Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last?

Areas of research interest: joining the dots... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509" }, "headline": "Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last?", "datePublished": "2022-12-13T12:17:57", "dateModified": "2026-01-16T11:28:18", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kathryn Oliver" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Annette Boaz" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Giulia Cuccato" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background With the aim of making it easier for researchers to produce policy-relevant research, the UK Government now requires all departments and arms-length bodies to publish annually-updated statements of their evidence needs, called ‘Areas of Research Interest’ (ARIs). We describe how ARIs are produced, and how they are used to support this aim. Aims and objectives In this paper we offer a description of ARIs and their development by UK governmental departments, and an assessment of how different stakeholders, including academia and funders, have responded to or otherwise used the ARIs. Key conclusions ARIs are a mechanism for organisations to share their research interests with external audiences in the form of a published document. In addition to this primary aim, they also have a much broader set of uses, including connecting departments with each other and helping intermediaries shape engagement plans. All groups would benefit from more robust evidence to choose effective engagement mechanisms, and more can be done to make the ARIs discoverable and useable. Overall, the ARIs are a useful tool to illuminate, and begin to connect different parts of the research-policy system. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509", "name": "Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and..." } } ] } Home Browse Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Oliver K, Boaz A and Cuccato G. Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Policy Brief Revised Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Kathryn Oliver https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-5258 1,2 , Annette Boaz 1,2 , Giulia Cuccato 2 Kathryn Oliver https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-5258 1,2 , Annette Boaz 1,2 , Giulia Cuccato 2 PUBLISHED 16 Jan 2026 Author details Author details 1 Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 2 Academy of Medical Sciences, London, UK Kathryn Oliver Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Annette Boaz Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Giulia Cuccato Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway. Abstract Background With the aim of making it easier for researchers to produce policy-relevant research, the UK Government now requires all departments and arms-length bodies to publish annually-updated statements of their evidence needs, called ‘Areas of Research Interest’ (ARIs). We describe how ARIs are produced, and how they are used to support this aim. Aims and objectives In this paper we offer a description of ARIs and their development by UK governmental departments, and an assessment of how different stakeholders, including academia and funders, have responded to or otherwise used the ARIs. Key conclusions ARIs are a mechanism for organisations to share their research interests with external audiences in the form of a published document. In addition to this primary aim, they also have a much broader set of uses, including connecting departments with each other and helping intermediaries shape engagement plans. All groups would benefit from more robust evidence to choose effective engagement mechanisms, and more can be done to make the ARIs discoverable and useable. Overall, the ARIs are a useful tool to illuminate, and begin to connect different parts of the research-policy system. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords evidence use, Areas of Research Interest, policy Corresponding Author(s) Kathryn Oliver ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Kathryn Oliver Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work was supported by ESRC under grant ES/T009128/1. The funders had no role in selecting data, participants, or focus for the study. They also did not influence our interpretation of our data. We appreciate the support from ESRC in enabling these Fellowships to act as positive links between government and academia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Oliver K et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Oliver K, Boaz A and Cuccato G. Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.2 ) First published: 13 Dec 2022, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.1 ) Latest published: 16 Jan 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 Version two contains more details about the personnel in the ARI team, and of the work undertaken by that team to support ARI production and use within and outside government. We have also clarified the work of the fellowships which included research such as observations and interviews, which support the insights presented in this paper. More research-focused papers drawing on these data have been signposted. We have also added details about the ARI database, an online repository which enables easy access to and analysis of the ARis. This was published after the initial version and was flagged as a recommendation in version 1. We have revised the recommendations to reflect this. Version two contains more details about the personnel in the ARI team, and of the work undertaken by that team to support ARI production and use within and outside government. We have also clarified the work of the fellowships which included research such as observations and interviews, which support the insights presented in this paper. More research-focused papers drawing on these data have been signposted. We have also added details about the ARI database, an online repository which enables easy access to and analysis of the ARis. This was published after the initial version and was flagged as a recommendation in version 1. We have revised the recommendations to reflect this. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Sarah Ball See the authors' detailed response to the review by Hannah Durrant READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction: what are areas of research interest? Although governments, funders and researchers often share a desire for more evidence to support social change, there are significant organisational and procedural barriers in the way. One often-mentioned barrier to evidence use in policy is a lack of policy relevant research ( Armstrong et al. , 2006 ; Oliver et al. , 2014 ; Cairney, 2016 ; Wye et al. , 2019 ). One way of addressing this barrier is to make it easier for researchers to know about policymakers’ research priorities. In the UK, government departments identify priority research gaps called Areas of Research Interest (ARIs). The Nurse Review into the UK Research Councils ( Nurse, 2015 ) identified a strategic need across government departments to “maintain[] ‘statements of need’, in terms of the most important research questions confronting the Departments” (p.3, Nurse, 2015 ). By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers to easily view and respond to government knowledge needs, ARIs were intended to enable policymakers to access relevant evidence and expertise more easily. A similar initiative has been proposed in the US, called the Government Learning Agendas 1 , where all departments and arms-length bodies are required by the Evidence Act (2019) to publish their knowledge needs. Many policy and practice organisations including government departments of course communicated their evidence needs before these initiatives (e.g. in Defra’s evidence plan from 2006). However, the ARIs are the first time that every department has been required to publish these publicly, update them annually, and invest resources into their production and use; in effect, ‘systematising and embedding the articulation of research interests as part of the fabric of policy making. The ARI team and our role In the UK, the Government Office for Science (GOS) supports the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) and holds a cross-government remit to support science capability across departments. It relies on ‘soft power’ networking and influencing rather than mandating. It also holds the policy for Areas of Research Interest. As part of this remit, Giulia Cuccato led a team of civil servants in the Government Office for Science (GOS) to develop guidance for departments in developing their ARIs, and supporting and tracking their ARI-related activities. To support the work of this team, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and GOS co-funded two fellowships (both at 0.6 FTE for 1 year, later extended by a further 3 years). Authors Kathryn Oliver and Annette Boaz were awarded these fellowships and were embedded in GOS to explore and support better production of ARIs, and more effective engagement with them by funders, researchers and intermediaries. Specific activities included: supporting the development of ARIs across the UK government by engaging in monthly meetings with the ARI Officials, offering tailored support to departments, and producing guidance on ARIs for government officials 2 ; helping departments use ARIs to access relevant evidence and expertise by conducting large-scale knowledge mobilisation exercises 3 , and actively finding and matchmaking experts dor departments; and in researching how ARIs could be optimised to support the research-policy system through interviews with funders, officials and academics involved in the ARI work. Our reflections here are based on our work 2018-2023 (GC) and 2019-2023 (KO and AB) which has involved working closely with analyst and policy teams in departments across government, and with intermediaries such as the University Policy Engagement Network (UPEN), the National Academies, the What Works Network, and individual universities and researchers, in a practical knowledge mobilisation programme. We draw on these experiences to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of ARIs, and our recommendations to improve their effectiveness as a systems-level intervention. In this paper, we set out a description of the ARIs, their conception, current usage, and potential benefits and weaknesses. The fellowships (2019-2023) have also led to analyses of how the ARIs can stimulate connections with funders ( Boaz and Oliver, 2026 ), how they act as boundary objects to strengthen the research-policy system ( Boaz and Oliver, 2023 ) and how they illuminate research funding activity (Oliver, Boaz et al. in press). In these, and forthcoming publications, we set out in more detail the methodological aspects of the research undertaken within these fellowships. Policy outcomes and implications The ARIs have great potential to enable funders, government, research organisations, researchers, and intermediaries to work together in a more effective way. We have observed that merely producing ARIs is not a sufficient intervention; instead, it requires skilled mobilisation work by people within all these organisations to be able to optimise their production and use. Below, we describe how ARIs are produced, what ARI-related engagement occurs, and how they function as a systems level intervention. Embedding production of ARIs across government When GCSA Patrick Vallance joined GOS in 2018, one of his main goals was to review and increase the scientific capability within government ( Government Office for Science, 2019 ). This review published recommendations, one of which set out the requirements for annually-updated ARIs to be published by each department. There was considerable variation between government departments. Some departments had existing strong science systems and plans which included an articulation of their research needs, and others had never attempted to map or describe their internal science systems before. The team with GOS (GC, plus a full-time intern and resources from HEO and SEO level staff ) worked with departments to identify the maturity of their science systems, establish their history of developing science plans or equivalents, the connectedness of their science and analysis teams with the policy function within each department, and their consequent ARI support needs. The ARI Fellows (KO and AB) worked with departments offering tailored advice about how to produce and publish ARIs, and how to engage effectively with academics during and after the production process. As of January 2026, all departments and arms-length bodies have published at least one version of their ARIs, with at least ten updated in the last two years. Over 2500 ARIs have been published, which vary greatly in terms of content, production and associated activities ( Haddon and Sasse, 2018 ). How do departments produce ARIs? For most departments, the production of ARIs was a primarily internal process. For example, the Departmental Chief Scientist might task the science and analysis team within a department with drafting a set of ARIs. Some departments connected the development of ARIs with their departmental science strategy which set out projected R&D spending for the financial year, and with policy priorities for the department. Some departments engaged with external experts to frame, prioritise and shape their ARIs, for example through their Science Advisory Councils. Others took a highly proactive approach. For instance, Defra held a two-day conference in 2018 with representatives from industry, research and practice to develop their initial ARIs. Once drafted, ARIs are signed off by the relevant directors, the minister, and then published on the UK government website: gov.uk 4 . The support required from and provided by the GOS ARI team varied according to departmental need, wish, and availability. The GOS ARI team chaired a monthly ARI officials (those within departments tasked with writing and publishing ARIs), to share best practice, enable peer support, shared news and updates about events and upcoming ARIs, and to allow opportunities for collaboration to be identified between departments. They also met with officials on an ad hoc basis, reviewed drafts and offered advice on how to engage with stakeholders within and out with departments during the ARI production process. The team emphasised that there was no one ‘correct’ way to produce or word ARI documents but did over time collate best practice tips which departments found improved the usability of their ARIs (e.g. having contact details for a departmental ARI lead, or providing background within the ARI document about how the ARIs had