Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks

Publication pressure in medical imaging

PURPOSE

To investigate the degree of perceived publication pressure in medical imaging.

METHOD

Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the top 12 general radiology journals were invited to complete a survey about publication pressure. The revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQr) was used. Higher PPQr scores (5-point Likert scale) indicate a more negative view towards the various domains of publication pressure.

RESULTS

203 corresponding authors participated. Median PPQr scores in the domains "publication stress", "publication attitude", and "publication resources" were 3.33, 3.50, and 3.67, respectively. Age 25-34 years (β coefficient 0.366, P = 0.047), female gender (β coefficient 0.293, P = 0.020), and 5-10 years of research experience (β coefficient 0.370, P = 0.033) were associated with a higher level of perceived publication stress, whereas age ≥ 65 years was negatively associated with perceived publication stress (β coefficient -0.846, P < 0.001). Age 55-64 years and age > 65 years were associated with a more positive view towards the publication climate (β coefficients -0.391 and -0.663, P = 0.018 and P = 0.002, respectively). Age 45-54 years was associated with a perception of fewer factors available to alleviate publication pressure (β coefficient 0.301, P = 0.014), whereas age 25-34 years was associated with a perception of more factors available to alleviate publication pressure (β coefficient -0.352, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Perceived publication pressure among medical imaging researchers appears to be appreciable and is associated with several (academic) demographics.

Copublication promotes dissemination hypertension guidelines: a retrospective cohort study

To evaluate the impact of copublication on hypertension-related clinical practice guidelines' citation, we searched the Web of Science Core Collection and guide.medlive.cn until 31 December 2017 using the terms "hypertension" and "guideline". The copublished group was matched with the noncopublished group at a 1:2 ratio. Primary outcomes were total citations and citations within the first five years after publication. Secondary outcomes included the adjusted impact factor ratio (excluding copublished guidelines) to the actual impact factor of the journal. Altmetric scores were compared using Altmetric explorer data. 21 copublished and 42 noncopublished guidelines were included. The copublished group had higher median current total citations [387.0 (90.0, 1806.0) vs 70.5 (23.25, 158.25)], and higher median citations at one, two, three, four, and five years [7.0 (0.5, 58.5) vs 1.0 (0.0, 5.5), 33.0 (14.0, 142.0) vs 5.5 (1.75, 26.25), 46.0 (24.5, 216.0) vs 10.5 (3, 25.75), 50.0 (19.0, 229.0) vs 9.0 (3.0, 19.0), 52.0 (13.5, 147.0) vs 7.0 (2.0, 20.0), all p < 0.05]. The adjusted IF analysis showed that if they had not copublished the guidelines, 10 of 24 and 11 of 24 journals would have had a lower IF in the first and second years. Median altmetric scores were significantly higher for copublished guidelines [38.5 (9.5, 90.5) vs 3.5 (1.0, 9.0)] (p < 0.05). Copublication is associated with a higher citation frequency of hypertension guidelines and may increase the journal IF. Positive impacts extend beyond academia, benefiting society through broader guideline application and dissemination. This facilitates broader application of guidelines and promotes their dissemination. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate how copublication promotes the dissemination of hypertension guidelines.

How does workplace support promote postdoctoral career growth? A conservation of resources perspective

Background

Postdoctoral researchers are critical to scholarly advancements, and promoting postdoctoral career growth is an endogenous path to help postdocs break through the "encircled city of scientific research". However, further research is needed to fully explore the mechanisms that connect workplace support to postdoctoral career growth.

Methods

Drawing from the Conservation of Resources theory, this study proposes a chain mediation model that demonstrates how workplace support enhances career growth by connecting psychological capital with work-life balance. To understand the motivation and career growth of postdocs in China, we conducted two questionnaires in 2021 and 2023 with the support of relevant stations.

Results

Analyzing 367 questionnaires from Chinese postdocs, our research indicates that workplace support has a positive impact on career growth. Additionally, both psychological capital and work-life balance are key factors that contribute to career growth, serving as separate mediators and as part of a chain of mediators.

