- Problem-Solver Session "Problems"
- Paper of the Year Nomination
- 'Biggest Reject' Moment
- Mentor of the Year
- Early Stage Investigator
NEW! Problem-Solver Session
HCSRN 2017 will debut a Problem Solving Session to help our colleagues get beyond a situation in which they are “stuck.” Part speed mentoring, part Meet the Experts, the session will focus on helping (primarily early career) investigators shape a research question into a potentially doable and fundable project. Greg Simon, Jennifer Elston Lafata, and Hal Luft have volunteered to serve as Problem Solvers for this session.
Format: This session involves small groups comprised of people with research problems—investigators seeking advice in how to design a doable project—and an experienced researcher willing to offer (without warranty) advice on how to move forward. Consultations will occur in a small group, round-robin environment so the advice offered may benefit not only the person whose problem is being addressed, but others who will be listening. Those presenting problems provide “implied consent” to having their material discussed in this setting. Problem Solvers make it clear they are not expert in everything. Assuming a sufficient number of people seeking advice, each Problem Solver will work in a small group setting to engage with up to 4 people seeking advice in an interactive process. At the end of the individual consultations, there will be time to discuss generalizable lessons.
At the beginning of the session, people will introduce themselves and briefly describe their problem. The Problem Solver will then engage with one person at a time with a problem to elucidate it for everyone and work with the individual while getting a sense of whether the suggestions offer a fruitful path to an eventual solution. Each problem will be discussed for about 15 minutes. The goal is for the researcher to gain valuable input that can be applied after the session toward a successful outcome.
Submission Process: Those who would like to receive assistance will submit answers to five questions to give the problem solvers background on the nature of the research question to be addressed, the researcher’s expertise, time and resource constraints, and approaches that have already been explored. Problem solvers will review and allocate the submissions based on fit with their areas of expertise.
In 3 sentences or less for each question, describe:
- The long term goal of your research program—not just this specific project.
- Your background/training/expertise.
- The critical research problem/question you are trying to address with this project. This could be a clinical, policy, or other question.
- What you have you already done to get this project started.
- The primary challenge you are facing as you move forward.
Submit your Problems here. If your problem is selected for discussion, you will be notified by Monday, March 13. There is no guarantee all problems submitted will be addressed in the session. Those not submitting problems are welcome to attend the sessions to glean insights.
For our 2017 Paper-of-the-Year we seek to recognize the best paper published in a peer-reviewed journal during 2016 that (1) was authored by an HCSRN researcher, and (2) illustrates the type of work that could only be done in HCSRN-like settings. The first criterion does not preclude papers jointly authored with people outside an HCSRN member organization. The second criterion is meant to highlight work that could not be readily done by researchers in academic or other settings with access only to public use data sets. For example, studies dependent on variables only present in the VDW would meet this criterion, but so would single-site studies that leveraged data and researcher access to operational leaders in the organization.
Nominations may be made by anyone, and the recipient need not be planning to attend the 2017 conference in order to receive the award.
Submit your nomination here describing how the submission meets criteria (1) and (2), and also (3) explaining the impact the paper has, or is likely to have, for science, research methods, health care delivery, policy, or patient outcomes. Include a pdf of the paper.
Decisions will be made by a subcommittee of the HCSRN Governing Board, and announced at the 2017 Conference in San Diego.
COULD YOU BE THE CHAMPION REJECT?
Once again this year, the HCSRN will celebrate our all-too-common experience of rejection. In addition to honoring the most noteworthy or spectacular rejection experience, we're especially interested in celebrating the Resilient Rejects. Have you been slapped down and bounced back up to success? Has your most-rejected paper turned into your most-cited one?
The winners (or losers?) will be publicly honored/humiliated at our welcome reception on Tuesday. All types of academic rejection are eligible (grant applications, manuscripts, abstracts, etc.). Being repeatedly swiped left on Tinder will be considered non-responsive to this announcement.
We all know that the most effective cure for shameful experience is strutting it. This is your chance to strut your rejection in front of all of your friends!
Please submit your rejection to email@example.com. There is no required form or format, but entries on paper stained with your own tears will be given special consideration.
As we prepare for our annual HCSRN meeting in San Diego, it is once again time to consider nominations for Mentor of the Year. We inaugurated this award last year, and are pleased to call for nominees again in 2017.
Have you had an individual within HCSRN who has provided extraordinary guidance and support for your career? Perhaps someone who has assisted you in moving forward in your career path or helped you to balance work life and personal life? An advocate who has acted as a teacher, a counselor or guide in a remarkable way? If so, pause for a moment and write a brief letter of nomination for that special HCSRN mentor.
Your letter should identify the mentor and their current position. Take a paragraph or two to describe the contribution this individual has made to your career development. Tell the nomination committee about why this individual is an extraordinary mentor.
The Mentor of the Year (2017) will be recognized at the upcoming annual HCSRN meeting. The author(s) of the nomination will be invited to read their nomination and participate in the recognition. All mentor nomination letters will be displayed to recognize all of the wonderful mentors in our network. We look forward to reading about your mentoring experiences!
Please submit your nomination to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Calling all Early Stage Investigators! You may be eligible to win the 2017 HCSRN Award for Best Abstract from an Early Stage Investigator.
Is the nominee an Early Stage Investigator? If the nominee is within 10 years of completing their terminal research degree or are within 10 years of completing medical residency (or the equivalent), and meets these criteria regarding federal funding for new and early stage investigators: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/new_investigators/index.htm, the nominee is an Early Stage Investigator.
Is the nominee the primary author on your HCSRN 2017 abstract? If the nominee has submitted an abstract to HSCRN 2017 and is the person primarily responsible for the work represented in the abstract, the nominee is the primary author.
If the nominee is an Early Stage Investigator AND primary author on a HCSRN 2017 abstract, they qualify for the HCSRN 2017 Early Stage Investigator Award. Continue reading for more information and to submit your nomination.
We want to recognize the best abstract (which could a poster or presentation on a panel) that primarily reflects the work of an Early Stage Investigator. Much of our research is collaborative, so some great presentations are largely a result of the team effort. For the Best ESI Abstract Award, we want to recognize outstanding work by an ESI, rather than outstanding work from the great teams on which an ESI may participate. In some situations, the ESI is clearly the person primarily responsible for the work. In other situations, an ESI has created an innovative add-on to a large, on-going project. To collect information about the early investigator’s “role” if the ESI is not the PI, we are also asking for a statement from the Principal Investigator (PI) of the project underlying the abstract. If the abstract is not tied to a specific project, please have a senior person in your organization complete the PI form.
Click here to submit your Early Stage Investigator Nomination.