Abstract
Background
Qualitative methods are essential to capture lived experience and contextual nuance, but many frontline data collectors in Nigeria lack systematic training. This study evaluated a structured, practice-oriented training for Site Research Coordinators (SRCs) across Nigeria’s implementation laboratories.
Methods
Twelve SRCs participated in a pre–post evaluation assessing core conceptual knowledge, informed-consent practices, interview preparation/conduct, and self-reported confidence and practice. Items were dichotomized and analyzed using exact McNemar tests and percentage-point change with 95% confidence intervals.
Results
The training produced a marked improvement in understanding the purpose of interview guides (8.3% → 91.7%; p = .002). Substantial absolute gains (+41.7 percentage points) were also observed in preparing open-ended questions and recognizing effective probing techniques; however, these changes did not reach statistical significance (p = .06), likely due to the small sample size. High baseline performance on ethical consent items limited measurable change. Across items with observed improvement, all discordant pairs reflected change from incorrect to correct responses, indicating consistent directional learning rather than random variation.
Conclusions
Short, practice-oriented training can produce meaningful improvements in specific qualitative-research competencies among SRCs. To translate these gains into durable field practice, training should be paired with supervised fieldwork, mentorship, and institutional supports. The study produced a practical training guide to support scale-up and future evaluation.
Keywords
Background
Qualitative research has gained increasing prominence in health and social sciences for its ability to capture nuanced, contextualized insights that are difficult to disentangle in quantitative inquiry.1,2 Consequently, strengthening qualitative research capacity through structured training has become a global priority in implementation science and health research capacity building.1,3 Techniques such as in-depth interviews and focus group discussions enable exploration of lived experiences, cultural influences, and social dynamics. However, qualitative approaches require distinct competencies that complement those used in quantitative inquiry. While quantitative methods emphasize standardization, measurement precision, and replicability, qualitative research depends on open-ended questioning, probing, reflexivity, and context-sensitive ethical engagement to explore lived experiences and meanings in depth. In this research, conceptual knowledge refers to accurate comprehension of qualitative principles and procedures, reported practice refers to participants’ self-reported use of those procedures, and field competence refers to observable performance during actual data collection. The present evaluation assessed the first two constructs, rather than direct on-site interviewing performance. Without adequate preparation, data collectors risk producing superficial transcripts, poorly phrased questions, and inadequate probing, which compromise the trustworthiness and depth of research findings.4,5
Research focused training programs in various contexts have demonstrated encouraging results. For instance, structured short courses have been shown to significantly improve participants’ knowledge, confidence, and research output.6-8 A study reported that the first cycle of the Structured Operational Research Training Initiative (SORT-IT) in China, involving 12 participants, yielded strong outcomes, with all trainees completing the four required milestones (sequential submission of research protocol for ethical approval, preparation of data collection and analysis tools, provision of proof of completed data collection and submission of a complete manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal) and 92% publishing manuscripts in peer-reviewed international journals within 18 months. 6 Another study found that African-led health research consortia, such as the Sub-Saharan African Network for TB/HIV Research Excellence (SANTHE) initiative, which prioritise training, mentorship, and local ownership, have demonstrated promising improvements in research capacity and leadership across the continent, although the authors note that large-scale implementation and long-term sustainability are still evolving. 8 Nonetheless, sustaining these improvements is often difficult due to barriers such as limited mentorship, 9 resource constraints, 10 and competing professional obligations, 11 particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
Across Africa, the need for qualitative research expertise remains acute but under-addressed. Despite heavy disease burdens, many low- and middle-income country research systems continue to publish disproportionately fewer qualitative studies and face structural capacity constraints.12,13 For example, many institutions report that team members lack formal training in qualitative methods, limiting their roles to data collection rather than study design or analysis. 14 This situation has prompted initiatives such as hybrid workshops and communities of practice to strengthen skills and foster sustainability. While these programs are promising, their long-term impact is often limited by systemic barriers including lack of funding and inadequate institutional support. 15
Nigeria reflects these challenges acutely. Data quality concerns have been repeatedly documented in development and health projects, with transcripts often reflecting rigid adherence to interview guides and minimal probing.16,17 Many research assistants are trained primarily in quantitative methods and acquire qualitative responsibilities on the job, leading to gaps in understanding the inquiry techniques, analytical listening skills, and depth required in qualitative inquiry. Although qualitative research training workshops in Nigeria have shown improvements in confidence and produce richer data, formal published evidence on their impact remains limited. Existing evaluations of research training have largely focused on general research capacity, 18 while systematic assessment of knowledge and practice specific to qualitative methods is lacking. Importantly, few published Nigerian studies to date have reported pre- and post-training scores dedicated to qualitative research knowledge.1,19 Also, based on our view, only a limited number of practical guides have attempted to translate training evaluations into guidance specifically tailored for data collectors.
