Enhancing Research Quality: Emphasizing the Scientific Method, Design Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Assessment

Enhancing Research Quality: Emphasizing the Scientific Method, Design Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Assessment

Margaret Afwande, Anselemo Ikoha, Samuel Barasa

Department of Information Technology, Kibabii University/Bungoma, Kenya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2024.908046

Received: 23 August 2024; Accepted: 29 August 2024; Published: 15 September 2024

ABSTRACT

Research quality forms the backbone of research across the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), providing a systematic approach to inquiry, experimentation, and discovery. In the fields of Information Technology (IT) and Computer Science, the application of research quality is particularly crucial for ensuring the rigor, validity, and reproducibility of research findings. This paper explores the importance of research quality in STEM research, with a focus on IT and Computer Science, where the rapid pace of technological advancement demands precise and reliable methodologies. The study examines how research quality facilitates hypothesis testing, data analysis, and theory development, enabling researchers to address complex problems, innovate responsibly, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge. By highlighting key examples from IT and Computer Science research, the paper underscores the essential role of the research quality in driving progress, ensuring ethical standards, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration in the pursuit of scientific excellence

INTRODUCTION

In the rapidly evolving fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), the need for a systematic and rigorous approach to research has never been more critical. Research plays a fundamental role in advancing knowledge and driving innovation across various disciplines. The quality of research is paramount to ensure its reliability, credibility, and impact .There is need to improve the quality of research by placing emphasis on key elements ;Scientific Method, Design Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Assessment. Central to this approach is the scientific method, a structured framework that guides researchers in the process of inquiry, experimentation, and validation.

LITERATURE

Although many commentators have explored research quality in library and information science (such as McClure and Bishop, 1989; Hernon, 1999; Haycock, 1994), there is still no consensus on what defines “quality” in a research publication within this field or how it can be identified or measured. Some proponents of evidence-based practice sidestep this issue by assuming that all published evidence is reliable and useful, given that it should have undergone several editorial processes before publication. However, this assumption is challenged when evident errors are discovered in published research reports as discussed by (Fazackerley, 2003), when two published reports provide seemingly contradictory evidence, or when hoax articles are accepted by allegedly reputable academic journals and conferences as seen in the cases highlighted by (Sokal, 1996; Reuters, 2005). Based on a literature review and an ongoing research project (Clyde, 2004), this article examines current strategies and models for evaluating research publications and the challenges associated with these approaches.

Problem of the Study

The rapid advancement of technology in the fields of Information Technology (IT) and Computer Science, coupled with the interdisciplinary nature of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) research, presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges. In the field of research, ensuring high-quality and rigorous methodologies is essential for producing reliable and valid results. However, there is a pressing issue of varying research quality across disciplines, with some studies lacking proper adherence to the scientific method, design guidelines, and evidence-based assessment.

METHODOLOGY

The study carried out empirical review .Open access resources technique was employed and it entails search for open access repositories or databases that provide free access to research publications. The research examined 300 scholar articles on enhancing research quality in research. Additionally, Quantitative analysis was carried out and survey data was analyzed using statistical techniques to identify trends, patterns, and correlations. This analysis helps quantify the adoption rates of scientific method in research.

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Figure 5.1 highlights the percentage of scholarly articles that conform to a structured framework for conducting research, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established research methodologies. Therefore it is essential to focus on enhancing research quality by emphasizing the following elements; Scientific Method, Design Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Assessment.

Figure 5.1:   Structured Framework for conducting Research      Source:     Clyde, (2004)

Table 5.1: The core elements of Research Quality Source: Researcher, (2024)

Tale 5.1 shows the importance of  adhering to the research quality elements.

DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS

By emphasizing these components: scientific method, design guidelines and evidence based assessments, researchers can significantly improve the quality of their work, leading to more robust and impactful scholarly contributions. The graph visually represents the varying levels of adherence to these principles across different scholarly articles, illustrating the need for consistent application of structured frameworks in research practices

Case Study: The Development of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine

a.                   Introduction

The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been unprecedented in the history of medicine. This case study examines the journey from small-scale laboratory research to large-scale clinical trials, focusing on the mRNA vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2). This case emphasizes the importance of scalability in research design and assessment, showcasing how early findings can be translated into widespread public health solutions.

b.                  Background

COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, emerged in late 2019 and quickly escalated into a global pandemic. The urgent need for a vaccine led to an accelerated research and development timeline. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, based on mRNA technology, was one of the first vaccines to receive emergency use authorization. mRNA vaccines use a small piece of the virus’s genetic material to instruct cells to produce the spike protein, prompting an immune response without using live virus particles.

Phase 1: Small-Scale Laboratory Research

Objective: To develop a safe and effective vaccine candidate using mRNA technology.

1. Initial Research and Development:

• • Concept: The concept of mRNA vaccines had been under investigation for years, primarily for other infectious diseases and cancer.
  • Design: The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine used a lipid nanoparticle to deliver the mRNA encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into human cells. This spike protein is the primary target for the body’s immune response.
  • Preclinical Studies:
  • Conducted in vitro (in the lab) and in vivo (in animal models) experiments to evaluate the stability of the mRNA, its ability to produce the spike protein, and the resulting immune response.
  • Animal studies demonstrated that the vaccine could induce an immune response without causing significant adverse effects, providing the initial proof of concept.

2. Scalability in Research Design:
   • Rapid Prototyping: The use of mRNA technology allowed for rapid design and synthesis of vaccine candidates. Adjustments could be made quickly in response to early data.
   • Safety and Efficacy Evaluation: Data from animal studies were crucial in determining the safety profile and immunogenicity of the vaccine. Researchers looked for robust antibody responses and T-cell activation as indicators of efficacy.

Phase 2: Small-Scale Clinical Trials (Phase 1/2 Trials)

Objective: To evaluate the safety, dosage, and initial efficacy of the vaccine in humans.

1. Trial Design:
   • Participants: Small groups of healthy volunteers (usually 20-100 individuals).
   • Dosage: Testing different dosages to determine the optimal amount that provides the best immune response with the least side effects.
   • Endpoints: Focused on safety outcomes (e.g., adverse events, reactions at the injection site) and immunogenicity (e.g., production of antibodies against the spike protein).
2. Results:
   • Early phase trials indicated that the vaccine was safe and produced a strong immune response.
   • The optimal dose was identified, balancing immune response strength and minimizing side effects.
   • No serious safety concerns were identified, allowing progression to larger trials.

3. Scalability Considerations:
   • Manufacturing: Initial production scales were small, focusing on producing enough vaccine for trial participants. Lessons from small-scale production were used to plan for larger-scale manufacturing.
   • Data Monitoring: Real-time data monitoring was established to quickly identify any adverse events and to assess the immune response, ensuring the safety of participants as trials scaled up.

Phase 3: Large-Scale Clinical Trials

Objective: To confirm the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in a larger, more diverse population.

1. Trial Design:
   • Participants: Approximately 43,000 participants from diverse backgrounds and geographic locations to ensure broad applicability of results.
   • Randomization and Blinding: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the vaccine or a placebo, with neither participants nor researchers knowing who received which (double-blind).
   • Endpoints: Primary endpoints included the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and overall safety profile.

2. Results:
   • The vaccine demonstrated approximately 95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, significantly higher than the efficacy thresholds set by regulatory agencies.
   • A strong safety profile was observed, with the most common side effects being mild to moderate, such as pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache.
   • The efficacy was consistent across different age groups, sexes, and racial and ethnic groups, supporting its use in diverse populations.