been prepared). What are ARIs for? ARIs were intended to identify strategic research priorities for departments, but in practice we have found that they have a much broader set of uses. We found that departments use them to improve internal working and relationships, to implement the agenda of the Chief Scientist, to support other governmental processes such as spending reviews, the Integrated Review, and the Science Capability review. For some they are a reflection of their policy priorities; for others an articulation of the activities and structures of their internal science system; a statement of likely research commissioning priorities; and/or a statement of research areas around which they would welcome collaboration or input. However, the end products appeared to be mostly appropriate for the departments in question. By and large, they were seen as useful internal tools to negotiate and communicate with policy colleagues around budgets and priorities, and useful external tools to solicit help. Universities and academics find them useful to plan engagement activities such as workshops and fellowships, but often tend to view them as poorly-written research questions. ARIs can help the research community to understand what government departments want from them. This happens most effectively when there are opportunities for dialogue or a clear narrative about the policy history behind each ARI. Addressing ARIs: what engagement methods are best? Identifying relevant expertise and research is a real challenge for government departments, particularly where resources are limited. Framing problems is an important step for departments, because it dictates what research and which experts are considered relevant and appropriate. We found that officials in government departments were committed to addressing the challenge of diversity and inclusion in academic-policy engagement , but were unsure how best to go about improving practice in this area. Departments took different approaches to identifying relevant experts and evidence, ranging from using existing formal structures such as Scientific Advisory Committees and Chief Scientific Advisors, to effectively outsourcing the selection of candidate experts to partners such as the UK Universities Policy Engagement Network. We also found that universities and researchers often reached out directly to departmental officials. While well-intentioned, these approaches often created very significant amount of engagement work for officials on top of their usual engagement activities such as advisory councils. We observed that this had the potential to create competition, duplication and wasted resource on all sides, which is consistent with the literature on academic-policy engagement ( Oliver et al. , 2022 ). Departments had no clear process to identify which engagement mechanism was the most appropriate for each ARI or set of ARIs. Using a survey of the officials most frequently engaged with ARI-related work, we found over 22 engagement mechanisms were used by departments (see Table 1 ). Most departments tend to rely on tried and tested approaches (such as commissioning research projects). Table 1. Academic-policy engagement methods used by UK government departments. Mechanism of Engagement Departments’ Top 3 Ways to Engage with Academics Research Projects 11 Advisory Groups/Structures/Events 8 Existing Government Data (Linked Data) 3 Evidence Synthesis 3 Preferred Providers 2 PhD Interns 2 Horizon 2020 and International Research Programmes 2 Fellowships 2 Using Other Gov Scientists 1 SPF 1 Shared Research Cases 1 Shared Outcomes Fund 1 Other Gov Research Resources 1 International Partners 1 Find an Expert 1 Existing Collaborations 1 Co-Financing of Major Surveys 1 We observed that there was scope to broaden the menu of options available to departments when planning and implementing their ARI-related engagement. For example, officials reported primarily using ARIs to commission new research projects or support the generation of new research in other ways. However, we found that there is often – even usually - significant research and expertise already available. In these cases, evidence syntheses or interactive roundtables might be more appropriate and useful methods for gathering relevant research. However, planning a detailed stakeholder engagement plan around ARIs is skilled work which takes resource to plan and execute. For example, skilled staff are needed to support external experts to operate effectively within a policy environment; external experts often require training; time and effort from all side is required to put together a workplan acceptable to all; and finally, there are operational barriers around political sensitivity, contracts, and finances which take time to resolve. Strengths of ARIs ARIs work well as an external articulation of research and evidence needs for departments. They offer funders, intermediaries and researchers’ insights into what departmental research agendas. Universities and intermediaries in particular have used ARIs to develop their own strategic engagement plans (see, e.g. Heckels, 2020 ). Most departmental ARI documents now contain contact details as well as ‘asks’ and ‘offers’ for each ARI. This makes it easier for funders, intermediaries and researchers to know how to respond (e.g. by getting in touch for a conversation, arranging a research collaboration or responding to a research tender). ARIs as a systems intervention : The ARIs were proposed to encourage the production of more policy-relevant research. This has been described as a ‘deficit model’, suggesting that if decision-makers had better evidence, their decisions would improve. This model has been widely criticised as being based on some fundamentally flawed assumptions about how decision-making works ( Jones and Crow, 2017 ) and on how evidence informs that process ( Locke, 2002 ). The ARIs may have been planned to address this illusory ‘deficit’, but in practice perform a far greater range of functions which help to connect the policy research system in complex ways. We have seen the impact of ARIs in: • Improved understanding of what resources are required, and where, to optimally support ARI work and R&D across government • Identifying opportunities to connect academics with government officials, e.g. from Wales Centre for Public Policy with colleagues in DHSC and DWP; What Works Centre for Cities connecting with government officials across departments • Influencing new Strategic Priority Fund bids (e.g. NERC SPF programme shaped by the Land Use group to broaden beyond biodiversity to include more social and urban research) • Enabling discussion between funders and government, e.g. STFC with GOS work on security and resilient; DWP with ESRC grant managers; Innovate UK with GOS colleagues to work on cross-government and UKRI responses to the spending review • Influencing future funding programmes which follow the themes of our knowledge mobilisation events (e.g. Just transition/vulnerable communities by the British Academy) or drew on our knowledge of ARI mobilisation to inform design (ESRC Policy Fellowship scheme) The true value of ARIs may be in illuminating the ways in which the research-policy system is connected, and how we can intervene most effectively to support this system. Weaknesses of the ARIs: systems challenges Not everything can be or is articulated as an ARI: ARIs are not able to articulate the totality of departmental research needs. For some departments, this is due to political or operational sensitivity, and for others, they prefer to only publish ARIs on topics where they are currently seeking external input. It would be a mistake, therefore, to think of ARIs as a complete and exhaustive list of the topics on which government is seeking input. Departmental ARI documents may, or may not signal the most important research topics relevant to that departmental portfolio. It is not reasonable to expect the ARIs to act as a magic bullet, stimulating the generation or mobilisation of evidence relevant to the most important policy needs. ARIs should therefore be seen as a starting point of a discussion, which can help to build partnerships within which candid discussions about evidence needs can be had. ARIs are not research questions: Academics frequently describe ARIs as poorly written research questions. An alternative, more useful phrase might be “research needs”, which helps to give the impression that there is a process attached to them, that they are valued, and broader than research questions. They are more usefully thought of as topics for conversation. ARIs are difficult to access and analyse: By 2018, most departments had published at least one version of their ARIs, which then sat on the government website in pdf or html formats. Through the fellowships, the ARI team worked with Overton to design, test and launch a searchable database of all ARIs 5 by topic, department or year, in 2023. This greatly improved the ability of researchers to identify relevant topics or potential collaborators, and meant departments are easily able to identify shared cross departmental areas of interest. Finding relevant evidence and expertise takes time and work: While some departments had resources dedicated to engagement around the ARIs, others did not. While relevant research often exists (as bodies of primary research, in research and practice communities, or in ongoing funding investments), this knowledge is often inaccessible, being behind paywalls or requiring time and skill to find and absorb. Actionable recommendations Areas of Research Interest are a helpful intervention, as a cog in the system which may help us make and use evidence more effectively to inform policy. They are a positive development, without being a silver bullet solution to the knotty problem of evidence production and use. It is likely that having two knowledge mobilisation experts embedded in GOS to support the production and use of ARIs enabled the ARIs to maximise their potential as a systems intervention. By having embodied resource available within GOS to support ARI-related work, the team was able to move beyond transactional, linear approaches to knowledge exchange and instead build long-term, meaningful partnerships with teams across government, funders and within the research system. These relationships were critical to establishing feasible approaches to deliver policy-relevant evidence more successfully. However, even without this ongoing support, much could be done to optimise their production and use. Funders need to support knowledge exchange and evidence synthesis as well as primary research relevant to these areas. At present, funders are often not able to easily access their portfolios of existing investments, which means it is difficult for them to help departments access ARI-relevant existing research or relevant experts. Funders do not appear to be able to track use of ARIs in proposals, and it is not clear how they shape future investments. Finally, funders do not appear to be using ARIs as a basis to identify shared interests, and where they do fund knowledge exchange activities, they do so in an uncoordinated way which does not usually seek to respond to government priorities such as ARIs or missions. Hardly any funders invest in research about evidence production and use, which would produce empirical evidence to guide these activities. Intermediaries: Intermediaries (such as the National Academies, selected What Works Centres such as the Wales Centre for Public Policy) often do have both skilled and resourced individuals who work across academic-policy boundaries. Further investment in brokers and intermediaries would be an effective way to strengthen research-policy engagement. Where there is significant staff turnover in government (as civil servants move roles). Intermediaries can become the repository for organisational memory and could advise departments on their own policy and research engagement history. However, this work is often essentially unpaid, and there is no easy way for the skills and careers of knowledge mobilisers in these organisations to be nurtured. Intermediaries occupy an important place in the academic policy landscape, enabling them to convene and facilitate cross-field and interdisciplinary discussions. We found that Intermediaries were really valued, able to access experts, bring in diverse voices and knowledge types. However, the brokering organisations we saw (National Academies, What Works Networks, UPEN) did not represent all academics and communities. Researchers and universities need to incentivise effective policy engagement. Individual researchers often lack structures to help them understand policy need, so despite the existence of the ARIs, they struggle to address policy agendas. Researchers are not always well-trained or incentivised to engage well, and where they do, they tend to actively push experts and expertise in a linear fashion, rather than thinking about the overall science system. This leads to competition between them for officials’ time, which is inefficient and drives inequity and a lack of diversity in the science advisory system. Training is often about increasing volume and impact of individual researchers or projects. We observed that almost all the university-led projects and engagement activities sought to push university agendas (e.g. institutional profile) or researcher agendas (e.g. individual careers, or importance of particular pieces of evidence). This is not helpful for policy colleagues, who then have to analyse where engagement is most useful and least costly. There is also a growing infrastructure to support knowledge mobilisation within universities, and interestingly across them too. The University Policy Engagement Network is an opportunity to collaborate on and share knowledge exchange training, best practice, and a chance to offer government a more diverse set of experts to draw on. Government departments: need to be clear what is being asked and offered for each ARI. Their current resources and histories of engagement shape their ARI planning, but a broader range of engagement mechanisms would make academic-policy engagement more efficient and effective. Departments may benefit from more support to develop and implement engagement plans effectively, minimising duplication and maximising value for money. There is also a need to track the use of ARIs to understand how they are used and demonstrate to departmental colleagues the value of investing time in ARI development and academic engagement. All groups would benefit from a more robust evidence base about how to engage most effectively There is considerable scope to improve the process of selecting appropriate next steps, and to expand the range of research-policy engagement mechanisms used. In