Collaborative Patterns, Productivity, and Research Impact in the Careers of Star Researchers in a Japanese Semiconductor Company.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Maeki A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8028408 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.
| S-EPMC6891155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little attention has been paid to understanding faculty-student productivity via undergraduate research from the faculty member's perspective. This study examines predictors of faculty-student publications resulting from mentored undergraduate research, including measures of faculty-student collaboration, faculty commitment to undergraduate students, and faculty characteristics. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze data from 468 faculty members across 13 research-intensive institutions, collected by a cross-sectional survey in 2013/2014. Results show that biomedical faculty mentors were more productive in publishing collaboratively with undergraduate students when they worked with students for more than 1 year on average, enjoyed teaching students about research, had mentored Black students, had received more funding from the National Institutes of Health, had a higher H-index scores, and had more years of experience working in higher education. This study suggests that college administrators and research program directors should strive to create incentives for faculty members to collaborate with undergraduate students and promote faculty awareness that undergraduates can contribute to their research.
| S-EPMC5589422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures on scientists. Yet, the precise ways in which assessments should change is still open for debate. We circulated a survey with Flemish researchers to understand how they work, and how they would rate the relevance of specific indicators used in research assessments. We found that most researchers worked far beyond their expected working schedule. We also found that, although they spent most of their time doing research, respondents wished they could dedicate more time to it and spend less time writing grants and performing other activities such as administrative duties and meetings. When looking at success indicators, we found that indicators related to openness, transparency, quality, and innovation were perceived as highly important in advancing science, but as relatively overlooked in career advancement. Conversely, indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. Open comments from respondents further revealed that, although indicators which indicate openness, transparency, and quality (e.g., publishing open access, publishing negative findings, sharing data, etc.) should ultimately be valued more in research assessments, the resources and support currently in place were insufficient to allow researchers to endorse such practices. In other words, current research assessments are inadequate and ignore practices which are essential in contributing to the advancement of science. Yet, before we change the way in which researchers are being assessed, supporting infrastructures must be put in place to ensure that researchers are able to commit to the activities that may benefit the advancement of science.
| S-EPMC7878066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The challenge of research funding constraints has brought to bear enormous pressure on researchers. Research productivity is relevant to prestige and career progression of academic staff. However, this study aimed to explore significant challenges associated with researchers' productivity and the impact of non-funding of research in Nigerian research and tertiary institutions. Methods: This study adopted a qualitative exploratory design involving academics at various research and tertiary institutions across the six geographical regions in Nigeria. A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed electronically to all participants who consented to take part in this study. Exactly 4,159 questionnaires were administered and 2,350 were completely filled and returned. Pearson correlation matrices with logistic regression were used for data analysis and are presented in frequencies and percentages. Results: On challenges faced by respondents, 42.98% reported a lack of research funding, 17.11% mentioned brain drain challenge while 8.85% indicated a lack of motivation. Of the 23,927 publications reported, the number of those in sciences, engineering, and medical sciences averaged 9.6, 11.5, and 9.5 respectively. The average number of publications by women (10.8) was more than by men (9.7). Lecturers had the highest average research publication number (11.8) followed by researchers (10.2) and others (3.9). Men had the highest (11.9) average number of conferences compared to women (9.2). Participants in engineering had an average number of 13.8 conferences per respondents followed by those in education (11.2), sciences (11.1), and 10.9 for those in agricultural sciences. The result revealed a negative significant correlation between research publication and academic qualification at p < 0.01. Positive significant correlation was observed between research productivity and discipline at p < 0.05. Findings show that the combined influence of the independent variables on research productivity was significant using linear regression analysis. Conclusions: The failure to prioritize research has resulted in underdevelopment in Nigeria. It is therefore imperative that the federal government prioritize research and establish a functional Special Research Trust Fund to oversee research funding in Nigeria.
| S-EPMC8596491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Notwithstanding a significant understanding of epidemic processes in biological, social, financial, and geophysical systems, little is known about contagion behavior in individual productivity and success. We introduce an epidemic model to study the contagion of scholarly productivity and YouTube success. Our analysis reveals the existence of synchronized bursts in individual productivity and success, which are likely mediated by sustained flows of information within the networks.
| S-EPMC9091239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research careers are typically envisioned as a single path in which a scientist starts as a member of a team working under the guidance of one or more experienced scientists and, if they are successful, ends with the individual leading their own research group and training future generations of scientists. Here we study the author contribution statements of published research papers in order to explore possible biases and disparities in career trajectories in science. We used Bayesian networks to train a prediction model based on a dataset of 70,694 publications from PLoS journals, which included 347,136 distinct authors and their associated contribution statements. This model was used to predict the contributions of 222,925 authors in 6,236,239 publications, and to apply a robust archetypal analysis to profile scientists across four career stages: junior, early-career, mid-career and late-career. All three of the archetypes we found - leader, specialized, and supporting - were encountered for early-career and mid-career researchers. Junior researchers displayed only two archetypes (specialized, and supporting), as did late-career researchers (leader and supporting). Scientists assigned to the leader and specialized archetypes tended to have longer careers than those assigned to the supporting archetype. We also observed consistent gender bias at all stages: the majority of male scientists belonged to the leader archetype, while the larger proportion of women belonged to the specialized archetype, especially for early-career and mid-career researchers.
| S-EPMC7647403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The primary individual research career development awards for emergency medicine (EM) investigators are the K08 and K23 awards. To the best of the authors' knowledge, postaward productivity of EM K08 and K23 awardees has not been previously described. The objectives were to describe EM researchers who have received K08 or K23 awards and to evaluate their postaward federal funding and publications.This was a cross-sectional study, conducted during January 2012, of clinician-scientists who previously completed EM residency or fellowship programs and have received K08 or K23 awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) between fiscal years 2000 through 2011. Awardees were identified through the NIH reporting tool (NIH RePORTER). Postaward funding was abstracted, including R01-equivalent funding for K awardees who completed their K training by the end of the 2011 fiscal year. Postaward publications (with journal impact factor) were tabulated for all K awardees using PubMed and Journal Citation Reports. An e-mail survey was also conducted during September and October 2012 to describe the awardee characteristics (demographics and research background) of all EM K awardees using REDCap electronic data captures tools. Simple descriptive statistics are reported.Sixty-three EM awardees were identified; 24 (38%) were K08 awardees, and 39 (62%) were K23 awardees. Of the 38 (60%) awardees who completed their K training, 16 (42%) obtained subsequent federal funding, with six (16%) obtaining R01 funding (median time from end of K award to R01 award was 4.5 years). Overall, EM awardees published a mean (±SD) of 4.0 (±1.3) manuscripts per year (after the start of their K awards); the mean (±SD) impact factor of the journals in which these manuscripts were published was 4.5 (±5.7). Forty-five (71%) of EM K awardees responded to the survey. Respondents had a median age of 36 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 35 to 38 years), and 33 were male (73%). The median time from completion of residency to start of the K award was 6 years (IQR = 4 to 7 years), with 27 (60%) completing a research fellowship prior to the K award.Over 40% of EM K awardees who completed their career development training subsequently obtained federal funding as principal investigator (PI) or co-PI, while approximately one in six obtained R01 equivalent funding. Given the numerous barriers facing emergency care researchers, EM K awardees demonstrate good postaward productivity.
| S-EPMC3690923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers.MethodsA qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers.ConclusionsThis study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.
| S-EPMC10908166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the descriptive, cross sectional, questionnaire-based study reported here was to explore the causes of low productivity in non-communicable diseases research among postgraduate scholars and early career researchers in Nigeria and identify measures that could facilitate increased research output.ResultsThe 89 respondents were masters-level, doctoral scholars and resident doctors who attended a workshop. Majorities of the respondents (over 70%) either agreed or strongly agreed that factors contributing to poor non-communicable diseases research productivity include a dearth of in-country researchers with specialized skills, inability of Nigerian researchers to work in multidisciplinary teams, poor funding for health research, sub-optimal infrastructural facilities, and limited use of research findings by policy makers. Almost all the respondents (over 90%) agreed that potential strategies to facilitate non-communicable diseases research output would include increased funding for research, institutionalization of a sustainable, structured capacity building program for early career researchers, establishment of Regional Centers for Research Excellence, and increased use of research evidence to guide government policy actions and programs.
| S-EPMC6628473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between biomedical researchers' collaborative and authorship practices and scientific success.DesignLongitudinal quantitative analysis of individual researchers' careers over a nine-year period.SettingA leading biomedical research institution in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsFive hundred and twenty-five biomedical researchers who were in employment on 31 December 2009.Main outcome measuresWe constructed the co-authorship network in which nodes are the researchers, and links are established between any two researchers if they co-authored one or more articles. For each researcher, we recorded the position held in the co-authorship network and in the bylines of all articles published in each three-year interval and calculated the number of citations these articles accrued until January 2013. We estimated maximum likelihood negative binomial panel regression models.ResultsOur analysis suggests that collaboration sustained success, yet excessive co-authorship did not. Last positions in non-alphabetised bylines were beneficial for higher academic ranks but not for junior ones. A professor could witness a 20.57% increase in the expected citation count if last-listed non-alphabetically in one additional publication; yet, a lecturer suffered from a 13.04% reduction. First positions in alphabetised bylines were positively associated with performance for junior academics only. A lecturer could experience a 8.78% increase in the expected citation count if first-listed alphabetically in one additional publication. While junior researchers amplified success when brokering among otherwise disconnected collaborators, senior researchers prospered from socially cohesive networks, rich in third-party relationships.ConclusionsThese results help biomedical scientists shape successful careers and research institutions develop effective assessment and recruitment policies that will ultimately sustain the quality of biomedical research and patient care.
| S-EPMC6552387 | biostudies-literature