In this issue.

This second issue of 2004 will be published initially in electronic form on the SRA web site. In addition it will be joined with the spring issue of 2004 and published in print form as volume 35. The print volume will be distributed to the SRA members and journal subscribers.

Ethical issues continue to provide research administrators with topics for discussion. Meanwhile, other authors have solved complex problems and are willing to share their solutions. From research to case studies, this issue has a variety of articles on many topics of interest to research administrators.

The University of Prince Edward Island authors Phillip Smith, Colleen MacQuarrie, Rosemary Herbert, David Cairns, and Lorraine Begley wrote "Preventing Data Fabrication in Telephone Survey Research" when they learned that the survey firm they'd hired to conduct telephone interviews had jeopardized their research project by fabricating some of the data. The authors wrote this article to alert the research community to the possibility that fraud may occur independently of the researchers. This paper cites advantages and disadvantages of a number of strategies in six possible topic areas. The wide audience of the journal can draw attention to the problem and help investigators by informing them of the potential problem and suggesting that they address the problem in the initial survey plan. The authors suggest that the profession establish standards of professionalism and recommend they develop an accreditation process for survey firms.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Canada, Europe and the United States increasingly are dealing with research studies emerging from the social and behavioral sciences and the humanities. As a result, researchers from these disciplines have worried that IRBs are not sensitive to how human subject research in the social and behavioral sciences differs from biomedical research and unwittingly impose a biomedical model on the ethical review of their research. The fields of educational and professional research often employ "action research" methodologies, and the IRB's assessment of the potential risks frequently differs substantially from those the researchers identify. Michael Owen's article, "Conflict and Convergence: The Ethics Review of Action Research," identifies a number of these issues and, using case examples, illustrates how one university IRB interacted with action researchers to ensure that the IRB process did not impede the research while assuring itself that the issues of potential risks and harms were effectively addressed.

In "Effectiveness of Responsible Conduct of Research Instruction: Initial Findings," authors Francis L. Macrina, Carolyn L. Funk, and Kirsten Barrett explore whether mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects. The study investigators interview and evaluate a sample of NIH F32 postdoctoral fellowship awardees at different points in their training to determine the fellows' awareness, attentiveness, and behavioral judgments related to research ethics. This study includes a 3-wave telephone survey and web-based case study vignettes in one core area of RCR content, authorship and publication practices. The survey participants included fellows who had completed their RCR training prior to their fellowship, ones who had had no formal RCR training, and ones who were unaware of the RCR training requirement for F32 awardees. Initial comparisons between those who have and have not completed RCR training show only a few significant differences between groups. Awareness of authorship guidelines and ethically appropriate behavioral judgments were common among both groups. Analysis of the completed data set may afford a greater understanding of the effectiveness of RCR training and may suggest ways to improve RCR teaching.

The last couple of articles in this issue of the journal suggest practical solutions to everyday problems facing research administrators.

Department research administrators frequently need to provide background information to research sponsors on issues such as current or pending support for the participating researchers, the institution's review and approval processes for sponsored research, and the investigators' ability to complete the research program given their other commitments. Obtaining most of this type of information often requires accessing a number of unrelated databases, particularly when the research covers more than one project or more than one department. Mark Hughes, a departmental administrator himself, has developed a relational database using a readily available off-the-shelf program to link departmental data with system- or institutional-wide data. "Facilitating Sponsor Requests: A Relational Database Model for Project and Effort Reporting" will be of interest to research administrators who have large numbers of investigators on whom they must report time and effort, especially if their investigators are housed in a number of departments or are listed as co-investigators on a number of projects over several years.

Finally, we are pleased to introduce a new continuing feature in the journal: "Ask an Expert: Tips and Tools of the Trade." Herbert "Chuck" Chermside will be drawing on more than 25 years of experience in research administration to answer a variety of questions of interest to research administrators of all levels and backgrounds. Mr. Chermside has over 20 years experience of fiscal and administrative responsibility for both pre- and post-award at Virginia Commonwealth University, where he also served as the university's representative to the Council on Governmental Relations for over 20 years. An experienced writer, he has published seven articles in the journal and served more than one term on the journal's editorial review board. He is re-joining the journal both as author of this new column and as editorial review board member following his retirement from Virginia Commonwealth University. We hope this practical feature will be useful for our readers.

With this issue we also welcome several new members to the journal's editorial review board. Joining us since the last issue and listed in alphabetical order are the following new members: representing the Southern Section, Rosemary Biscardi, MBA, clinical research project manager at Palmetto Health in Columbia, SC; At-Large representative Herbert "Chuck" Chermside, newly retired as director of Sponsored Programs Administration at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Independent Nonprofit Section/Tech Transfer representative Phil Gardner, head of Technology Transfer Division of TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC; representative of the Midwest Section, Stephanie Hafner, grants specialist for Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, MO; hospital representative Angela Ibrahim, administrative director of the Research Center for Genetic Medicine of the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC; representing Departmental Administration, Erica Markham, grants manager of the Digestive Disease Center of Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; and representing the Commercial Section, Paul Waugaman, Principal of Technology Commercialization Group in Raleigh, NC.