general, seeking to complement existing structures and processes is most efficient and leads to least disruption. Making ARs discoverable: As published ARIs documents from each government department ARIs were be hard to search and access (especially for cross departmental issues). Making the ARIs accessible has been possible through the new ARI database, which has enabled researchers and funders to identify trends, themes and topics to inform their future and present work. Government officials would be able to discover areas of shared interest with other departmental colleagues and work on shared priorities together. Focusing knowledge mobilisation activities on ARIs: There is an ever-increasing amount of knowledge mobilisation activity in the UK, much generated from within the UK higher education sector. It would be helpful for government, and certainly would reduce duplication and cost, if these activities were coordinated and focused around the ARIs. A really useful offer from the higher education sector would be a to bring together experts and expertise relevant to ARIs across universities, synthesising evidence, gaps, and key messages for discussion with policymakers on key themes; themes now easily identifiable via analysis of the ARI database. This activity would beed to be resourced, and collaboration and leadership would need to be incentivised by funders. Understanding the impact of ARIs: The impacts we identified from our ARI-related knowledge mobilisation are not a comprehensive overview of how they are shaping research, engagement and investment activities. It would be useful to have a more exhaustive exploration of who is using ARIs, how, and for what purpose. However, better data about the ways in which ARIs stimulate activity in parts of the research system (including research production, publication, engagement activities, and funding) would help us to understand where their value lies. As we note above, it is unlikely that ARIs will ever be able to capture all governmental research needs or engagement activities. For example, they may be more useful at capturing topics which could inform policy over the medium to long-term than for short term problems. It is important to understand more about what can and cannot be captured via ARIs in order to inform more effective academic-policy engagement around priorities articulated through ARIs and those which are not. Shared problem-framing and priority-setting: ARIs offer an opportunity for government to think and articulate its strategic aims. To operationalise these aims takes organisational capability which needs to be built over time, both within government and in its external partners. This might be achieved by a cross-government initiative or department taking responsibility for identifying areas of shared interest, a process for prioritisation, and/or a place to optimise engagement between academia and government. Conclusions • By stating their evidence needs, government departments make it easier for researchers to produce or provide relevant research. • ARIs perform a range of useful functions helping to connect parts of the policy research system in different ways. • Improving the accessibility of ARIs through a searchable database would increase their utility to all users. • Government, researchers, funders and intermediaries would benefit from a more robust evidence base about how to engage most effectively to optimise the use of ARIs. The ARIs are a useful step forward to a more research-informed policy culture. We have highlighted some of the work which is needed to make ARIs useful, and identified points within the system where intervention and support would be beneficial. To make this happen, investment and resource will be required. Overall, these ARIs are an interesting model for other governments wanting to improve research production for and use in policy. Author contribution All authors developed the ideas for the paper and approved the final manuscript. Data and software availability All the ARIS are available on https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/areas-of-research-interest . No primary research data was analysed to produce this paper. Acknowledgments We wish to thank the other members of our team within GOS, all the participants in our knowledge exchange activities from across government, funders, intermediaries, and academia, and our team within the ESRC who have supported this activity. All of you have helped us to develop our understanding of ARIs and their role across government and beyond. References Armstrong R, et al. : The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health. J. Public Health. 2006; 28 : 384–389. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Boaz A, Oliver K: How well do the UK government’s ‘areas of research interest’ work as boundary objects to facilitate the use of research in policymaking? Policy Politics. 2023; 51 (2): 314–333. Publisher Full Text Boaz A, Oliver K: Supporting policy through research funding: how UK funders can use ARIs to bridge evidence gaps. Evid. Policy. 2026. Cairney P: Conclusion: How to Respond to the Limits of EBPM. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2016; pp. 119–133. Publisher Full Text Government Office for Science: Realising our ambition through science: a review of Government Science Capability.2019. Reference Source Haddon C, Sasse T: How government can work with academia. London: 2018. Heckels N: Engaging with UK Government Areas of Research Interest: learning and insights from the Universities Policy Engagement Network.2020. Jones M, Crow D: How can we use the “science of stories” to produce persuasive scientific stories. Palgrave Commun. 2017; 3 (1): 53. Publisher Full Text Locke S: The public understanding of science - A rhetorical invention. Science Technology and Human Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsSage CA; 2002; 87–111. Publisher Full Text Nurse P: Ensuring a successful research endeavour: review of the UK resarch councils by Paul Nurse. In: BIS (ed.). London; 2015. Oliver K, et al. : A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014; 14 (1): 2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Oliver KA, et al. : What Works in Academic-Policy Engagement? Evid. Policy. 2022; 18 (4): 691–713. Publisher Full Text Wye L, et al. : Knowledge brokers or relationship brokers? The role of an embedded knowledge mobilisation team. Evid. Policy. Univ Bristol, 1-9 Old Park Hill, Bristol BS2 8BB, England: Policy Press; 2019; 15 (2): 278–292. Publisher Full Text Footnotes 1 www.evaluation.gov/evidence-plans/learning-agenda/ 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/writing-and-using-areas-of-research-interest/writing-and-using-areas-of-research-interest 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rebuilding-a-resilient-britain 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/areas-of-research-interest 5 www.ari.org.uk Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Dec 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 2 Academy of Medical Sciences, London, UK Kathryn Oliver Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Annette Boaz Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Giulia Cuccato Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work was supported by ESRC under grant ES/T009128/1. The funders had no role in selecting data, participants, or focus for the study. They also did not influence our interpretation of our data. We appreciate the support from ESRC in enabling these Fellowships to act as positive links between government and academia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 16 Jan 2026, 11:1509 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.2 version 1 Published: 13 Dec 2022, 11:1509 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.1 Copyright © 2026 Oliver K et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Oliver K, Boaz A and Cuccato G. Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 16 Jan 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Wellstead AM. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456644 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2#referee-response-456644 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 01 Apr 2026 Adam M Wellstead , Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456644 This is an interesting paper, but as somebody who had no prior knowledge of APIs, the authors need to better describe exactly what APIs are in the very first paragraph. I needed to double-check by reviewing the government website. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/areas-of-research-interest ... Continue reading READ ALL This is an interesting paper, but as somebody who had no prior knowledge of APIs, the authors need to better describe exactly what APIs are in the very first paragraph. I needed to double-check by reviewing the government website. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/areas-of-research-interest Perhaps a short description and a link to this website. Also, the authors do a nice job describing the process, but it would be helpful if brief examples were included. The authors do this in the "ARIs as a systems intervention." It would provide a nice context for the general reader. Minor point: "This activity would beed to be resourced, and collaboration and leadership would need to be incentivised by funders." I assume you meant "need." It was an enjoyable read. Good luck! Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Partly Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Public policy I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Wellstead AM. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456644 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2#referee-response-456644 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hammersley M. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456641 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2#referee-response-456641 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Feb 2026 Martyn Hammersley , The Open University, Milton Keynes, England, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456641 This revised version is a well-structured and clearly written article that provides an informative account of an intervention in which the authors were involved. This was designed to improve communication between UK Government departments and researchers, and thereby to institute ... Continue reading READ ALL This revised version is a well-structured and clearly written article that provides an informative account of an intervention in which the authors were involved. This was designed to improve communication between UK Government departments and researchers, and thereby to institute a more effective basis for evidence-based policymaking. The topic is clearly an important one, and the account provided is therefore to be welcomed. I do not see any need for further revisions of the paper. However, it does raise several important issues, even if discussion of these was not demanded by the purposes of the article itself. One concerns how evidence from research actually feeds into and shapes departmental decision-making: how does it weigh in relation to other sources of information and other considerations that policymakers must take into account? This is critical for any assessment of the value of ARI-based engagement. A second, connected, issue is about how the changes that the intervention required affected the operation of government departments: were there any negative alongside the positive effects? The final issue relates to the other side of the relationship. The authors note that researchers and universities tend to push their own agendas, and they comment that ‘This is not helpful for policy colleagues, who then have to analyse where engagement is most useful and least costly’. This seems to imply that the relationship between the two sides can and should be smooth and direct, and be subordinated to the needs of Government departments. We might ask whether this is possible without research being done in-house rather than by external agents; or, indeed, whether it would be frictionless even then. Is there not always going to be conflict among the different agendas of those involved, especially since there will be some diversity in agenda and schedule on both sides? It is also worth noting that the assumption appears to be that university research, or a significant portion of it, should be directly geared to serving the needs of policymakers (as they define them). That may well be the view from Government, and indeed it reflects a long-term trend towards treating public funding of universities as an investment on which practical ‘returns’ are required. We could ask, though: what is then left of the previously influential notion of a university as an independent academic institution (‘very little’ might be one answer). Furthermore, what are the implications for any belief that we live in a deliberative democracy, which requires funding of research that does not adopt the Government’s policy framework? This is particularly worth pondering given the possibility, in the not-so-distant future, of a government whose commitments are likely to be unpalatable to many academics, so that they will lack any desire to make its policies more effective through being evidence-based. As already indicated, I am not suggesting that the authors ought to have addressed these questions in their paper, but they are ones that need to be tackled. And answers to them may point to the need for rather different interventions than that described in the paper. Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Yes Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Research methodology, sociology of knowledge, political sociology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hammersley M. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456641 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2#referee-response-456641 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Dec 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ball S. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r176614 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v1#referee-response-176614 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Jun 2023 Sarah Ball , School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r176614 This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent ... Continue reading READ ALL This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent job of achieving that aim. The development of ARI's, and the barriers and potential facilitators to their use, is an area which will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners in the UK, but also for other countries looking to facilitate collaboration between government and the research sector. The findings are targeted and actionable, with valuable learnings for funders, intermediaries, governments and researchers. These findings are clear, balanced and well supported by the descriptive research that precedes it. The need for more research is also very clear. Given this, I would have appreciated some indication of whether this was part of a larger project which has produced or will be producing research papers/journal articles which step out methodology more clearly. The findings are useful, but I would love to see some more detailed discussion and analysis (while recognising this is not the aim of this paper). Some claims such as 'academics frequently describe ARI's as poorly written research questions' would be worth providing more evidence for, or making more equivocal, in light of this. Without any methodology section, I have some reservations about making claims like that otherwise. My only other note is that there are a few typos in this proof: p4 para 5 'we unsure', should be 'were unsure' p6 para 4 'collaborators This' missing full stop. p6 para 8 ' ) Intermediaries' missing full stop. p6 para 9 'engagement. individual' Individual should be capitalised. p7 para 4 'AR's' should (presumably) be ARI's. Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Yes Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Public policy and knowledge translation practices I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ball S. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r176614 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v1#referee-response-176614 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Kathryn Oliver , Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 16 Jan 2026 Author Response This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general ... Continue reading This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent job of achieving that aim. The development of ARI's, and the barriers and potential facilitators to their use, is an area which will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners in the UK, but also for other countries looking to facilitate collaboration between government and the research sector. The findings are targeted and actionable, with valuable learnings for funders, intermediaries, governments and researchers. These findings are clear, balanced and well supported by the descriptive research that precedes it. Many thanks Sarah for your careful review of our paper and apologies for the long delay in responding to your comments which are so helpful and positive. The need for more research is also very clear. Given this, I would have appreciated some indication of whether this was part of a larger project which has produced or will be producing research papers/journal articles which step out methodology more clearly. Thanks, this is a good point. We have added more text in the ‘ARI Team and our role’ section to highlight the broader nature of the research undertaken as part of these fellowships, as well as signposting to the other publications out and under way. We have also added more detail about the work we undertook to support the production and use of ARIs, including interviews we did which have informed this paper. The findings are useful, but I would love to see some more detailed discussion and analysis (while recognising this is not the aim of this paper). Some claims such as 'academics frequently describe ARI's as poorly written research questions' would be worth providing more evidence for, or making more equivocal, in light of this. Without any methodology section, I have some reservations about making claims like that otherwise. Yes, take this point. The methods outlined in the ‘roles’ section should help here, but also have been through to make some points more equivocal as you suggest. Appreciate the suggestion. My only other note is that there are a few typos in this proof Many thanks for pointing these out, which have now been corrected. This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent job of achieving that aim. The development of ARI's, and the barriers and potential facilitators to their use, is an area which will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners in the UK, but also for other countries looking to facilitate collaboration between government and the research sector. The findings are targeted and actionable, with valuable learnings for funders, intermediaries, governments and researchers. These findings are clear, balanced and well supported by the descriptive research that precedes it. Many thanks Sarah for your careful review of our paper and apologies for the long delay in responding to your comments which are so helpful and positive. The need for more research is also very clear. Given this, I would have appreciated some indication of whether this was part of a larger project which has produced or will be producing research papers/journal articles which step out methodology more clearly. Thanks, this is a good point. We have added more text in the ‘ARI Team and our role’ section to highlight the broader nature of the research undertaken as part of these fellowships, as well as signposting to the other publications out and under way. We have also added more detail about the work we undertook to support the production and use of ARIs, including interviews we did which have informed this paper. The findings are useful, but I would love to see some more detailed discussion and analysis (while recognising this is not the aim of this paper). Some claims such as 'academics frequently describe ARI's as poorly written research questions' would be worth providing more evidence for, or making more equivocal, in light of this. Without any methodology section, I have some reservations about making claims like that otherwise. Yes, take this point. The methods outlined in the ‘roles’ section should help here, but also have been through to make some points more equivocal as you suggest. Appreciate the suggestion. My only other note is that there are a few typos in this proof Many thanks for pointing these out, which have now been corrected. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Kathryn Oliver , Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 16 Jan 2026 Author Response This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general ... Continue reading This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent job of achieving that aim. The development of ARI's, and the barriers and potential facilitators to their use, is an area which will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners in the UK, but also for other countries looking to facilitate collaboration between government and the research sector. The findings are targeted and actionable, with valuable learnings for funders, intermediaries, governments and researchers. These findings are clear, balanced and well supported by the descriptive research that precedes it. Many thanks Sarah for your careful review of our paper and apologies for the long delay in responding to your comments which are so helpful and positive. The need for more research is also very clear. Given this, I would have appreciated some indication of whether this was part of a larger project which has produced or will be producing research papers/journal articles which step out methodology more clearly. Thanks, this is a good point. We have added more text in the ‘ARI Team and our role’ section to highlight the broader nature of the research undertaken as part of these fellowships, as well as signposting to the other publications out and under way. We have also added more detail about the work we undertook to support the production and use of ARIs, including interviews we did which have informed this paper. The findings are useful, but I would love to see some more detailed discussion and analysis (while recognising this is not the aim of this paper). Some claims such as 'academics frequently describe ARI's as poorly written research questions' would be worth providing more evidence for, or making more equivocal, in light of this. Without any methodology section, I have some reservations about making claims like that otherwise. Yes, take this point. The methods outlined in the ‘roles’ section should help here, but also have been through to make some points more equivocal as you suggest. Appreciate the suggestion. My only other note is that there are a few typos in this proof Many thanks for pointing these out, which have now been corrected. This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent job of achieving that aim. The development of ARI's, and the barriers and potential facilitators to their use, is an area which will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners in the UK, but also for other countries looking to facilitate collaboration between government and the research sector. The findings are targeted and actionable, with valuable learnings for funders, intermediaries, governments and researchers. These findings are clear, balanced and well supported by the descriptive research that precedes it. Many thanks Sarah for your careful review of our paper and apologies for the long delay in responding to your comments which are so helpful and positive. The need for more research is also very clear. Given this, I would have appreciated some indication of whether this was part of a larger project which has produced or will be producing research papers/journal articles which step out methodology more clearly. Thanks, this is a good point. We have added more text in the ‘ARI Team and our role’ section to highlight the broader nature of the research undertaken as part of these fellowships, as well as signposting to the other publications out and under way. We have also added more detail about the work we undertook to support the production and use of ARIs, including interviews we did which have informed this paper. The findings are useful, but I would love to see some more detailed discussion and analysis (while recognising this is not the aim of this paper). Some claims such as 'academics frequently describe ARI's as poorly written research questions' would be worth providing more evidence for, or making more equivocal, in light of this. Without any methodology section, I have some reservations about making claims like that otherwise. Yes, take this point. The methods outlined in the ‘roles’ section should help here, but also have been through to make some points more equivocal as you suggest. Appreciate the suggestion. My only other note is that there are a few typos in this proof Many thanks for pointing these out, which have now been corrected. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Durrant H. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r158048 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v1#referee-response-158048 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 06 Feb 2023 Hannah Durrant , Wales Centre for Public Policy, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r158048 Thank you for the opportunity to review this valuable and well-written paper. It provides a succinct and much needed assessment of where government areas of research interest (ARIs) have come from in the UK, how they are being produced and ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review this valuable and well-written paper. It provides a succinct and much needed assessment of where government areas of research interest (ARIs) have come from in the UK, how they are being produced and used, and their strengths and weaknesses. It does this from a unique combination of insider-researcher perspectives and, in doing so, can claim to practise what it preaches in terms of active and engaged forms of knowledge mobilisation (indeed I think more can be made of this). Actionable recommendations are provided for all stakeholders – many stress the importance of intermediary mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation to bring government evidence needs together with experts and expertise to understand what evidence exists and what new knowledge could be produced to inform decision-making. They raise the urgent need for more robust evidence on what mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation are most effective, when, under what conditions, and why. I have a few comments and suggestions for areas to strengthen the paper further, which are outlined below. There are also a few, small typographical points which may be picked up in a robust copy edit, e.g., some words missing from the sentence in the first paragraph that starts “ By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers …”; there is a quotation mark in front of the word “ systematising ..” in paragraph 2; at the bottom of page 5, it should be ‘Wales Centre…’ not " Welsh Centre …"; top of page 6, " BA " should be 'AB'; middle of page 6, it should be “funders do not appear to be using…” rather than “ being using …”; etc. These are small and infrequent but would perfect the paper. Comments and suggestions The paper would benefit from elaborating a bit more (e.g., within the section on the role of the team) on the ARI fellowship design, and the specific activities undertaken that generated the insight that underpins the claims made later in the paper (e.g., in the middle of page 4 about what universities and academics find useful about ARIs, how UPEN functions as an intermediary, and points about competition and duplication arising from direct engagement). It would be worth making it clear for a broad base of readers that two of the authors (KO and AB) were/are embedded researchers. It would also be very valuable to provide a brief explanation of embedded research and any assessment of evaluation as one among many mechanisms to enhance knowledge mobilisation. Given that it is a highly relational and engaged approach to brokering knowledge to support decision-making, it seems a highly appropriate approach to choose, particularly in light of limitations raised about efforts to merely ‘push’ research evidence out to policy. That said, the approach is not without difficulties (some of which may be captured in points made about the transactional costs of engagement and the lack of support and recognition for these roles and approaches). Is there an opportunity to reflect on this approach in the context of discussion about the benefits and challenges of mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation in response to government ARIs? The Wye et al. (2019) paper already cited could provide a starting point for conceptualising embedded research/ers. More importantly, it would be valuable to outline how the team designed their approach to maximise the potential of their fellowships to achieve the aims and avoid any pitfalls. I think it