the curve in research and creating revolutionary innovation will always result in some bugs. It is safe to continue in current practices, to tick the boxes, dot the i´s and cross the t´s on our research applications. However, not only is there very little fun in that, but more and more you will not be rewarded for it.

Recently, in collaboration with BTO we highlighted the various different funding avenues for innovation. However, even charitable organisations in their application processes are asking “is there any innovative potential?”. Furthermore, with reduced basic funding to university (grunnbevilgningen) from the government in recent years, there is an increased focus on funding our research activities from external sources of finance, particularly BOA (bidrag og oppdragsaktivitet) funding, which demands innovative potential. At the start of the piece I asked the question “how important is innovation”, the answer is clear, its critical. Critical to development of your research, the training of young investigators and their futures, and to the continuing success of K2.

As a new head of department, I felt a need to get to know the Department better. The various research groups were challenged to present themselves at our Annual Strategy Seminar in January, where two from the management of each research group are invited. This became an intense but exciting day. Feedback from other research groups was that this was especially useful for them, too. It was very interesting to hear about all the important research projects running at K2 and all the teaching that is being done. It became evident that the size of the research groups varies considerably and that much has happened – both structural and professional – since they were formed. The teaching tasks seem unevenly distributed and the research groups do not seem to be the most optimal organization in relation to teaching.

The next step is to meet representatives from the groups in separate meetings, preferably where the groups are physically located. The groups are challenged to provide a SWOT analysis where one wishes to hear about their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. What can K2 do for the groups? We usually take a tour in the laboratories where appropriate. We are now about half way and feedback on the process is currently very good.

As part of the get to know better process, we just had a seminar on the relationship between the management and the administration at Ullensvang Hotell. The various sections of the administration were also challenged to provide a SWOT analysis. This became an interesting and useful exercise and provides a tool for making necessary changes, small and large, so that we can work more optimally and more efficiently with better research and teaching as the long-term goals. Some key words are that increased specialization and decentralization (between faculty and institute) has given increased quality and efficiency, but that this also gives a more vulnerable situation with regard to absence. Increased focus on digitization and written routines that are readily available for users can relieve a pressed administration. Improved communication between administration and users with increased awareness of expectations both ways can contribute to more efficient service from the administration.

Finally, I would like to remind you of the Teaching Day May 2. Here, it is important to attend!

In these times of digitalization, the administration is looking into ways to simplify existing work task, and siomultaneously be more accessible for the users. In addition to working on electronic forms for new employees and e-learning courses, we have changes the method for enquiries for a work place at K2, se previous article in K2-news:

https://k2info.w.uib.no/2018/02/23/innmelding-av-behov-for-kontorplass-leseplass/

In order to make the enquiries easier, we have made an electronic form which is to be filled out by main supervisor or research group leader, link to form here.

Should you have any suggestions to other tasks or forms which can be made easier or digital, we are very grateful for and eager to receive your suggestions.

Best regards,

Julie