Author Archives: INASP

AuthorAID partners meeting reveals shared optimism for the future of research capacity building

AuthorAID partners meeting, Tanzania, December 2016. ——————————————————————————————————————— –  Blog post by Jennifer Chapin, Programme Manager, Research and Communication, AuthorAID In December, for the first time, we held a two-day meeting of the six African AuthorAID partner institutions that are embedding AuthorAID research-writing training into their institutions. Working more closely together will help research institutions in Tanzania and beyond to tackle the many challenges facing African higher education today – challenges such as addressing gender equity, getting research published in reputable and appropriate journals, and training early career researchers in ways that are appropriate for their situations and their institutions. This was one of the highlights of the AuthorAID partners meeting that was held in Dar Es Salaam in December 2016. Our embedding partners represent a cross-section of academics and researchers, ranging from large multi-college universities, to smaller universities that focus on distance education, to research institutes that work closely with … Continue reading

Comments Off on AuthorAID partners meeting reveals shared optimism for the future of research capacity building

Five free evidence networks to follow

Networking at VakaYiko Symposium


– Blog post by Agnes Becker, EIPM communications support, INASP

Learning from international development colleagues who are also passionate about evidence use in policymaking inspires us and helps us feel connected. Networks are a great way of finding out who is doing what, when and where. Here are a few of our favourite free networks (in no particular order):

Africa Evidence Network

The Africa Evidence Network is a community of people who work in Africa and have an interest in evidence, its production and use in decision-making. The Network includes researchers, practitioners and policy-makers from universities, civil society and governments. The aim of the Network is to link people and activities across various initiatives, organizations and fields working to produce and use better evidence in Africa. The network does this through online communications and conferences.

Membership: free

Twitter: @Africa_evidence

Research to Action

Research to Action is a website catering for the strategic and practical needs of people trying to improve the uptake of development research. This is more of a resource bank than a network but you can request to post resources and blogs, comment on posts and get regular updates via Twitter.

Browse and submit resources for free

Twitter: @Research2Action

Alliance for Useful Evidence

The Alliance is a UK-wide network that promotes the use of high quality evidence to inform decisions on strategy, policy and practice in the UK and internationally. The Alliance does this through advocacy, publishing research, sharing ideas and advice, and holding events and training. Their website hosts a blog and free publications database.

Membership: free

Twitter: @a4uevidence

Evidence Based Policy in Development Network

The evidence-based policy in development network is a community of development professionals interested in the intersection between evidence, policy and practice. The network aims to establish a worldwide community of practice for think tanks, policy research institutes and similar organisations working in international development, to promote more evidence-based, pro-poor development policies. Join discussions and access resources by becoming a member for free.

Membership: free

International Network for Government Science Advice

International Network for Government Science Advice provides a forum for policy makers, practitioners, academies, and academics to share experience, build capacity and develop theoretical and practical approaches to the use of scientific evidence in informing policy at all levels of government. The network does this by sharing information online, holding workshops and working groups, and producing articles and discussion papers.

Membership is free

Twitter: @INGSciAdvice

Which evidence networks are you part of? Let us know in the comments.


Using evidence to mainstream gender in policy making

Gender Centre for Research and Training running a workshop in training to policymakers on mainstreaming gender in development policies and practices. – Blog post by Amira Osman, Co-founder of the Gender Centre for Research and Training, Sudan Gendered evidence is important for policy making because it gives policy makers and development planners a clear picture on the gender needs of the population they are targeting. In recent years, this need has received greater attention. However, there are still numerous barriers and challenges to mainstreaming gender in programmes and policies. To discuss this, a breakout session was held at the VakaYiko symposium in Accra on 5 October 2016. Policy makers, researchers and civil society organisations from countries in Africa, Latin America and Europe joined the discussion. Also present, was a Regional Director from the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection in Ghana, who shared a practical perspective on challenges and … Continue reading

Posted in Blog, EIPM, Gender, General | Tagged , | Comments Off on Using evidence to mainstream gender in policy making

Evidence Spotlight: Towards better use of evidence in Parliaments – The experience of the Parliament of Uganda?