Discussion

This study validates the appropriateness of the Conservation of Resources theory in the study of the influence mechanism of postdoctoral career growth and proposes targeted strategies for academic institutions to improve support systems, promoting more effective career development pathways.

Perceptions of publication pressure among Hungarian researchers: Differences across career stage, gender, and scientific field

Excessive publication pressure has been associated with detrimental aspects for individual researchers and scientific integrity but has not been well-studied in Eastern European countries. The aim of this study is to assess perceived publication pressure and its relationship with career stage, scientific field, and gender in Hungary. The survey included demographic questions, such as gender, age, scientific field, career stage, and the Revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQr). A total of 408 respondents completed the survey, 46% were female, and 54% were male. 45% are PhD students, 17% are postdocs or assistant professors, and 38% are associate or full professors. 31% are from the Biomedical Sciences, 39% from Natural Sciences, 18% from Social Sciences, and 12% from Humanities. Our results showed no significant disciplinary differences in perceived publication pressure. PhD students perceived a greater lack of resources than postdocs and professors. The same applied to postdocs and assistant professors when compared to associate professors. The findings also showed that female researchers perceive greater stress than male researchers. Our study highlights the need to improve mentoring during the development of early-career researchers. It also emphasizes the importance of organizational structures developing policies or strategies to address gender differences in academia.

Validation of publication pressure questionnaire-revised into Chinese nurses from a university hospital

AIMS

To translate and validate the Publication Pressure Questionnaire-revised (PPQ-r) among the Chinese nurses.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional descriptive study.

METHODS

The classical forward/backward translation of the PPQ-r was conducted first, and then the psychometric values were tested using the data collected in September, 2021 among 924 Chinese nurses from a university hospital in China by calculating its content validity index, construct validity, both convergent and discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability following the COSMIN guidelines.

RESULTS

The proposed three-factor structure of original PPQ-r cannot be confirmed in present study. With exploratory factor analysis, a new two-factor structure with 9 items was extracted, accounting for 62.718% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated satisfactory goodness of all fit index values: χ2  = 75.53; df = 23; χ2 /df = 3.28; CFI = 0.973; TLI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.07 and SRMR = 0.047. Both sub-scales yielded good internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha being 0.845 and 0.876, respectively. The Chinese version of PPQ-r could be accepted as a reliable and valid tool to measure the Chinese nurses' publication pressure.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Participation of nurses in this study was limited to the data provided through participant survey.

Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal, and the effect of co-publishing the review on the co-publishing journal's impact factor (IF).

METHODS

We identified all Cochrane Methodology Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) before 2018 and searched for co-published versions in the Web of Science Core Collection database up to 16 August 2022. The included reviews were in two cohorts: those that had been published and updated in CDSR and those that had been published in CDSR and co-published in another journal. The primary outcome measured the citation number to updated and original reviews in the first five years after publication of the updated review, and assessed the citation number of co-published and non-co-published reviews in the first five years after publication of the co-published version. The secondary outcome was the ratio of an adjusted IF and the actual IF of the co-publishing journal.

RESULTS

Eight updated and six original reviews were identified for the updated cohort of reviews, and four co-published reviews were included in the co-published cohort. The original reviews continued to be cited after the update was published but the median for the total number of citations was non-significantly higher for the updated reviews than for their original version[161 (Interquartile range (IQR) 85, 198) versus 113 (IQR 15, 433)]. The median number of total citations [362 (IQR 179, 840) versus 145 (IQR 75, 445)] and the median number of citations to the review in the first five years after co-publication combined and in each of those years was higher in the co-published group than in the non-co-published group. One of the three journals that co-published Reviews in the first year and two journals in the second year had a lower IF after co-publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier versions of Cochrane Methodology Reviews continue to be cited after an update is published, which raises doubts about whether those citing are using the most recent evidence or are aware of the update. Co-publication facilitates broader application and dissemination of Cochrane methodology evidence.