would be useful to provide a little more detail on the nature of the work of the team with government department analysts and policy teams, as well as with intermediaries, universities and researchers, in order to underpin the perspectives on ARIs that you report in the section on what ARIs are for. What kinds of interactions happened? How often? What was the purpose? Were there any limitations that should be taken into account? You note variation between government departments in the production of ARIs, differences in what they are intended for, and that not all government ‘evidence needs’ are/can be articulated as ARIs. These observations suggest implications for whether ARIs actually signal evidence need on the most important departmental research questions, as intended in the Nurse Review (N.B. could you provide the reference for the Nurse Review, 2015?). Even if we accept a flawed ‘deficit model’ that misrepresents policymaking processes (your critique here is very valid), it remains unlikely that evidence can inform decisions if the most important evidence needs are not articulated. It may be worth reflecting on this, alongside other points made about whether ARIs are likely to generate/stimulate the mobilisation of the most relevant and useful evidence for addressing policy priorities and to meet the stated ultimate aspiration for evidence to inform social change. This may strengthen the point that ARIs should be seen as providing a starting point for focused conversation and that their impact (and limits) under these conditions need to be better understood in order to inform a multi-method approach (including methods more likely to get to the most important policy research questions) for strengthening research-policy engagement on important topics of government priority that ARIs don’t cover. In the section on 'Strengths of ARIs: ARIs as a systems intervention', I wondered if the team had observed any impacts of ARIs in terms of enabling university-based intermediaries (e.g., policy engagement support within individual universities or within UPEN) to focus the ways they seek to coordinate and connect academics to government officials? I do not think the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) provides a good example of how ARIs work to connect academics with government officials. This is not core to WCPP's work or a typical activity for the Centre, but good examples are useful and may be found elsewhere. Finally, given that the paper stresses the importance of intermediaries and knowledge mobilisers/brokers (albeit underpinned by an urgently needed evidence base on what works), I think the conclusions would be strengthened by adding a point on actively supporting knowledge mobilisation around ARIs, which requires action and investment by funders, universities, intermediaries and government. The buy-in of these stakeholders may be crucial for plugging the evidence gap on effective mechanisms for better research-policy engagement. I think these comments are minor and overall this paper makes an important contribution to better understanding engagement with government ARIs. Thank you again for an enjoyable read. Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Yes Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests: I work for an organisation - the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) - named in this research paper and I am a Vice-Chair of the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN). This is an unpaid role. One of the authors (Professor Annette Boaz) is on the Advisory Board of the WCPP. I have not, however, collaborated with any of the authors or been involved in this research in any way – which reports on their experience as ARI Policy Fellows in UK Government. I do not think that the way in which either the Centre or UPEN are discussed constitutes either an advantage or disadvantage. I make these statements purely for the purpose of full transparency. Reviewer Expertise: Evidence use in policymaking; knowledge mobilisation; policy design and evaluation; loneliness and community wellbeing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Durrant H. Reviewer Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r158048 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v1#referee-response-158048 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Kathryn Oliver , Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 16 Jan 2026 Author Response Responses: Thanks so much for your careful reading of our paper and apologies for the long delay in addressing these very helpful pointers. I ... Continue reading Responses: Thanks so much for your careful reading of our paper and apologies for the long delay in addressing these very helpful pointers. I have a few comments and suggestions for areas to strengthen the paper further, which are outlined below. There are also a few, small typographical points which may be picked up in a robust copy edit, e.g., some words missing from the sentence in the first paragraph that starts “ By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers …”; there is a quotation mark in front of the word “ systematising ..” in paragraph 2; at the bottom of page 5, it should be ‘Wales Centre…’ not " Welsh Centre …"; top of page 6, " BA " should be 'AB'; middle of page 6, it should be “funders do not appear to be using…” rather than “ being using …”; etc. These are small and infrequent but would perfect the paper. Thanks, a careful proof read has been undertaken. Appreciate you taking the time to point these errors out. Comments and suggestions The paper would benefit from elaborating a bit more (e.g., within the section on the role of the team) on the ARI fellowship design, and the specific activities undertaken that generated the insight that underpins the claims made later in the paper (e.g., in the middle of page 4 about what universities and academics find useful about ARIs, how UPEN functions as an intermediary, and points about competition and duplication arising from direct engagement). Good suggestion, this has been done. It would be worth making it clear for a broad base of readers that two of the authors (KO and AB) were/are embedded researchers. Good suggestion, clarified It would also be very valuable to provide a brief explanation of embedded research and any assessment of evaluation as one among many mechanisms to enhance knowledge mobilisation. Given that it is a highly relational and engaged approach to brokering knowledge to support decision-making, it seems a highly appropriate approach to choose, particularly in light of limitations raised about efforts to merely ‘push’ research evidence out to policy. That said, the approach is not without difficulties (some of which may be captured in points made about the transactional costs of engagement and the lack of support and recognition for these roles and approaches). Is there an opportunity to reflect on this approach in the context of discussion about the benefits and challenges of mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation in response to government ARIs? The Wye et al. (2019) paper already cited could provide a starting point for conceptualising embedded research/ers. More importantly, it would be valuable to outline how the team designed their approach to maximise the potential of their fellowships to achieve the aims and avoid any pitfalls. Thanks for this suggestion, which gave me much food for thought. I agree the Fellow model deployed in our case was somewhat unusual as being both practical / delivery focused, and offering the opportunity for research and reflection about the model itself, with both elements built explicitly into the design of the fellowship. We have added some sentences in the ‘role of our team’ and discussion section to clarify this; however, a broader discussion is probably outside the scope of this paper which aimed to describe the production and use of ARIs for a wider audience. We would like to return to the question of the importance of embeddedness in more detail in a further paper – thanks for the suggestion. I think it would be useful to provide a little more detail on the nature of the work of the team with government department analysts and policy teams, as well as with intermediaries, universities and researchers, in order to underpin the perspectives on ARIs that you report in the section on what ARIs are for. What kinds of interactions happened? How often? What was the purpose? Were there any limitations that should be taken into account? Thanks, this has been added in the ‘how do departments produce ARIs’ sections. You note variation between government departments in the production of ARIs, differences in what they are intended for, and that not all government ‘evidence needs’ are/can be articulated as ARIs. These observations suggest implications for whether ARIs actually signal evidence need on the most important departmental research questions, as intended in the Nurse Review Even if we accept a flawed ‘deficit model’ that misrepresents policymaking processes (your critique here is very valid), it remains unlikely that evidence can inform decisions if the most important evidence needs are not articulated. It may be worth reflecting on this, alongside other points made about whether ARIs are likely to generate/stimulate the mobilisation of the most relevant and useful evidence for addressing policy priorities and to meet the stated ultimate aspiration for evidence to inform social change. This may strengthen the point that ARIs should be seen as providing a starting point for focused conversation and that their impact (and limits) under these conditions need to be better understood in order to inform a multi-method approach (including methods more likely to get to the most important policy research questions) for strengthening research-policy engagement on important topics of government priority that ARIs don’t cover. Thanks, great points and addressed in the discussion and actionable recommendations. (N.B. could you provide the reference for the Nurse Review, 2015?). Apols, added now In the section on 'Strengths of ARIs: ARIs as a systems intervention', I wondered if the team had observed any impacts of ARIs in terms of enabling university-based intermediaries (e.g., policy engagement support within individual universities or within UPEN) to focus the ways they seek to coordinate and connect academics to government officials? I do not think the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) provides a good example of how ARIs work to connect academics with government officials. This is not core to WCPP's work or a typical activity for the Centre, but good examples are useful and may be found elsewhere. Thanks, we had been referring to a specific discussion we set up between WCPP academics and government; reworded to make this clearer. Again, we think there are now many more examples to draw out which we will return to in a later paper. 8. Finally, given that the paper stresses the importance of intermediaries and knowledge mobilisers/brokers (albeit underpinned by an urgently needed evidence base on what works), I think the conclusions would be strengthened by adding a point on actively supporting knowledge mobilisation around ARIs, which requires action and investment by funders, universities, intermediaries and government. The buy-in of these stakeholders may be crucial for plugging the evidence gap on effective mechanisms for better research-policy engagement. A great point -thanks, added to the recs. Responses: Thanks so much for your careful reading of our paper and apologies for the long delay in addressing these very helpful pointers. I have a few comments and suggestions for areas to strengthen the paper further, which are outlined below. There are also a few, small typographical points which may be picked up in a robust copy edit, e.g., some words missing from the sentence in the first paragraph that starts “ By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers …”; there is a quotation mark in front of the word “ systematising ..” in paragraph 2; at the bottom of page 5, it should be ‘Wales Centre…’ not " Welsh Centre …"; top of page 6, " BA " should be 'AB'; middle of page 6, it should be “funders do not appear to be using…” rather than “ being using …”; etc. These are small and infrequent but would perfect the paper. Thanks, a careful proof read has been undertaken. Appreciate you taking the time to point these errors out. Comments and suggestions The paper would benefit from elaborating a bit more (e.g., within the section on the role of the team) on the ARI fellowship design, and the specific activities undertaken that generated the insight that underpins the claims made later in the paper (e.g., in the middle of page 4 about what universities and academics find useful about ARIs, how UPEN functions as an intermediary, and points about competition and duplication arising from direct engagement). Good suggestion, this has been done. It would be worth making it clear for a broad base of readers that two of the authors (KO and AB) were/are embedded researchers. Good suggestion, clarified It would also be very valuable to provide a brief explanation of embedded research and any assessment of evaluation as one among many mechanisms to enhance knowledge mobilisation. Given that it is a highly relational and engaged approach to brokering knowledge to support decision-making, it seems a highly appropriate approach to choose, particularly in light of limitations raised about efforts to merely ‘push’ research evidence out to policy. That said, the approach is not without difficulties (some of which may be captured in points made about the transactional costs of engagement and the lack of support and recognition for these roles and approaches). Is there an opportunity to reflect on this approach in the context of discussion about the benefits and challenges of mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation in response to government ARIs? The Wye et al. (2019) paper already cited could provide a starting point for conceptualising embedded research/ers. More importantly, it would be valuable to outline how the team designed their approach to maximise the potential of their fellowships to achieve the aims and avoid any pitfalls. Thanks for this suggestion, which gave me much food for thought. I agree the Fellow model deployed in our case was somewhat unusual as being both practical / delivery focused, and offering the opportunity for research and reflection about the model itself, with both elements built explicitly into the design of the fellowship. We have added some sentences in the ‘role of our team’ and discussion section to clarify this; however, a broader discussion is probably outside the scope of this paper which aimed to describe the