Addressing this evidence gap is crucial, as Nigeria’s research workforce increasingly engages in studies where qualitative methods are central. This study therefore examines the effectiveness of a structured training intervention for Nigerian data collectors, employing pre- and post-test assessments to evaluate changes in qualitative research knowledge and reported practice. In addition, it seeks to develop a practical guide, informed by the assessment findings, to support ongoing training and capacity development among frontline research staff in similar low-resource settings.
Methods
Design and Setting
This study employed a quantitative pre–post interventional (quasi-experimental) design, in which the same participants were assessed before and after a structured training to determine changes in qualitative research knowledge and self-reported practice. Such a design is appropriate for evaluating program effectiveness in real-world settings where randomization is not feasible, as it allows direct measurement of change over time within the same group of participants. 20 Although an initial training series was delivered in 2023 without the collection of evaluation data, the structured pre–post training intervention evaluated in this study was implemented during the subsequent training conducted in 2024 across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones. Twelve of the twenty-one Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance–Model Innovation and Research Centers (NISA-MIRCs), also known as implementation laboratories, were purposively selected as training sites. 21 These centers were operated with support from the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through local partners, and form part of the ICON-3 Practice-Based Research Network (ICON-3 PBRN), which facilitates practice-based learning and implementation research across Nigeria. The training and evaluation (including pre- and post-assessments) were conducted between March and June 2024. The National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria, with the approval number: NHREC/O5/01/2008B-FWA00002458-1 RBO00002323 granted the approval to conduct this study.
Participants
Characteristics of SRC Participating in the Training
*PGD fields: Education, Management, and Public Health (one SRC each).
Inclusion criteria comprised site research coordinators responsible for coordinating research activities within selected implementation laboratories (12 sites across 10 Nigerian states spanning the six geopolitical zones) and available to participate in both the training and evaluation processes. Exclusion criteria included individuals not involved in data collection oversight or those unable to complete both pre- and post-training assessments.
The sample size was determined by the number of site research coordinators available across the selected implementation laboratories (one per site), as this study was conducted as a program-based training evaluation rather than a formally powered study; therefore, no a priori sample size calculation was performed.
Intervention
The intervention consisted of a structured training program developed to enhance SRCs knowledge and skills in qualitative data collection. The training covered foundational aspects of qualitative inquiry, including the formulation of exploratory research questions, the design and flexible use of interview guides, and ethical practices such as obtaining informed consent and safeguarding confidentiality. Attention was also given to the practicalities of preparing for interviews, including assembling tools and developing open-ended questions. A significant component emphasized effective interview conduct, with SRCs practicing probing techniques, encouraging elaboration, and avoiding leading or overly structured questioning. Reflexivity and strategies for ensuring data quality were embedded throughout the training to highlight the role of the researcher in shaping data richness.