3. Scalability Considerations:
   • Production Scaling: As the trials showed positive results, production was scaled up massively to meet global demand. Partnerships with other companies and governments facilitated the rapid expansion of manufacturing capacity.
   • Distribution Logistics: The mRNA vaccine required storage at ultra-low temperatures (-70°C), necessitating the development of specialized logistics and distribution networks to maintain the cold chain from production to administration sites.
   • Data Management: Advanced data systems were used to manage the large volume of trial data, ensuring accurate tracking of safety and efficacy outcomes.

Phase 4: Post-Market Surveillance and Ongoing Research

Objective: To monitor the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in the general population and adapt to new variants.

1. Real-World Data Collection:
   • Vaccine Registries: Establishing registries to track vaccine administration and monitor long-term safety and efficacy.
   • Adverse Event Reporting Systems: Encouraging healthcare providers and patients to report any adverse events to systems like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
2. Adaptation to Variants:
   • As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerged, research continued to assess the vaccine’s effectiveness against these variants.
   • Ongoing studies and potential booster doses were considered to enhance immunity against variants showing resistance to the original vaccine.

CONCLUSION

The development of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine illustrates the critical role of scalability in research design and assessment. Starting from small-scale lab research, scaling up to large-scale clinical trials, and eventually reaching global distribution, each phase was carefully planned and executed to ensure safety, efficacy, and the ability to meet global demand.

SUMMARY

Emphasizing the Scientific Method, Design Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Assessment has the potential to revolutionize the quality of the research. It establishes a strong foundation for rigorous and reliable research, leading to advancements in knowledge, improved decision-making, and enhanced outcomes across various fields. By embracing these principles, researchers can elevate the credibility and impact of their work, contributing to the overall progress of science and society.

REFERENCES

1. Bilous, R., Hammersley, L., & Lloyd, J. (2018). Reflective practice as a research method for cocreating curriculum with international partner organisations [Special issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 287-296.
2. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
3. Cameron, C. (2018). The evolution of a mixed methods study in work-integrated learning [Special issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 237-247.
4. Barreiro, P. L., & Albandoz, J. P. (2001). Population and sample: Sampling techniques. Management Mathematics for European Schools. Retrieved from http://optimierung.mathematik.uni-kl.de/mamaeusch/veroeffentlichungen/ver_texte/sampling_en.pdf
5. McLeod, S. A. (2014). Sampling methods. Retrieved from simplypsychology.org/sampling.html
6. com. (2016). Survey sampling methods [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://stattrek.com/survey-research/sampling-methods.aspx?Tutorial=AP
7. Brady, H. E. (2011). Causation and explanation in social science. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0049
8. Siege, E. (2016). 4 things digital data collection predicts for 2016. Retrieved from http://bigthink.com/big-think-edge/4-predictions-about-2016-provided-by-digital-datacollection
9. Elkan, C. (2013). Predictive analytics and data mining. University of California, San Diego.
10. Kuhar, C. W. (2010). Encyclopedia of animal behavior. In R. Chin & B. Y. Lee (Eds.), Principles and practice of clinical trial medicine.
11. Morgenthaler, S. (2009). Exploratory data analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Review: Computational Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.2
12. Brandy, M. (2015). In: Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://global.britannica.com/topic/brandy
13. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105-123.
14. Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66-67.
15. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
16. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(3), 28-36.
17. Mohajan, H. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, 17(4), 59-82.
18. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Fisher, R. (2000). Scientific breakthroughs in stem cell research. Scientific Journal, 4. Retrieved from http://sci.org/journal/volume4/breakthrough.html
20. Karim, S., Jalileddin, S., & Ali, M. T. (2011). Zoning landslide by use of frequency ratio method (case study: Deylaman Region). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 9(5), 578–583.
21. Simon, H. A. (1982). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
22. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23. DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
24. Cho, C., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the internet? Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89-97.
25. Duh, H. B., Tan, G. C. B., & Chen, V. H. (2006). Usability evaluation for mobile device: A comparison of laboratory and field tests. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(2), 42–65.
26. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291-295.
27. Spohrer, J., Maglio, P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2008). Steps toward a science of service systems. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(3), 290–296.
28. Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254-262. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262