production and use of ARIs for a wider audience. We would like to return to the question of the importance of embeddedness in more detail in a further paper – thanks for the suggestion. I think it would be useful to provide a little more detail on the nature of the work of the team with government department analysts and policy teams, as well as with intermediaries, universities and researchers, in order to underpin the perspectives on ARIs that you report in the section on what ARIs are for. What kinds of interactions happened? How often? What was the purpose? Were there any limitations that should be taken into account? Thanks, this has been added in the ‘how do departments produce ARIs’ sections. You note variation between government departments in the production of ARIs, differences in what they are intended for, and that not all government ‘evidence needs’ are/can be articulated as ARIs. These observations suggest implications for whether ARIs actually signal evidence need on the most important departmental research questions, as intended in the Nurse Review Even if we accept a flawed ‘deficit model’ that misrepresents policymaking processes (your critique here is very valid), it remains unlikely that evidence can inform decisions if the most important evidence needs are not articulated. It may be worth reflecting on this, alongside other points made about whether ARIs are likely to generate/stimulate the mobilisation of the most relevant and useful evidence for addressing policy priorities and to meet the stated ultimate aspiration for evidence to inform social change. This may strengthen the point that ARIs should be seen as providing a starting point for focused conversation and that their impact (and limits) under these conditions need to be better understood in order to inform a multi-method approach (including methods more likely to get to the most important policy research questions) for strengthening research-policy engagement on important topics of government priority that ARIs don’t cover. Thanks, great points and addressed in the discussion and actionable recommendations. (N.B. could you provide the reference for the Nurse Review, 2015?). Apols, added now In the section on 'Strengths of ARIs: ARIs as a systems intervention', I wondered if the team had observed any impacts of ARIs in terms of enabling university-based intermediaries (e.g., policy engagement support within individual universities or within UPEN) to focus the ways they seek to coordinate and connect academics to government officials? I do not think the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) provides a good example of how ARIs work to connect academics with government officials. This is not core to WCPP's work or a typical activity for the Centre, but good examples are useful and may be found elsewhere. Thanks, we had been referring to a specific discussion we set up between WCPP academics and government; reworded to make this clearer. Again, we think there are now many more examples to draw out which we will return to in a later paper. 8. Finally, given that the paper stresses the importance of intermediaries and knowledge mobilisers/brokers (albeit underpinned by an urgently needed evidence base on what works), I think the conclusions would be strengthened by adding a point on actively supporting knowledge mobilisation around ARIs, which requires action and investment by funders, universities, intermediaries and government. The buy-in of these stakeholders may be crucial for plugging the evidence gap on effective mechanisms for better research-policy engagement. A great point -thanks, added to the recs. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Kathryn Oliver , Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 16 Jan 2026 Author Response Responses: Thanks so much for your careful reading of our paper and apologies for the long delay in addressing these very helpful pointers. I ... Continue reading Responses: Thanks so much for your careful reading of our paper and apologies for the long delay in addressing these very helpful pointers. I have a few comments and suggestions for areas to strengthen the paper further, which are outlined below. There are also a few, small typographical points which may be picked up in a robust copy edit, e.g., some words missing from the sentence in the first paragraph that starts “ By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers …”; there is a quotation mark in front of the word “ systematising ..” in paragraph 2; at the bottom of page 5, it should be ‘Wales Centre…’ not " Welsh Centre …"; top of page 6, " BA " should be 'AB'; middle of page 6, it should be “funders do not appear to be using…” rather than “ being using …”; etc. These are small and infrequent but would perfect the paper. Thanks, a careful proof read has been undertaken. Appreciate you taking the time to point these errors out. Comments and suggestions The paper would benefit from elaborating a bit more (e.g., within the section on the role of the team) on the ARI fellowship design, and the specific activities undertaken that generated the insight that underpins the claims made later in the paper (e.g., in the middle of page 4 about what universities and academics find useful about ARIs, how UPEN functions as an intermediary, and points about competition and duplication arising from direct engagement). Good suggestion, this has been done. It would be worth making it clear for a broad base of readers that two of the authors (KO and AB) were/are embedded researchers. Good suggestion, clarified It would also be very valuable to provide a brief explanation of embedded research and any assessment of evaluation as one among many mechanisms to enhance knowledge mobilisation. Given that it is a highly relational and engaged approach to brokering knowledge to support decision-making, it seems a highly appropriate approach to choose, particularly in light of limitations raised about efforts to merely ‘push’ research evidence out to policy. That said, the approach is not without difficulties (some of which may be captured in points made about the transactional costs of engagement and the lack of support and recognition for these roles and approaches). Is there an opportunity to reflect on this approach in the context of discussion about the benefits and challenges of mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation in response to government ARIs? The Wye et al. (2019) paper already cited could provide a starting point for conceptualising embedded research/ers. More importantly, it would be valuable to outline how the team designed their approach to maximise the potential of their fellowships to achieve the aims and avoid any pitfalls. Thanks for this suggestion, which gave me much food for thought. I agree the Fellow model deployed in our case was somewhat unusual as being both practical / delivery focused, and offering the opportunity for research and reflection about the model itself, with both elements built explicitly into the design of the fellowship. We have added some sentences in the ‘role of our team’ and discussion section to clarify this; however, a broader discussion is probably outside the scope of this paper which aimed to describe the production and use of ARIs for a wider audience. We would like to return to the question of the importance of embeddedness in more detail in a further paper – thanks for the suggestion. I think it would be useful to provide a little more detail on the nature of the work of the team with government department analysts and policy teams, as well as with intermediaries, universities and researchers, in order to underpin the perspectives on ARIs that you report in the section on what ARIs are for. What kinds of interactions happened? How often? What was the purpose? Were there any limitations that should be taken into account? Thanks, this has been added in the ‘how do departments produce ARIs’ sections. You note variation between government departments in the production of ARIs, differences in what they are intended for, and that not all government ‘evidence needs’ are/can be articulated as ARIs. These observations suggest implications for whether ARIs actually signal evidence need on the most important departmental research questions, as intended in the Nurse Review Even if we accept a flawed ‘deficit model’ that misrepresents policymaking processes (your critique here is very valid), it remains unlikely that evidence can inform decisions if the most important evidence needs are not articulated. It may be worth reflecting on this, alongside other points made about whether ARIs are likely to generate/stimulate the mobilisation of the most relevant and useful evidence for addressing policy priorities and to meet the stated ultimate aspiration for evidence to inform social change. This may strengthen the point that ARIs should be seen as providing a starting point for focused conversation and that their impact (and limits) under these conditions need to be better understood in order to inform a multi-method approach (including methods more likely to get to the most important policy research questions) for strengthening research-policy engagement on important topics of government priority that ARIs don’t cover. Thanks, great points and addressed in the discussion and actionable recommendations. (N.B. could you provide the reference for the Nurse Review, 2015?). Apols, added now In the section on 'Strengths of ARIs: ARIs as a systems intervention', I wondered if the team had observed any impacts of ARIs in terms of enabling university-based intermediaries (e.g., policy engagement support within individual universities or within UPEN) to focus the ways they seek to coordinate and connect academics to government officials? I do not think the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) provides a good example of how ARIs work to connect academics with government officials. This is not core to WCPP's work or a typical activity for the Centre, but good examples are useful and may be found elsewhere. Thanks, we had been referring to a specific discussion we set up between WCPP academics and government; reworded to make this clearer. Again, we think there are now many more examples to draw out which we will return to in a later paper. 8. Finally, given that the paper stresses the importance of intermediaries and knowledge mobilisers/brokers (albeit underpinned by an urgently needed evidence base on what works), I think the conclusions would be strengthened by adding a point on actively supporting knowledge mobilisation around ARIs, which requires action and investment by funders, universities, intermediaries and government. The buy-in of these stakeholders may be crucial for plugging the evidence gap on effective mechanisms for better research-policy engagement. A great point -thanks, added to the recs. Responses: Thanks so much for your careful reading of our paper and apologies for the long delay in addressing these very helpful pointers. I have a few comments and suggestions for areas to strengthen the paper further, which are outlined below. There are also a few, small typographical points which may be picked up in a robust copy edit, e.g., some words missing from the sentence in the first paragraph that starts “ By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers …”; there is a quotation mark in front of the word “ systematising ..” in paragraph 2; at the bottom of page 5, it should be ‘Wales Centre…’ not " Welsh Centre …"; top of page 6, " BA " should be 'AB'; middle of page 6, it should be “funders do not appear to be using…” rather than “ being using …”; etc. These are small and infrequent but would perfect the paper. Thanks, a careful proof read has been undertaken. Appreciate you taking the time to point these errors out. Comments and suggestions The paper would benefit from elaborating a bit more (e.g., within the section on the role of the team) on the ARI fellowship design, and the specific activities undertaken that generated the insight that underpins the claims made later in the paper (e.g., in the middle of page 4 about what universities and academics find useful about ARIs, how UPEN functions as an intermediary, and points about competition and duplication arising from direct engagement). Good suggestion, this has been done. It would be worth making it clear for a broad base of readers that two of the authors (KO and AB) were/are embedded researchers. Good suggestion, clarified It would also be very valuable to provide a brief explanation of embedded research and any assessment of evaluation as one among many mechanisms to enhance knowledge mobilisation. Given that it is a highly relational and engaged approach to brokering knowledge to support decision-making, it seems a highly appropriate approach to choose, particularly in light of limitations raised about efforts to merely ‘push’ research evidence out to policy. That said, the approach is not without difficulties (some of which may be captured in points made about the transactional costs of engagement and the lack of support and recognition for these roles and approaches). Is there an opportunity to reflect on this approach in the context of discussion about the benefits and challenges of mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation in response to government ARIs? The Wye et al. (2019) paper already cited could provide a starting point for conceptualising embedded research/ers. More importantly, it would be valuable to outline how the team designed their approach to maximise the potential of their fellowships to achieve the aims and avoid any pitfalls. Thanks for this suggestion, which gave me much food for thought. I agree the Fellow model deployed in our case was somewhat unusual as being both practical / delivery focused, and offering the opportunity for research and reflection about the model itself, with both elements built explicitly into the design of the fellowship. We have added some sentences in the ‘role of our team’ and discussion section to clarify this; however, a broader discussion is probably outside the scope of this paper which aimed to describe the production and use of ARIs for a wider audience. We would like to return to the question of the importance of embeddedness in more detail in a further paper – thanks for the suggestion. I think it would be useful to provide a little more detail on the nature of the work of the team with government department analysts and policy teams, as well as with intermediaries, universities and researchers, in order to underpin the perspectives on ARIs that you report in the section on what ARIs are for. What kinds of interactions happened? How often? What was the purpose? Were there any limitations that should be taken into account? Thanks, this has been added in the ‘how