John Mugabi Bagonza, Director of the Department of Research Services at Parliament of Uganda, shares the Department’s model with VakaYiko colleagues from Ghana and Zimbabwe at the 2016 VakaYiko Symposium in Accra

– Guest Post by Sunday Olishe Etrima, Research Officer-Parliament of Uganda

INASP’s Evidence-Informed Policy Making team is working with the Parliament of Uganda to improve the use of evidence in decision-making.

Uganda’s constitution places a huge mandate on the Parliament of Uganda to make decisions that serve the interests of the nation and its people. But this is only possible if parliamentary decisions are supported with valid, relevant and well-researched evidence. In other words, decisions must be informed by technical advice built on a strong foundation of evidence and analysis.

In the Parliament of Uganda, it is the duty of the Department of Research Services (DRS) to ensure that parliamentary decisions are backed with evidence. The DRS does this in a number of ways:

Building capacity to providing to Members and Committees of Parliament

The DRS has recently repositioned itself with the aim of providing and promoting more evidence and quality analysis to Members, Committees and Staff of Parliament. As part of the repositioning, the DRS has evolved from a small unit of only twelve staff within the Department of Library, Research and ICT, to being a fully-fledged Department with 39 staff members. This has enhanced the capacity of the DRS to provide evidence to facilitate parliamentary work and addressed some glaring evidence supply deficiencies.

Generating its own multidisciplinary evidence

The DRS is an evidence generation unit in its own right, housing economists, statisticians, accountants, lawyers, social workers, engineers, political scientists, agriculturalists, environmentalists and mineral experts. The DRS’ key research products include fact sheets, regular research reports, bill analysis reports, committee issue briefs, policy analysis reports, committee field visits, and meeting notes. In addition, new products such as constituency profiles, one page summaries and talking points for Members of Parliament (MPs) have been developed and are highly in demand by MPs.

Although proactive research on topical issues is very much encouraged, the DRS generally produces evidence in response to demand from different individuals or organs of parliament. Clients include individual MPs, Committees and Offices of the Parliament. Research requests are placed through the Director of Research Services and the work is assigned to the relevant researcher(s). It should be noted that research outputs are on the increase: in the first quarter of the Financial Year 2016/17, the DRS produced 129 more reports than planned, exceeding its target by 64%. This clearly demonstrates increased demand for research products.

Stimulating demand for evidence

Where there is less demand for evidence, the DRS also focuses on stimulating it, chiefly among Members and Committees of Parliament. This has been done through various strategies, perhaps the most prominent and recent of which was a ‘Research Week’ in August 2016 held to raise awareness of DRS research services among new members of Parliament in the tenth Parliament.  Another approach is making presentations to MPs and Committees on the importance of using evidence in their legislative, oversight and representative roles.

Ensuring the quality of in-house research

It is DRS’s strategy to continuously improve the quality of the evidence it generates. For instance, over the past two years, researchers have received training in bill analysis, policy analysis, report writing, committee briefing, science communications, data visualization, and other areas as part of a deliberate effort to build staff capacity in the department. This training was made possible with financial resources from the Parliamentary Commission and development partners such as INASP. As a result, the DRS’ capacity to generate more and better-quality evidence has improved significantly. The knock-on effect is that the department has earned the trust of the Parliamentary Commission, and now executes assignments in-house that were previously done by externally hired consultants. For instance, the DRS currently undertakes training needs assessment for the Institute of Parliament Studies.