The design and delivery of the training were informed by established adult learning theories, particularly experiential learning and situated learning. Experiential learning theory posits that knowledge is constructed through cycles of concrete experience, reflection, conceptualization, and active experimentation, making it especially suited to skill-based training such as qualitative interviewing. 23 In line with this framework, the training incorporated role-play exercises, iterative feedback, and reflective discussions to enable SRCs to actively practice and refine interviewing techniques. In addition, principles of situated learning were applied by embedding learning within realistic research scenarios, thereby allowing participants to develop context-sensitive skills that mirror actual field conditions.24-26 The training also reflected elements of communities of practice, in which learning occurs through shared engagement and peer interaction, as SRCs exchanged experiences and collectively problem-solved challenges encountered in qualitative data collection.27,28
The training was delivered through a blend of didactic sessions, facilitated discussions, and experiential learning. Role-play exercises allowed SRCs to simulate interviews and apply newly acquired techniques. Feedback from peers and facilitators reinforced learning and encouraged self-reflection. The facilitation team included PhD-prepared researchers with at least 10 years expertise in qualitative methodology and implementation science, ensuring that training content was both theoretically grounded and practically relevant.
Measures
Knowledge and practices were assessed using a structured questionnaire administered immediately before and after the training. Data were collected using a structured pre-test and post-test questionnaire administered before and after the training intervention. For clarity, the domains were interpreted as follows: conceptual knowledge covered understanding of qualitative research principles; reported practice covered self-reported preparation and conduct of interviews; and self-reported competence reflected participants’ perceived ability to apply qualitative methods. This study did not directly observe field performance during live interviews. The instrument assessed knowledge and reported practices in four domains: 1. Core conceptual knowledge (e.g., understanding qualitative research questions, purpose of interview guides, transcription practices). 2. Informed consent practices (e.g., study purpose, confidentiality, right to withdraw). 3. Interview preparation and conduct (e.g., preparing open-ended questions, using probing strategies, avoiding inappropriate techniques). 4. Self-reported competence (e.g., confidence in developing questions, experience using interview/FGD guides, obtaining informed consent).
Items included both multiple-choice and checklist-style questions, with correct responses defined according to established standards in qualitative research methodology. Data collection and management were conducted using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web-based application that facilitates real-time data entry, validation, and monitoring. 29 The full questionnaire used for the pre- and post-training assessment is provided as Supplemental File 1.
Analysis
Responses to questionnaire items were dichotomized as correct or incorrect. Items assessing inappropriate qualitative interviewing practices were reverse-coded such that correct responses reflected avoidance of these practices. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the distribution of responses across pre- and post-test assessments. To evaluate changes in paired categorical outcomes, McNemar’s test was employed. This test was chosen as it is specifically designed for analyzing pre–post changes in dichotomous variables within the same participants.30,31 McNemar’s test evaluates paired binary change by comparing the two discordant response patterns (incorrect→correct and correct→incorrect), which together determine whether change is asymmetrical. In addition to p-values, absolute percentage-point changes with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to quantify differences in correct responses between pre- and post-intervention assessments. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27, with an alpha level set at p < .05. The reporting of this study conforms to the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines 32 [see Supplemental File 2 for completed checklist].
Results
A total of 12 SRCs completed both pre- and post-intervention assessments. Findings demonstrate notable improvements in knowledge and practices related to qualitative research following the training intervention, although the magnitude of change varied across domains.
The demographic and professional characteristics of SRCs are presented in Table 1. The SRCs were predominantly female (66.7%) with a mean age of 34.8 ± 4.7 years. Educational qualifications were varied and included multiple bachelors of science in psychology, nursing, business administration, public health, and education. Those achieving master’s level education were in public health and computer science. This distribution indicates a multidisciplinary team bringing varied academic foundations relevant to health and social research. Importantly, the SRCs had only 1.9 ± 1.5 years of qualitative-research experience and only 25% had received any formal training in qualitative methods. More than half had previously conducted in-depth interviews (58.3%), whereas 41.7% had facilitated focus-group discussions or participated in qualitative data analysis (33.3%).
Changes in Knowledge and Practice Regarding Qualitative Research Methods Following a Training Intervention
1McNemar’s test was not performed due to a lack of change in all cases (perfect scores at both time points).
Core Conceptual Knowledge
The proportion of SRCs correctly identifying the purpose of an interview guide increased from 8.3 % at baseline to 91.7 % post-training (10 discordant pairs; exact McNemar p = .002), representing a substantial and statistically significant gain. Changes in understanding of qualitative research questions and purpose of transcription increased but did not achieve statistical significance.