do departments produce ARIs’ sections. You note variation between government departments in the production of ARIs, differences in what they are intended for, and that not all government ‘evidence needs’ are/can be articulated as ARIs. These observations suggest implications for whether ARIs actually signal evidence need on the most important departmental research questions, as intended in the Nurse Review Even if we accept a flawed ‘deficit model’ that misrepresents policymaking processes (your critique here is very valid), it remains unlikely that evidence can inform decisions if the most important evidence needs are not articulated. It may be worth reflecting on this, alongside other points made about whether ARIs are likely to generate/stimulate the mobilisation of the most relevant and useful evidence for addressing policy priorities and to meet the stated ultimate aspiration for evidence to inform social change. This may strengthen the point that ARIs should be seen as providing a starting point for focused conversation and that their impact (and limits) under these conditions need to be better understood in order to inform a multi-method approach (including methods more likely to get to the most important policy research questions) for strengthening research-policy engagement on important topics of government priority that ARIs don’t cover. Thanks, great points and addressed in the discussion and actionable recommendations. (N.B. could you provide the reference for the Nurse Review, 2015?). Apols, added now In the section on 'Strengths of ARIs: ARIs as a systems intervention', I wondered if the team had observed any impacts of ARIs in terms of enabling university-based intermediaries (e.g., policy engagement support within individual universities or within UPEN) to focus the ways they seek to coordinate and connect academics to government officials? I do not think the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) provides a good example of how ARIs work to connect academics with government officials. This is not core to WCPP's work or a typical activity for the Centre, but good examples are useful and may be found elsewhere. Thanks, we had been referring to a specific discussion we set up between WCPP academics and government; reworded to make this clearer. Again, we think there are now many more examples to draw out which we will return to in a later paper. 8. Finally, given that the paper stresses the importance of intermediaries and knowledge mobilisers/brokers (albeit underpinned by an urgently needed evidence base on what works), I think the conclusions would be strengthened by adding a point on actively supporting knowledge mobilisation around ARIs, which requires action and investment by funders, universities, intermediaries and government. The buy-in of these stakeholders may be crucial for plugging the evidence gap on effective mechanisms for better research-policy engagement. A great point -thanks, added to the recs. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Dec 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 16 Jan 26 read read Version 1 13 Dec 22 read read Hannah Durrant , Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Sarah Ball , The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Martyn Hammersley , The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Adam M Wellstead , Michigan Technological University, Houghton, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Wellstead A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 01 Apr 2026 | for Version 2 Adam M Wellstead , Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Wellstead A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is an interesting paper, but as somebody who had no prior knowledge of APIs, the authors need to better describe exactly what APIs are in the very first paragraph. I needed to double-check by reviewing the government website. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/areas-of-research-interest Perhaps a short description and a link to this website. Also, the authors do a nice job describing the process, but it would be helpful if brief examples were included. The authors do this in the "ARIs as a systems intervention." It would provide a nice context for the general reader. Minor point: "This activity would beed to be resourced, and collaboration and leadership would need to be incentivised by funders." I assume you meant "need." It was an enjoyable read. Good luck! Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Partly Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Public policy I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Wellstead AM. Peer Review Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456644) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2#referee-response-456644 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Hammersley M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Feb 2026 | for Version 2 Martyn Hammersley , The Open University, Milton Keynes, England, UK 0 Views copyright © 2026 Hammersley M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This revised version is a well-structured and clearly written article that provides an informative account of an intervention in which the authors were involved. This was designed to improve communication between UK Government departments and researchers, and thereby to institute a more effective basis for evidence-based policymaking. The topic is clearly an important one, and the account provided is therefore to be welcomed. I do not see any need for further revisions of the paper. However, it does raise several important issues, even if discussion of these was not demanded by the purposes of the article itself. One concerns how evidence from research actually feeds into and shapes departmental decision-making: how does it weigh in relation to other sources of information and other considerations that policymakers must take into account? This is critical for any assessment of the value of ARI-based engagement. A second, connected, issue is about how the changes that the intervention required affected the operation of government departments: were there any negative alongside the positive effects? The final issue relates to the other side of the relationship. The authors note that researchers and universities tend to push their own agendas, and they comment that ‘This is not helpful for policy colleagues, who then have to analyse where engagement is most useful and least costly’. This seems to imply that the relationship between the two sides can and should be smooth and direct, and be subordinated to the needs of Government departments. We might ask whether this is possible without research being done in-house rather than by external agents; or, indeed, whether it would be frictionless even then. Is there not always going to be conflict among the different agendas of those involved, especially since there will be some diversity in agenda and schedule on both sides? It is also worth noting that the assumption appears to be that university research, or a significant portion of it, should be directly geared to serving the needs of policymakers (as they define them). That may well be the view from Government, and indeed it reflects a long-term trend towards treating public funding of universities as an investment on which practical ‘returns’ are required. We could ask, though: what is then left of the previously influential notion of a university as an independent academic institution (‘very little’ might be one answer). Furthermore, what are the implications for any belief that we live in a deliberative democracy, which requires funding of research that does not adopt the Government’s policy framework? This is particularly worth pondering given the possibility, in the not-so-distant future, of a government whose commitments are likely to be unpalatable to many academics, so that they will lack any desire to make its policies more effective through being evidence-based. As already indicated, I am not suggesting that the authors ought to have addressed these questions in their paper, but they are ones that need to be tackled. And answers to them may point to the need for rather different interventions than that described in the paper. Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Yes Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Research methodology, sociology of knowledge, political sociology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Hammersley M. Peer Review Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195197.r456641) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2#referee-response-456641 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ball S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sarah Ball , School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ball S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent job of achieving that aim. The development of ARI's, and the barriers and potential facilitators to their use, is an area which will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners in the UK, but also for other countries looking to facilitate collaboration between government and the research sector. The findings are targeted and actionable, with valuable learnings for funders, intermediaries, governments and researchers. These findings are clear, balanced and well supported by the descriptive research that precedes it. The need for more research is also very clear. Given this, I would have appreciated some indication of whether this was part of a larger project which has produced or will be producing research papers/journal articles which step out methodology more clearly. The findings are useful, but I would love to see some more detailed discussion and analysis (while recognising this is not the aim of this paper). Some claims such as 'academics frequently describe ARI's as poorly written research questions' would be worth providing more evidence for, or making more equivocal, in light of this. Without any methodology section, I have some reservations about making claims like that otherwise. My only other note is that there are a few typos in this proof: p4 para 5 'we unsure', should be 'were unsure' p6 para 4 'collaborators This' missing full stop. p6 para 8 ' ) Intermediaries' missing full stop. p6 para 9 'engagement. individual' Individual should be capitalised. p7 para 4 'AR's' should (presumably) be ARI's. Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Yes Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Public policy and knowledge translation practices I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Kathryn Oliver, Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK This is a very interesting piece, which definitely presents a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader. The aim is descriptive, and it does an excellent job of achieving that aim. The development of ARI's, and the barriers and potential facilitators to their use, is an area which will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners in the UK, but also for other countries looking to facilitate collaboration between government and the research sector. The findings are targeted and actionable, with valuable learnings for funders, intermediaries, governments and researchers. These findings are clear, balanced and well supported by the descriptive research that precedes it. Many thanks Sarah for your careful review of our paper and apologies for the long delay in responding to your comments which are so helpful and positive. The need for more research is also very clear. Given this, I would have appreciated some indication of whether this was part of a larger project which has produced or will be producing research papers/journal articles which step out methodology more clearly. Thanks, this is a good point. We have added more text in the ‘ARI Team and our role’ section to highlight the broader nature of the research undertaken as part of these fellowships, as well as signposting to the other publications out and under way. We have also added more detail about the work we undertook to support the production and use of ARIs, including interviews we did which have informed this paper. The findings are useful, but I would love to see some more detailed discussion and analysis (while recognising this is not the aim of this paper). Some claims such as 'academics frequently describe ARI's as poorly written research questions' would be worth providing more evidence for, or making more equivocal, in light of this. Without any methodology section, I have some reservations about making claims like that otherwise. Yes, take this point. The methods outlined in the ‘roles’ section should help here, but also have been through to make some points more equivocal as you suggest. Appreciate the suggestion. My only other note is that there are a few typos in this proof Many thanks for pointing these out, which have now been corrected. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Ball S. Peer Review Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r176614) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v1#referee-response-176614 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Durrant H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 06 Feb 2023 | for Version 1 Hannah Durrant , Wales Centre for Public Policy, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK 0 Views copyright © 2023 Durrant H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the opportunity to review this valuable and well-written paper. It provides a succinct and much needed assessment of where government areas of research interest (ARIs) have come from in the UK, how they are being produced and used, and their strengths and weaknesses. It does this from a unique combination of insider-researcher perspectives and, in doing so, can claim to practise what it preaches in terms of active and engaged forms of knowledge mobilisation (indeed I think more can be made of this). Actionable recommendations are provided for all stakeholders – many stress the importance of intermediary mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation to bring government evidence needs together with experts and expertise to understand what evidence exists and what new knowledge could be produced to inform decision-making. They raise the urgent need for more robust evidence on what mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation are most effective, when, under what conditions, and why. I have a few comments and suggestions for areas to strengthen the paper further, which are outlined below. There are also a few, small typographical points which may be picked up in a robust copy edit, e.g., some words missing from the sentence in the first paragraph that starts “ By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers …”; there is a quotation mark in front of the word “ systematising ..” in paragraph 2; at the bottom of page 5, it should be ‘Wales Centre…’ not " Welsh Centre …"; top of page 6, " BA " should be 'AB'; middle of page 6, it should be “funders do not appear to be using…” rather than “ being using …”; etc. These are small and infrequent but would perfect the paper. Comments and suggestions The paper would benefit from elaborating a bit more (e.g., within the section on the role of the team) on the ARI fellowship design, and the specific activities undertaken that generated the insight that underpins the claims made later in the paper (e.g., in the middle of page 4 about what universities and academics find useful about ARIs, how UPEN functions as an intermediary, and points about competition and duplication arising from direct engagement). It would be worth making it clear for a broad base of readers that two of the authors (KO and AB) were/are embedded researchers. It would also be very valuable to provide a brief explanation of embedded research and any assessment of evaluation as one among many mechanisms to enhance knowledge mobilisation. Given that it is a highly relational and engaged approach to brokering knowledge to support decision-making, it seems a highly appropriate approach to choose, particularly in light of limitations raised about efforts to merely ‘push’ research evidence out to policy. That said, the approach is not without difficulties (some of which may be captured in points made about the transactional costs of engagement and the lack of support and recognition for these roles and approaches). Is there an opportunity to reflect on this approach in the context of discussion about the benefits and challenges of mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation in response to government ARIs? The Wye et al. (2019) paper already cited could provide a starting point for conceptualising embedded research/ers. More importantly, it would be valuable to outline how the team designed their approach to maximise the potential of their fellowships to achieve the aims and avoid any pitfalls. I think it would be useful to provide a little more detail on the nature of the work of the team with government department analysts and policy teams, as well as with intermediaries, universities and researchers, in order to underpin the perspectives on ARIs that you report in the section on what ARIs are for. What kinds of interactions happened? How often? What was the purpose? Were there any limitations that should be taken into account? You note variation between government departments in the production of ARIs, differences in what they are intended for, and that not all government ‘evidence needs’ are/can be articulated as ARIs. These observations suggest implications for whether ARIs actually signal evidence need on the most important departmental research questions, as intended in the Nurse Review (N.B. could you provide the reference for the Nurse Review, 2015?). Even if we accept a flawed ‘deficit model’ that misrepresents policymaking processes (your critique here is very valid), it remains unlikely that evidence can inform decisions if the most important evidence needs are not articulated. It may be worth reflecting on this, alongside other points made about whether ARIs are likely to generate/stimulate the mobilisation of the most relevant and useful evidence for addressing policy priorities and to meet the stated ultimate aspiration for evidence to inform social change. This may strengthen the point that ARIs should be seen as providing a starting point for focused conversation and that their impact (and limits) under these conditions need to be better understood in order to inform a multi-method approach (including methods more likely to get to the most important policy research questions) for strengthening research-policy engagement on important topics of government priority that ARIs don’t cover. In the section on 'Strengths of ARIs: ARIs as a systems intervention', I wondered if the team had observed any impacts of ARIs in terms of enabling university-based intermediaries (e.g., policy engagement support within individual universities or within UPEN) to focus the ways they seek to coordinate and connect academics to government officials? I do not think the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) provides a good example of how ARIs work to connect academics with government officials. This is not core to WCPP's work or a typical activity for the Centre, but good examples are useful and may be found elsewhere. Finally, given that the paper stresses the importance of intermediaries and knowledge mobilisers/brokers (albeit underpinned by an urgently needed evidence base on what works), I think the conclusions would be strengthened by adding a point on actively supporting knowledge mobilisation around ARIs, which requires action and investment by funders, universities, intermediaries and government. The buy-in of these stakeholders may be crucial for plugging the evidence gap on effective mechanisms for better research-policy engagement. I think these comments are minor and overall this paper makes an important contribution to better understanding engagement with government ARIs. Thank you again for an enjoyable read. Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader? Yes Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests I work for an organisation - the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) - named in this research paper and I am a Vice-Chair of the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN). This is an unpaid role. One of the authors (Professor Annette Boaz) is on the Advisory Board of the WCPP. I have not, however, collaborated with any of the authors or been involved in this research in any way – which reports on their experience as ARI Policy Fellows in UK Government. I do not think that the way in which either the Centre or UPEN are discussed constitutes either an advantage or disadvantage. I make these statements purely for the purpose of full transparency. Reviewer Expertise Evidence use in policymaking; knowledge mobilisation; policy design and evaluation; loneliness and community wellbeing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Kathryn Oliver, Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK Responses: Thanks so much for your careful reading of our paper and apologies for the long delay in addressing these very helpful pointers. I have a few comments and suggestions for areas to strengthen the paper further, which are outlined below. There are also a few, small typographical points which may be picked up in a robust copy edit, e.g., some words missing from the sentence in the first paragraph that starts “ By enabling other government departments, funders, and researchers …”; there is a quotation mark in front of the word “ systematising ..” in paragraph 2; at the bottom of page 5, it should be ‘Wales Centre…’ not " Welsh Centre …"; top of page 6, " BA " should be 'AB'; middle of page 6, it should be “funders do not appear to be using…” rather than “ being using …”; etc. These are small and infrequent but would perfect the paper. Thanks, a careful proof read has been undertaken. Appreciate you taking the time to point these errors out. Comments and suggestions The paper would benefit from elaborating a bit more (e.g., within the section on the role of the team) on the ARI fellowship design, and the specific activities undertaken that generated the insight that underpins the claims made later in the paper (e.g., in the middle of page 4 about what universities and academics find useful about ARIs, how UPEN functions as an intermediary, and points about competition and duplication arising from direct engagement). Good suggestion, this has been done. It would be worth making it clear for a broad base of readers that two of the authors (KO and AB) were/are embedded researchers. Good suggestion, clarified It would also be very valuable to provide a brief explanation of embedded research and any assessment of evaluation as one among many mechanisms to enhance knowledge mobilisation. Given that it is a highly relational and engaged approach to brokering knowledge to support decision-making, it seems a highly appropriate approach to choose, particularly in light of limitations raised about efforts to merely ‘push’ research evidence out to policy. That said, the approach is not without difficulties (some of which may be captured in points made about the transactional costs of engagement and the lack of support and recognition for these roles and approaches). Is there an opportunity to reflect on this approach in the context of discussion about the benefits and challenges of mechanisms for knowledge mobilisation in response to government ARIs? The Wye et al. (2019) paper already cited could provide a starting point for conceptualising embedded research/ers. More importantly, it would be valuable to outline how the team designed their approach to maximise the potential of their fellowships to achieve the aims and avoid any pitfalls. Thanks for this suggestion, which gave me much food for thought. I agree the Fellow model deployed in our case was somewhat unusual as being both practical / delivery focused, and offering the opportunity for research and reflection about the model itself, with both elements built explicitly into the design of the fellowship. We have added some sentences in the ‘role of our team’ and discussion section to clarify this; however, a broader discussion is probably outside the scope of this paper which aimed to describe the production and use of ARIs for a wider audience. We would like to return to the question of the importance of embeddedness in more detail in a further paper – thanks for the suggestion. I think it would be useful to provide a little more detail on the nature of the work of the team with government department analysts and policy teams, as well as with intermediaries, universities and researchers, in order to underpin the perspectives on ARIs that you report in the section on what ARIs are for. What kinds of interactions happened? How often? What was the purpose? Were there any limitations that should be taken into account? Thanks, this has been added in the ‘how do departments produce ARIs’ sections. You note variation between government departments in the production of ARIs, differences in what they are intended for, and that not all government ‘evidence needs’ are/can be articulated as ARIs. These observations suggest implications for whether ARIs actually signal evidence need on the most important departmental research questions, as intended in the Nurse Review Even if we accept a flawed ‘deficit model’ that misrepresents policymaking processes (your critique here is very valid), it remains unlikely that evidence can inform decisions if the most important evidence needs are not articulated. It may be worth reflecting on this, alongside other points made about whether ARIs are likely to generate/stimulate the mobilisation of the most relevant and useful evidence for addressing policy priorities and to meet the stated ultimate aspiration for evidence to inform social change. This may strengthen the point that ARIs should be seen as providing a starting point for focused conversation and that their impact (and limits) under these conditions need to be better understood in order to inform a multi-method approach (including methods more likely to get to the most important policy research questions) for strengthening research-policy engagement on important topics of government priority that ARIs don’t cover. Thanks, great points and addressed in the discussion and actionable recommendations. (N.B. could you provide the reference for the Nurse Review, 2015?). Apols, added now In the section on 'Strengths of ARIs: ARIs as a systems intervention', I wondered if the team had observed any impacts of ARIs in terms of enabling university-based intermediaries (e.g., policy engagement support within individual universities or within UPEN) to focus the ways they seek to coordinate and connect academics to government officials? I do not think the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) provides a good example of how ARIs work to connect academics with government officials. This is not core to WCPP's work or a typical activity for the Centre, but good examples are useful and may be found elsewhere. Thanks, we had been referring to a specific discussion we set up between WCPP academics and government; reworded to make this clearer. Again, we think there are now many more examples to draw out which we will return to in a later paper. 8. Finally, given that the paper stresses the importance of intermediaries and knowledge mobilisers/brokers (albeit underpinned by an urgently needed evidence base on what works), I think the conclusions would be strengthened by adding a point on actively supporting knowledge mobilisation around ARIs, which requires action and investment by funders, universities, intermediaries and government. The buy-in of these stakeholders may be crucial for plugging the evidence gap on effective mechanisms for better research-policy engagement. A great point -thanks, added to the recs. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Durrant H. Peer Review Report For: Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :1509 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140062.r158048) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v1#referee-response-158048 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Areas of research interest: joining the dots...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Oliver K et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509", templates : { twitter : "Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government.... Oliver K et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/127542/195197") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "195197"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "456646": 0, "459079": 0, "456647": 0, "459078": 0, "456644": 3, "459077": 0, "456645": 0, "459076": 0, "456642": 0, "459075": 0, "456643": 0, "459074": 0, "456641": 4, "454478": 0, "454479": 0, "454477": 0, "456650": 0, "459083": 0, "459082": 0, "456648": 0, "459081": 0, "456649": 0, "459080": 0, "454486": 0, "454484": 0, "454485": 0, "454482": 0, "454483": 0, "454480": 0, "454481": 0, "450526": 0, "450525": 0, "158046": 0, "176606": 0, "158047": 0, "176607": 0, "176605": 0, "176610": 0, "176611": 0, "176608": 0, "158048": 36, "158049": 0, "176609": 0, "176614": 20, "176612": 0, "176613": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "d517d924-e913-42fc-abb9-b31dd662aced"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });