This allows you to specify if the Additional Question will appear to PI’s of the awards it is currently assigned to (even if an Additional Question is assigned to an award, if it is not enabled, the PI’s of those awards will not be able to see it or complete it).

This allows the research organisations that your funding organisation has specified are the location of each award to view the Additional Questions you have assigned to their respective awards. However, this only applicable if the research organisation in question has a paid subscription to Researchfish themselves, and if your funding organisation has enabled Data Sharing (if Data Sharing is disabled, the research organisation cannot see the awards at all).

This allows you to stipulate if a PI must complete an Additional Question section before they can submit the award the section is assigned to.

This allows you decide whether PI’s are required to answer the Additional Question section from scratch each submission period, or if they can re-use their previous answers, and if the latter, if they are required to confirm this. Below are the three options, and a description of each:

• Required on first submission then optional for subsequent submission periods (previously entered information will be visible to researcher)
  • PI’s must complete the Additional Question section in order to submit the corresponding award in the next submission period.If they need to submit the same award in future submission periods, they are not required to amend or confirm their previous answers at all. Their previous answers will automatically be used when they submit the award again.
• Required on first submission and required to confirm / update on subsequent submission periods (previously enteredinformation will be visible to researcher)
  • PI’s must complete the AdditionalQuestion section to submit the corresponding award in the next submission period. If they need to submit the same award in future submission periods, they must access the Additional Question section again, where they will see their previously entered answers.They can then choose to either update these answers or leave them intact. They will be unable to submit the award until they choose one of these options.
• Required to complete in full every submission period (previously entered information will not be visible to researcher)
  • PI’s must complete the AdditionalQuestion section in order to submitthe corresponding award in the next submission period.If they need to submit the same award in future submission periods, they must access the Additional Questionsection and answerall questions again from scratch.

Aim
‘Common Additional Questions’ are defined as sets of Mandatory Additional Questions which are used by more than one funder.

The current common additional question sections are:
• Animal Use [rcuk-animal-use]

Researchfish Common Additional Questions Overview

• Academic meetings and conferences attendance [meetings-conferences]
• Patient and Public Involvement [cross-funder-common-PPI]

This document outlines the questions within each of the above sections, and also which stakeholders have access to which ones, i.e. which stakeholders can potentially ask users to answer a specific set of additional questions for one or more award. This document is publicly available so that funders, research organisations, researchers and any other stakeholders can have a full understanding of the common additional questions, how they are used and potentially by which organisations.

Basic principles of additional questions

• This functionality enables stakeholders to collect information that they need which is not collected as part of the common question set.
• Additional questions are applied to an individual award and must therefore be completed separately for each award.
• Additional questions are mandatory, this means that they have to be completed before the award can be submitted. As such each section of additional questions must be structured with this in mind and include a leading question which enables the user to complete the section of questions even if they don’t have something to report. 
• Funders can set criteria for how each additional question is handled e.g. whether it is cleared after each submission so that the user needs to fill it in again next time, or if they can update the previously entered information. 

Animal Use section

Section Guidance Text
The aim of this section is to capture information on:
• animal usage during this research project
• how researchers have applied the 3Rs in their project, to include both what was planned at the beginning of the project to implement the 3Rs and anything implemented during the course of the project to further reduce, refine or replace the number of animals used and whether this has led to significant changes in the way the project was carried out

Questions
Has your research involved use of animals that are covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (https://www.gov.uk/research-and-testingusing-animals)? 
(YES/NO)
If YES, directed through all questions below.
If NO, directed to last two questions in section.
If yes, please select the species of animal from the list below. (You will then be asked to 
answer questions for each species of animal used). (CHECK LIST)
 

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE REPEATABLE FOR EACH TYPE OF ANIMAL USED What have you done about implementing the 3Rs in this programme/project? Definitions of the 3Rs can be found at www.nc3rs.org.uk/3Rs (CHECK BOXES – MULTIPLE)
• Replaced some animal use with alternative technique
• Reduced number of animals required (e.g. improved experimental design or
• statistical analysis)
• Changes resulting in downgrading of severity limits for procedures/protocols
• Avoidance of specific procedures or adverse effects (e.g. surgery, restraint,
• paralysis, death, infection)
• Objective indicators of improved animal welfare (e.g. reduced mortality rates,
• faster recovery times, physiological measures)
• Improved housing, including environmental enrichment
• Substitution by a species of lower neurophysiological sensitivity
• Other (please explain)

Was anything changed during the course of the project to further reduce, refine or replace animal use? (YES/NO)
Please give a brief description, including details of alternative techniques used and note any subsequent impacts. (TEXT)
Has your work led to the development of any refinements or new methods with potential 3Rs impacts that could be shared/adopted by others? (YES/NO)
If yes, briefly describe these here and the scale of the actual and potential impact e.g. local practice, national policy etc. Please note that if appropriate these should be reported in full in the relevant section of Researchfish such as influence on policy, research tools & methods etc, and need only be referred to here. (TEXT)

Academic meetings & conference attendance section
Section Guidance Text
Please tell us about:
- any academic meetings or conferences you or colleagues have attended, and in what capacity, as a result of the funding from this award.
Do not tell us about:
- Any published conference proceedings, as these can be inputted into the Publications section.
- Where you or a member of the research team attended as a keynote or invited speaker, as this can be inputted into the Awards & Recognition section.