Informed-Consent Practices
SRCs demonstrated strong baseline understanding of ethical components such as explaining study purpose, ensuring confidentiality, and affirming participants’ right to withdraw (≥83 % correct). Post-training increases in understanding of confidentiality increased, but none reached significance.
Interview Preparation and Conduct
Though statistical significance was not achieved, those reporting preparation of open-ended question lists increased from 50.0 % to 91.7 % (5 discordant; p > .05). Those recognizing “repeating key words” as an effective probing technique increased from 50.0 % to 91.7 % (p > .05). Smaller, non-significant improvements were also noted in the use of consent forms (58.3 % → 83.3 %), audio recording or note-taking (75.0 % → 83.3 %), and use of “Tell me more…” probes (75.0 % → 83.3 %). Items assessing avoidance of poor interviewing practice (e.g., skipping topics quickly, using pre-written answers) were correctly endorsed by all SRCs both pre- and post-intervention, precluding statistical testing.
Self-Reported Competence
SRCs reported increased confidence (66.7% to 91.7%) in developing qualitative questions, however, this change was not significant (p > .05). Similarly, self-reported competence developing interview or FGD guides and obtaining informed consent rose modestly from 83.3 % to 91.7 %, though not significantly (p = .99 for both). Only one item met the predefined α =.05 threshold; hence, no statistically supported conclusions can be drawn from the remaining domains.
Discussion
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a structured training program in strengthening qualitative research capacity among Nigerian SRCs. This group demonstrated moderate research experience but limited structured exposure to qualitative methodology. This study demonstrated that a short, structured, practice-oriented training can produce measurable gains in specific facets of qualitative research competence among SRCs, while also revealing persistent constraints that limit wider and more durable change. The clearest and most robust effect was on the conceptual understanding of the purpose of an interview guide, which rose from 8.3% to 91.7% post-training (p = .002). This result is important because conceptual misunderstandings about interview guides, treating them as rigid questionnaires rather than flexible frameworks, have been identified as a recurring problem in many low-resource research settings and are often a proximal cause of superficial data collection.1,33 The large absolute increase here indicates that targeted, explicit instruction combined with applied exercises (e.g., guide construction and role play) can rapidly correct core misconceptions and thereby create the conditions for richer interviewing practice.
Improvements in applied interviewing skills, including preparation of open-ended questions and the use of probing strategies, also showed substantial absolute gains, with a consistently unidirectional pattern of change (incorrect → correct). Although these changes did not reach statistical significance, the asymmetric distribution of discordant pairs (with virtually no regression from correct → incorrect) strengthens the inference that observed improvements reflect genuine learning rather than random variation. In practical terms, participants demonstrated increased readiness to design and implement interviews in ways that support depth, flexibility, and contextual sensitivity.3,6
These findings are consistent with experiential learning theory, which emphasizes that skill acquisition is strengthened through active engagement, reflection, and iterative practice rather than passive instruction alone. 23 The use of role-play and guided feedback in this training provided opportunities for SRCs to move through these learning cycles, thereby reinforcing both conceptual understanding and applied interviewing skills. Furthermore, the incorporation of peer interaction and shared reflection aligns with communities-of-practice theory, where learning is socially mediated and sustained through collaborative engagement. 28 This may help explain the consistently unidirectional improvements observed across several domains, even where statistical significance was not achieved. Furthermore, ceiling effects in consent-related items reflect strong pre-existing familiarity with research ethics, while moderate-to-large absolute gains in conceptual and interviewing domains underscore the value of targeted refresher training for applied qualitative researchers.
The diverse academic backgrounds of SRCs, with most holding bachelor’s or postgraduate degrees across both health-related and non-health–related fields, may have contributed to variations in baseline knowledge, particularly the stronger ethical-consent performance relative to conceptual and interviewing skills. This also suggests that the training was accessible and beneficial across different disciplinary foundations.
