Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haven TL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583945 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.
Haven Tamarinde L TL Bouter Lex M LM Smulders Yvo M YM Tijdink Joeri K JK
PloS one 20190619 6
Publications determine to a large extent the possibility to stay in academia ("publish or perish"). While some pressure to publish may incentivise high quality research, too much publication pressure is likely to have detrimental effects on both the scientific enterprise and on individual researchers. Our research question was: What is the level of perceived publication pressure in the four academic institutions in Amsterdam and does the pressure to publish differ between academic ranks and disc ...[more]
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:The phenomenon of "publish-or-perish" in academia, spurred on by limited funding and academic positions, has led to increased competition and pressure on academics to publish. Publication pressure has been linked with multiple negative outcomes, including increased academic misconduct and researcher burnout. COVID-19 has disrupted research worldwide, leading to lost research time and increased anxiety amongst researchers. The objective of this study was to examine how COVID-19 has impacted perceived publication pressure amongst academic researchers in Canada. We used the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, in addition to Likert-type questions to discern respondents' beliefs and concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on academic publishing. We found that publication pressure increased across academic researchers in Canada following the pandemic, with respondents reporting increased stress, increased pessimism, and decreased access to support related to publishing. Doctoral students reported the highest levels of stress and pessimism, while principal investigators had the most access to publication support. There were no significant differences in publication pressure reported between different research disciplines. Women and non-binary or genderfluid respondents reported higher stress and pessimism than men. We also identified differences in perceived publication pressure based on respondents' publication frequency and other demographic factors, including disability and citizenship status. Overall, we document a snapshot of perceived publication pressure in Canada across researchers of different academic career stages and disciplines. This information can be used to guide the creation of researcher supports, as well as identify groups of researchers who may benefit from targeted resources.
| S-EPMC9216619 | 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:PurposeDespite a growing number of women entering medical school, a small proportion of women pursue surgical specialties, including pediatric surgery. This multi-center study assesses gender-based differences in measures of scholarly productivity and distribution of faculty positions.MethodsThis is a retrospective web-based study of all pediatric surgeons at twelve large institutions across the United States. Data published by the American Association of Medical Colleges was compiled and analyzed to understand the gender distributions of medical students, general surgery residents, and pediatric surgery fellows. P-values were calculated using two-sided Student's independent t-tests and chi-squared tests.ResultsThere have been a growing number of women applying into pediatric surgery, but the proportion of women matriculating into these fellowships is not concordant. Women are still underrepresented (28%) amongst the pediatric surgeon workforce. A total of 111 pediatric surgeons were identified for this study, which included 31 women (28%) and 80 males (72%). There was a significant difference in the distribution across academic ranks between genders (p < 0.001). Women had significantly fewer publications per year after residency, fewer total publications, and a lower h-index in comparison to men (p < .001, p = .005, p = .002, respectively).ConclusionsWomen are not only underrepresented in pediatric surgery, but there are also significant differences in the distribution of faculty positions and scholarly productivity when comparing men and women. There is a pressing need to improve gender diversity and identify barriers that may prevent women from advancing to leadership positions and achieving professional success.
| S-EPMC11324546 | 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: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