Building strong systems to support evidence generation and use

Lastly, the quest of the DRS to ensure better use of evidence in Parliamentary work is rooted in building strong systems to support increased supply and demand for evidence in the legislative, representative and oversight functions of the Parliament of Uganda. To this end, the DRS has developed research guidelines and manuals to support its mandate. It is also developing a website and workflow system to share its products internally and externally, and finalizing collaborative arrangements with key research institutions and think tanks to create a pathway to allow the enormous amount of evidence produced by such institutions to be used in the policy arena.

That’s not to say there aren’t still some challenges: increasing number of MPs and Committees of Parliament that increases demand for work, limited funds to finance field studies among others. However despite these issues, the DRS is making good progress, and we hope to see increasing engagement with quality, relevant evidence by Parliament going forward.

Posted in EIPM, General | 6 Comments

Journal publishing in Nepal is challenging

– Dr. Mina Nath Paudel is Editor In-Chief of the Agronomy Journal of Nepal & Chief of the National Agriculture Genetic Resource Centre (Gene Bank) in Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal. We asked him about his experiences of publishing his society’s journal and using the NepJOL platform.

In this photo, Dr Poudel shows effects of Climate Change on agricultural production in Nepal. Read more about his research in the INASP press release based on his article published on NepJOL. Photo credit: Thakur Amgai

How did your journal start?

The Agronomy Society of Nepal (ASON) was formed in 1994. We started publishing our first journal – ‘Agronomy Journal of Nepal’ – when I became its president in 2010 with an aim to publicize scientific works done by scientists in this field. The first volume of ‘Agronomy Journal of Nepal‘ was published in 2010. This year (2016) we have recently published its fourth volume.

 How did you get online presence?

We wanted the journal to have wider readership in Nepal and abroad. We had limited copies in print and not everyone could afford a subscription. Even this year, we published only 300 copies. So, we wanted to keep it online and give full and free access to anyone who wanted to read it. We registered a website and paid for a year’s hosting. But the account got suspended after a year as we did not have enough funds to renew subscription to the website.

I started searching on the internet for options to put the journal online for free. I landed on the NepJOL platform and found that it was exactly what I was searching for. I looked for the correspondence address. I found Sioux* Cumming’s name and email and I corresponded with her. She replied and offered to help and the journal was uploaded onto NepJOL in February 2013. Ms Sioux was kind enough to keep Agronomy Journal of Nepal (Agron JN) online giving all the help and technical assistance we required. Up to this day this journal is online due to the help and cooperation provided by Ms Sioux and her team at INASP.

What has been the result?

We got more viewers for our journal after we put it online. Many people call and tell me that they have read the articles online and comment about the articles. So much circulation would not have been possible with only hard copies. We have also formed a Google group of agronomists and we have regular discussions about the journal, research articles published on it and other related issues, after a journal is published. I have also received submission enquiries from authors in foreign countries after putting the journal online.

How has INASP supported your journal?

A few years after putting the journal online on NepJOL, I got an opportunity to take a training course on journal editing and publishing with INASP at Tribhuvan University Central Library in Kathmandu. The training was quite fruitful as I learned a lot of new things. In particular, I learned about Digital Object Identifiers (DOI), something I had never heard of before. Likewise, I learned standards of citation. And most importantly, I learned the nuances of plagiarism. In Nepal, although we have heard about plagiarism, we don’t know much about it. I think plagiarism might have affected some of the papers in our journal in the past  despite our efforts  to discourage it.

Plagiarism & Journal Quality in Nepal

Plagiarism is, arguably, the single biggest challenge in journal publishing in Nepal. Many articles submitted for publication are poorly presented, do not follow the prescribed format and submission guidelines and are heavily plagiarized. Often submitters, especially students, are unaware that ‘plagiarism’ is wrong. They are unaware on how to present a research article because they may not have been taught about it in university. Most of the students graduating in Nepal don’t know what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. Plagiarism is still an issue even in research articles submitted by university teachers and other researchers. Editors, too, face a problem in quality control because they may not be fully aware of plagiarism checking tools.