At the same time, there are several important limitations to this study. Ethical-consent items showed high baseline performance (≥83% correct), producing ceiling effects that limited observable change after training. These high baseline scores likely reflect prior exposure to ethics training and institutional compliance requirements, a pattern reported in similar settings. 12
However, high levels of stated knowledge do not necessarily translate into consistent enactment in real-world research practice. Previous studies have documented gaps between knowledge of informed consent procedures and their implementation, particularly in contexts shaped by language barriers, time constraints, and power dynamics. 15 Because this evaluation relied on immediate, self-reported measures rather than direct observation or transcript audits, the extent to which improved knowledge translated into changes in actual data collection behavior remains uncertain.
The mixed pattern of results highlights two complementary implications for training design. First, conceptual clarity modules (e.g., the role of the interview guide) are high-yield and should be frontloaded in brief workshops to maximize immediate gains. Second, applied competence such as probe selection, reflexive interviewing, transcription fidelity, appears to require iterative practice, mentoring, and supervised fieldwork to consolidate.3,8 This mirrors findings from structured operational research programs (e.g., SORT-IT) and African-led capacity initiatives, where training coupled with mentorship and protected time yields sustainable outputs.6,8 The SRCs’ modest prior exposure to formal qualitative training (25%) suggests that one-off workshops are insufficient to embed more advanced competences without follow-on supports.
Although this training was implemented within ICON-3 PBRN implementation laboratories, its core components are transferable to similar low-resource research settings. The structure, combining short didactic inputs with role-play, feedback, and guided reflection, can be replicated with modest resources. However, successful scale-up will depend on several minimum conditions, including access to facilitators with qualitative expertise, protected time for participants, structured training materials, and opportunities for post-training mentorship and supervision. Without these supports, gains achieved during short-term training may not translate into sustained improvements in field practice. The practical training guide developed through this study is intended to support adaptation and replication across comparable implementation contexts.
Methodological limitations further inform interpretation of these findings. The small sample size (n = 12) limited statistical power and precision, increasing the likelihood of type II errors for moderate effects. Future studies should be adequately powered to detect meaningful within-participant changes or aggregate improvements across domains.
In addition, reliance on dichotomized, self-reported items may obscure gradations in skill and depth of understanding. For instance, a response categorized as “correct” may still reflect only superficial comprehension. Where feasible, future evaluations should incorporate objective measures such as independently rated transcript quality, inter-rater coding of recorded interviews, or structured observation checklists to provide more robust evidence of field competence and data quality.1,3
The broader literature on research capacity building underscores persistent systemic barriers, including limited mentorship, resource constraints, and competing professional demands, which restrict the translation of training into routine practice.9-11 The present findings are consistent with this evidence, suggesting that while short-term gains are achievable, they may not be sustained without structural support.
To achieve durable impact, training programs should be embedded within a broader capacity-building ecosystem that includes longitudinal mentorship, communities of practice, protected time for research activities, and institutional recognition. 15 Such supports are essential for reinforcing skills, enabling practice, and preventing the decay of gains achieved during short-term training.
This evaluation provides cautious but constructive evidence that targeted, practice-oriented training can correct specific conceptual faults and improve applied interviewing behaviors among frontline SRCs. To convert these gains into lasting improvements in qualitative data quality, however, training must be embedded within a sustained, well-resourced capacity-building ecosystem that includes mentorship, field supervision, and objective measures of practice.