Questions
Is there any conference attendance associated with this award? [Yes/No]
Name of meeting/conference [Text box]
Date of meeting/conference [month/ year]
Location of meeting/conference [List]
• Local/Municipal/Regional
• National
• Europe
• Africa
• Asia
• North America
• South America
• Oceania

If there is a URL which relates to this meeting/conference, enter it here [Text box] 
Primary role in meeting/conference [List]
• Member of the Organising or Selection Committee
• Oral presentation (not included in published conference proceedings)
• Poster presentation (not included in published conference proceedings)
• Session/Workshop chair/panel member
• Attendee only

Description of meeting/conference [Text box]
Position of the team member attending the meeting/conference [Text box]

Patient and Public Involvement section
Section Guidance Text
These PPI questions were initially developed following discussions with Researchfish, Arthritis Research UK, Parkinson’s UK, Marie Curie, CRUK, NIHR and INVOLVE. These have subsequently been joined by several other funders, all of which have expressed a desire to explore using Researchfish tool to understand better the impact patient and public involvement has. In developing these questions a number of underlying factors have been considered, including:
• Researchfish is perhaps best used as a tool to assess baseline information from across a funding portfolio. The data that are collected doesn’t always fulfil a need directly but instead gives an indication of where funders might explore issues further using other approaches, such as other information sources, interviews or detailed case studies.
• The reporting burden on the research community is already significant, therefore data should only be asked for where there is a clear mandate and capability and capacity to analyse those data, and where there is no duplication (eg with other question sets within Researchfish). This information should also be asked for in the most simple way possible.
• Different funders are at different stages of development in terms of how they encourage and support PPI, therefore the questions used need to be able to cope with a wide spectrum. In addition, funders support a wide range of research disciplines, types and approaches – from bench to bedside and everything in between – and these are at different stages of development in terms of the conceptualisation of PPI.
• Funders would find useful a range of information – some of which relates to descriptive and monitoring information, some of which gives further insight into the benefits and difference involving people has made.

Questions
Q1: Have you involved patients and/or members of the public in your research? 
A1: *Yes/No/**Not applicable/Unknown 

**Q2 [Only for those answering Not applicable to Q1] Why was PPI not applicable in your research? 
A2: [Free text] 

*If Q1 answered Yes. Q3: How have patients and the public been actively involved in your research? (Please indicate all that apply) 
A3: Multiple selection, check list
• Prioritising the research question(s) 
• Developing the application for funding 
• Design of the research 
• Management of the research 
• Undertaking the research 
• Analysing and interpreting the data generated by the research 
• Writing up of the research 
• Dissemination of research findings 
• Implementing research findings or recommendations 
• Other (please give details of how patients and the public were involved in your study) [Free text] 
• Not applicable (please explain why involving patients and the public was not applicable to your study) [Free text] 

Q4: What factors contributed to the success of the patient and public involvement in your research? (Please indicate all that apply) 
A4: Multiple selection, check list
• Involving people throughout the research cycle 
• Effective building of relationships and trust 
• Close and effective collaborative ways of working 
• Good information, training and support 
• Building on existing relationships 
• Sufficient resources to support effective involvement 
• Enthusiasm and commitment of all involved 
• No success factors 
• Other (please describe the other factors that have contributed to successful involvement) [Free text] 

Q5: What have been the challenges of involving patients and the public in your research? (Please indicate all that apply) 
A5: Multiple selection, check list
• Maintaining relationships and continuity over time 
• Nature of condition can affect ability to be involved 
• Small number of people or appropriate people are difficult to engage 
• Lack of resources to support effective involvement
• difficulty in finding appropriate ways to communicate and engage 
• Finding the 'right' people to involve 
• Concerns about how 'representative' views are 
• No challenges 
• Other( please describe the other factors that have made involving people challenging) [Free text] 

Q6. What difference do you think patient and public involvement in your research has 
made to your research? 
A6: [Free text] 

The funders may each use these questions in different ways, for example some funders will assign them to all of the awards they collect information on and others to just some of them, also the timing of when they collect this information may differ. Any questions regarding a particular funders use of these additional questions should be addresses directly to that funder.

If you would like to understand more about how these common additional question sections are used by other funders, please reach out to the Researchfish client support team via rfclientsupport@elsevier.com

- The development of and changes to the common additional questions will only be made following consultation and/or communication with all stakeholders that use that set of additional questions. This will usually take place via the convening of a task and finish group.
- Researchfish will provide oversight for the common additional questions, and provide any facilitation where necessary for bringing together the relevant stakeholders for each set of additional questions. 
- It is recommended that Common Additional Questions should only be added to awards that are Response code 1 or 4