Presentation of journal articles is another big issue. Often Nepali writers of journal articles present the results and skip the discussion part, thinking that discussion is not required when the results are presented. The discussion or the analysis is the core of any research findings, but many Nepali authors just present the tables and data and move directly into the conclusions without presenting the discussion.

The problem is not unique to Nepal. It is a common trend among many developing countries including South Asian countries. This is the reason that professors in many reputed universities advise their students against citing journal articles published in these countries barring exceptional cases.

What is the situation of publishing and being published in Nepal?

Journal publishing in Nepal is not easy. The awareness level is low and journal publishing and writing for journals is not considered highly even in research and teaching institutions. It is often considered to be a chore. Students at Masters’ Level and Doctorate level write journal articles for academic purposes; university teachers and other academicians write articles or publish journals for promotion or other career gains. Carrying out research, writing journal articles and publishing journals with the pure intention of contributing to the enrichment of knowledge in a field of study is not seen to be high priority. There are exceptions to it as well and one can find dedicated and bonafide researchers in Nepal too.

Resource constraint is a big challenge in publishing journals. Professional societies and universities alike lack funds to publish good journals. Researchers lack funds to carry out good research. The lack of resources is reflected in the quality of journal articles. As a result, journals don’t receive good articles for publishing while authors find it difficult to get published because they don’t meet the standard criteria.

What positive signs are there?

Given Nepal’s short history of journal publishing – spanning only about half a century – the progress is quite impressive, although we still have a long way to go to elevate Nepal’s journals to an international standard.

Researchers should be encouraged in Nepal. Reviewers must get some incentives. With better training opportunities and exposure, researchers will be better motivated. Opportunities to present their papers in national and international seminars will incentivize them to work harder on it. It’s a gradual process, and it will progress in coming days. We have come a long way since the publication of the first journal in Nepal, which, interestingly, also happens to be a journal in agriculture – Agriculture Journal of Nepal. Unfortunately, this journal has now ceased to publish. Personally, I have strong interest and commitment to improve journal quality in Nepal and I will continue working on it even after my retirement from office.

Any final words?

I am happy that INASP has taken the initiative to promote research articles by writing their press releases and circulating to the media for wider coverage. It is the first time I have been approached this way for comments on a research article published on our journal, and for sharing my experience in journal writing and publishing in Nepal. It’s a big boost to the morale of researchers and journal publishers like us.

About Dr Mina Nath Paudel

Mina Nath Paudel is a leading agronomist in Nepal. He is a Principal Scientist at the Nepal Agricultural Research Council. Currently he is posted as the chief of the National Agriculture Genetic Resource Centre (Gene Bank). He has been the President of the Agronomy Society of Nepal (ASoN) since 2010. He is the Editor-In-Chief of the Agronomy Journal of Nepal (Agron JN), a peered reviewed professional journal published jointly by ASoN and Crop Development Directorate. Dr Paudel holds a PhD in Crop Production and Management from the University of the Philippines at Los banos (UPLB) in Philippines and MS in Agriculture Planning and Management from the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok.

* Sioux Cumming
is a Programme Manager, Journals Online at INASP. She has worked on and managed INASP’s Journals Online project since 2003. During this time she has helped establish and maintain eight JOLs platforms, which together host over 340 journals. Her role involves identifying new journals for the project; recording and publishing usage statistics; working with the editors of the journals to load new issues; and keeping the information about the journals as up to date as possible.

This interview was conducted by Thakur Amgai, Communications Consultant at INASP, on September 27, 2016 in Lalitpur, Nepal.


Posted in AuthorAID, Blog, General, Interviews, NepJOL | Tagged , | Comments Off on Journal publishing in Nepal is challenging

Sustainability is a dynamic process

INASP has recently evaluated the long-term sustainability of projects under the Strengthening Research and Knowledge Systems programme. Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Fran Deans shares some of the findings. Continue reading

Tagged , Comments Off on Sustainability is a dynamic process