Implications
The findings highlight several important implications for strengthening qualitative research capacity. First, the marked improvement in understanding the purpose of interview guides suggests that training curricula should prioritize conceptual clarification early in the program, incorporating scaffolded, practice-based exercises such as developing open-ended questions and live role plays with immediate feedback to reinforce learning. Second, since the SRCs already demonstrated strong ethical knowledge, capacity-building initiatives should focus more on applied interviewing and data-quality skills, including probing, reflexive note-taking, and transcription accuracy, supported through supervised field mentoring to consolidate competence. Third, evaluations of such training should include both objective and aggregate measures, such as percentage-point change, discordant-pair counts, and transcript audits, to provide more reliable evidence of improvement beyond self-reports. Finally, lasting impact depends on embedding short workshops within a broader institutional ecosystem that ensures mentorship, protected time, and recognition for trained researchers, thereby translating short-term learning into sustainable qualitative research practice.9-11
Limitations and Future Directions
This study has several limitations. The small sample size (n = 12) limited statistical power and restricts generalizability of the findings. In addition, no a priori sample size calculation was performed, reflecting the program-driven nature of the sample, which limits statistical power and the ability to detect moderate effects. Additionally, variation in participants’ educational and disciplinary backgrounds meant that the study could not assess whether prior training or field influenced responsiveness to the intervention. Because only the 2024 training included structured evaluation, prior exposure to the 2023 training may have affected baseline scores and attenuated observable pre–post differences. Furthermore, the evaluation relied on immediate post-training assessment, limiting insight into the durability of observed gains over time.
Future research should address these limitations by including larger and more diverse samples, incorporating longitudinal follow-up to assess retention of skills, and integrating objective measures such as transcript audits, observed interviews, and supervised field practice. Such approaches would provide stronger evidence of real-world application and support assessment of scalability across settings.
Recommendations
In line with the second objective of this study, which was to develop a practical training guide informed by assessment findings, a structured, practice-oriented manual was successfully produced to strengthen qualitative research capacity among data collectors in Nigeria and comparable low-resource settings (see supplemental file 3 for practical guide). The guide addresses critical gaps in conceptual understanding, ethical engagement, interviewing techniques, transcription accuracy, and reflexivity, while reinforcing existing strengths. Emphasizing interactive, scenario-based learning and continuous mentorship, it promotes both immediate improvements in data quality and the long-term development of confident, independent qualitative researchers. Serving as a replicable framework for capacity building in similar LMIC contexts, this training guide represents a key translational output of the study. Full details and implementation tools are provided as supplementary material.
Conclusion
This pre–post evaluation indicates that a short, structured, practice-oriented training can substantially improve specific areas of qualitative-research competence among frontline SRCs, most notably, conceptual understanding of interview guides and applied probing techniques. While improvements were consistent and directionally unambiguous across items, limited sample size, ceiling effects, and reliance on self-report temper claims about the breadth and durability of impact. Scaled impact will likely require integration of training into sustained mentorship, institutional supports, and operational workflows that enable practice, feedback and retention.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Building Qualitative Research Capacity in Implementation Laboratories: Outcomes of a Structured Training Program in ICON-3 PBRN, Nigeria
Supplemental Material for Building Qualitative Research Capacity in Implementation Laboratories: Outcomes of a Structured Training Program in ICON-3 PBRN, Nigeria by Ngozi Idemili-Aronu, Stephanie Ibemere, John Oluwaseyi Jemisenia, Promise Starris-Onyema and Echezona Ezeanolue in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Building Qualitative Research Capacity in Implementation Laboratories: Outcomes of a Structured Training Program in ICON-3 PBRN, Nigeria
Supplemental Material for Building Qualitative Research Capacity in Implementation Laboratories: Outcomes of a Structured Training Program in ICON-3 PBRN, Nigeria by Ngozi Idemili-Aronu, Stephanie Ibemere, John Oluwaseyi Jemisenia, Promise Starris-Onyema and Echezona Ezeanolue in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the ICON 3 Practice-Based Research Network (ICON 3-PBRN), the Data Team at the IVAN Research Institute, and the Site Coordinators across all ICON 3-PBRN participating facilities for their invaluable support throughout the study.
Ethical Considerations
The study protocol was approved by the National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria, with the approval number: NHREC/O5/01/2008B-FWA00002458-1 RBO00002323.
Consent to Participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement in the study.
Author Contributions
NI, SI, PS, and EE conceptualized the study and developed the research design. NI and SI conducted data collection. JOJ performed the data analysis. NI, JOJ, and SI drafted the manuscript. PS and EE critically reviewed and edited the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript prior to submission.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
Transparent Statement
The corresponding author, JOJ, affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
