Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haven TL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583945 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Breaches of research integrity have shocked the academic community. Initially explanations were sought at the level of individual researchers but over time increased recognition emerged of the important role that the research integrity climate may play in influencing researchers' (mis)behavior. In this study we aim to assess whether researchers from different academic ranks and disciplinary fields experience the research integrity climate differently. We sent an online questionnaire to academic researchers in Amsterdam using the Survey of Organizational Research Climate. Bonferroni corrected mean differences showed that junior researchers (PhD students, postdocs and assistant professors) perceive the research integrity climate more negatively than senior researchers (associate and full professors). Junior researchers note that their supervisors are less committed to talk about key research integrity principles compared to senior researchers (MD = -.39, CI = -.55, -.24). PhD students perceive more competition and suspicion among colleagues (MD = -.19, CI = -.35, -.05) than associate and full professors. We found that researchers from the natural sciences overall express a more positive perception of the research integrity climate. Researchers from social sciences as well as from the humanities perceive less fairness of their departments' expectations in terms of publishing and acquiring funding compared to natural sciences and biomedical sciences (MD = -.44, CI = -.74, -.15; MD = -.36, CI = -.61, -.11). Results suggest that department leaders in the humanities and social sciences should do more to set fairer expectations for their researchers and that senior scientists should ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices and foster a climate in their group where suspicion among colleagues has no place.
| S-EPMC6338411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConcerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?MethodsFrom May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings.ResultsOne thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.
| S-EPMC8094603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.MethodWe constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised PPQ (PPQr) to a convenience sample together with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). To assess which items best measured publication pressure, we carried out a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was sufficient when Cronbach's alpha > 0.7. Finally, we administered the PPQr in a larger, independent sample of researchers to check the reliability of the revised version.ResultsThree components were identified as 'stress', 'attitude', and 'resources'. We selected 3 × 6 = 18 items with high loadings in the three-component solution. Based on the convenience sample, Cronbach's alphas were 0.83 for stress, 0.80 for attitude, and 0.76 for resources. We checked the validity of the PPQr by inspecting the correlations with the MBI and the WDQ. Stress correlated 0.62 with MBI's emotional exhaustion. Resources correlated 0.50 with relevant WDQ subscales. To assess the internal structure of the PPQr in the independent reliability sample, we conducted the principal component analysis. The three-component solution explains 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.75 for stress, attitude, and resources, respectively.ConclusionWe conclude that the PPQr is a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure in academic researchers from all disciplinary fields. The PPQr strongly relates to burnout and could also be beneficial for policy makers and research institutions to assess the degree of publication pressure in their institute.
| S-EPMC6454769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Survey of tomato fields to isolate fungal pathogens and characterize on the molecular and morphological basis.
| PRJEB28795 | ENA
Project description:ImportanceDespite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.Data sourcesMedical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.Study selectionA PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.Data extraction and synthesisData from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcome was the h-index.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
| S-EPMC8243235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor students entering a science PhD program, a tenure-track faculty research position is often perceived as the ideal long-term goal. A relatively small percentage of individuals ultimately achieve this goal, however, with the vast majority of PhD recipients ultimately finding employment in industry or government positions. Given the disparity between academic career ambitions and outcomes, it is useful to understand factors that may predict those outcomes. Toward this goal, the current study examined employment status of PhD graduates from biomedical sciences programs at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU AMC) and related this to metrics of predoctoral publication records, as well as to other potentially important factors, such as sex and time-since-degree, to determine if these measures could predict career outcomes.MethodsDemographic information (name, PhD program, graduation date, sex) of CU AMC biomedical sciences PhD graduates between 2000 and 2015 was obtained from University records. Career outcomes (academic faculty vs. non-faculty) and predoctoral publication records (number and impact factors of first-author and non-first-author publications) were obtained via publicly available information. Relationships between predoctoral publication record and career outcomes were investigated by (a) comparing faculty vs. non-faculty publication metrics, using t-tests, and (b) investigating the ability of predoctoral publication record, sex, and time-since-degree to predict career outcomes, using logistic regression.ResultsSignificant faculty vs. non-faculty differences were observed in months since graduation (p < 0.001), first-author publication number (p = 0.001), average first-author impact factor (p = 0.006), and highest first-author impact factor (p = 0.004). With sex and months since graduation as predictors of career outcome, the logistic regression model was significant (p < 0.001), with both being male and having more months since graduation predicting career status. First-author related publication metrics (number of publications, average impact factor, highest impact factor) all significantly improved model fit (χ2 < 0.05 for all) and were all significant predictors of faculty status (p < 0.05 for all). Non-first-author publication metrics did not significantly improve model fit or predict faculty status.DiscussionResults suggest that while sex and months since graduation also predict career outcomes, a strong predoctoral first-author publication record may increase likelihood of obtaining an academic faculty research position. Compared to non-faculty, individuals employed in faculty positions produced more predoctoral first-author publications, with these being in journals with higher impact factors. Furthermore, first-author publication record, sex, and months since graduation were significant predictors of faculty status.
| S-EPMC6174868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The relationship between academic performance and alcohol consumption among students remains inconsistent. We assessed this relationship, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics across seven faculties at the University of Turku (1177 undergraduates). An online questionnaire assessed: seven sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, year/discipline of study, accommodation type, being in intimate relationship, parental education, and income sufficiency); two perceived academic performance (students' subjective importance of achieving good grades and students' appraisal of their academic performance compared to peers); and six alcohol consumption behaviors (length of time, amount consumed, frequency, heavy episodic drinking, problem drinking, and possible alcohol dependence). Simple logistic regression assessed relationships between sociodemographic and academic variables with alcohol consumption behaviors; multiple logistic regression assessed the same relationships after controlling for all other variables. Students reported long duration and large amount of drinking (46% and 50%), high frequency of drinking (41%), heavy episodic drinking (66%), problem drinking (29%), and possible alcohol dependence (9%). After controlling, gender was associated with all alcohol consumption behaviors, followed by religiosity (associated with four alcohol behaviors), living situation, marital status, age (each associated with two alcohol behaviors), and parental education and year of study (each associated with one alcohol behavior). Study discipline, income sufficiency, importance of achieving good grades, and academic performance compared to peers were not associated with any alcohol behaviors. Universities need to assess problem drinking and alcohol use disorders among students. Prevention strategies are required to reduce risk. Health promotion efforts could focus on beliefs and expectations about alcohol and target student groups at risk for more efficient and successful efforts.
| S-EPMC7068310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ability to provide feedback is a developable faculty skill; however, it is unclear how academic rank impacts experiences with feedback delivery.MethodsA survey was distributed to 1258 physicians of all academic ranks at a large academic medical center. Questions explored the respondent's feedback delivery beliefs and barriers.ResultsIn total, 96% of respondents agreed feedback is important to resident education. Higher academic rank correlated with increased comfort with feedback delivery, and 89% of respondents experienced at least 1 barrier to feedback delivery.ConclusionFeedback experiences vary across academic ranks, with full professors being more comfortable with feedback delivery and less likely to experience barriers.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01196-5.
| S-EPMC7787874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academic collaboration is critical to knowledge production, especially as teams dominate scientific endeavors. Typical predictors of collaboration include individual characteristics such as academic rank or institution, and network characteristics such as a central position in a publication network. The role of disciplinary affiliation in the initiation of an academic collaboration between two investigators deserves more attention. Here, we examine the influence of disciplinary patterns on collaboration formation with control of known predictors using an inferential network model. The study group included all researchers in the Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) at Washington University in St. Louis. Longitudinal data were collected on co-authorships in grants and publications before and after ICTS establishment. Exponential-family random graph models were used to build the network models. The results show that disciplinary affiliation independently predicted collaboration in grant and publication networks, particularly in the later years. Overall collaboration increased in the post-ICTS networks, with cross-discipline ties occurring more often than within-discipline ties in grants, but not publications. This research may inform better evaluation models of university-based collaboration, and offer a roadmap to improve cross-disciplinary collaboration with discipline-informed network interventions.
| S-EPMC4711942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publication bias is prevalent within the scientific literature. Whilst there are multiple ideas on how to reduce publication bias, only a minority of journals have made substantive changes to address the problem. We aimed to explore the perceived feasibility of strategies to reduce publication bias by gauging opinions of journal editors (n = 73) and other academics/researchers (n = 160) regarding nine methods of publishing and peer-reviewing research: mandatory publication, negative results journals/articles, open reviewing, peer-review training and accreditation, post-publication review, pre-study publication of methodology, published rejection lists, research registration, and two-stage review. Participants completed a questionnaire asking both quantitative (multiple choice or Likert scales) and qualitative (open-ended) questions regarding the barriers to implementing each suggestion, and their strengths and limitations. Participants were asked to rate the nine suggestions, then choose the method they felt was most effective. Mandatory publication was most popularly selected as the 'most effective' method of reducing publication bias for editors (25%), and was the third most popular choice for academics/researchers (14%). The most common selection for academics/researchers was two-stage review (26%), but fewer editors prioritised this (11%). Negative results journals/articles were the second and third most common choices for academics/researchers (21%) and editors (16%), respectively. Editors more commonly chose research registration as 'most effective' (21%), which was favoured by only 6% of academics/researchers. Whilst mandatory publication was generally favoured by respondents, it is infeasible to trial at a journal level. Where suggestions have already been implemented (e.g. negative results journals/articles, trial registration), efforts should be made to objectively assess their efficacy. Two-stage review should be further trialled as its popularity amongst academics/researchers suggests it may be well received, though editors may be less receptive. Several underlying barriers to change also emerged, including scientific culture, impact factors, and researcher training; these should be further explored to reduce publication bias.
| S-EPMC5655535 | biostudies-literature