"My Cross-Border PhD Journey": A Qualitative Study on the Educational and Life Challenges of Mainland Chinese PhD Students in Hong Kong

PhD students' poor mental health has been increasingly concerning. However, challenges among PhD students studying aboard are understudied. The Educational and Life Transitions (ELT) model postulates that international PhD students are subject to both academic and acculturative stressors; however, relevant research is limited in the Chinese context. We examined mainland Chinese PhD students' study and living experiences in Hong Kong using a qualitative approach. Through purposive sampling, 37 mainland Chinese PhD students in different disciplines from public-funded universities in Hong Kong were recruited to participate in online focus group interviews (December 2020-February 2021). The interviews were analyzed using the framework analysis method. Ten themes of academic/acculturative stressors were identified. The academic stressors included: (1) high expectations from the supervisors; (2) emphasis on self-discipline as PhD students; (3) peer comparison in academia; (4) difficulties shifting research directions/academic disciplines; (5) uncertainties about future career. The acculturative stressors included: (1) differences in the political environment; (2) language barriers; (3) difficulties living in Hong Kong; (4) limited social interaction with others; (5) local people's discriminatory behaviors. This study sheds light on the stressors experienced by mainland Chinese PhD students in Hong Kong. To better address those students' academic and acculturative stressors, cross-cultural training and additional support from supervisors/the university could be provided.

How to combine rules and commitment in fostering research integrity?

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for trustworthy research. Rules are important in setting RI standards and improving research practice, but they can lead to increased bureaucracy; without commensurate commitment amongst researchers toward RI, they are unlikely to improve research practices. In this paper, we explore how to combine rules and commitment in fostering RI. Research institutions can govern RI using markets (using incentives), bureaucracies (using rules), and network processes (through commitment and agreements). Based on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes, as part of the lifeworld, can legitimize systems - that is, market or bureaucratic governance modes. This can regulate and support RI practices in an efficient way. Systems can also become dominant and repress consensus processes. Fostering RI requires a balance between network, market and bureaucratic governance modes. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can be combined with bureaucratic rules. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated different governance modes, resulting in a normatively grounded and efficient approach to fostering RI. Based on this case, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment.

Fostering openness in open science: An ethical discussion of risks and benefits

Transformation of science by embracing the concepts of open science presents a very attractive strategy to enhance the reliability of science. Open science policies embody the concepts of open data and open access that encompass sharing of resources, dissemination of ideas, and synergizing the collaborative forums of research. Despite the opportunities in openness, however, there are grave ethical concerns too, and they present a dual-use dilemma. Access to sensitive information is seen as a security risk, and it also possesses other concerns such as confidentiality, privacy, and affordability. There are arguments that open science can be harmful to marginalized groups. Through this study, we aim to discuss the opportunities of open science, as well as the ethical and security aspects, which require further deliberation before full-fledged acceptance in the science community.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada

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.

Under pressure: The extent and distribution of perceived pressure among scientists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

While it has been stressed repeatedly that academics nowadays have come to face extensive pressure, the extent and distribution of pressure to publish and to secure third-party funding has not been systematically investigated on a large scale. Based on the Zurich Survey of Academics, a representative large-scale web survey among academics working at universities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), which measures perceived pressure using six-point Likert scales, this article examines the extent and distribution of pressure to publish and to attract external funding. Specifically, we examine differences in perceived pressure across countries, disciplines, types of higher education institutions, sociodemographic characteristics (academic status, age, gender, relationship status, number of children), and working conditions (non-tenured/tenured, time available for research). It is shown that researchers in the DACH region feel a high level of pressure, with the pressure to publish being slightly greater than the pressure to attract external funding. The results also suggest that perceived pressure is not evenly distributed among countries and groups of academics. Specifically, the results suggest that (1) more secure and permanent (tenured) positions should be created and (2) the high-performance culture should be addressed in at least some disciplines if excessive pressure is to be alleviated. The findings also suggest that further investments should be made (3) to promote equal career opportunities for women and men and (4) to ensure that scientists have sufficient time for their research and are not too occupied with other responsibilities, such as teaching or administrative duties.

Essential signals in publication trends and collaboration patterns in global Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE)

Amid an increasingly demanding research environment, there has been a growing interest in studies concerning Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE). Between 1990 and 2020, over 9700 publications were published to address problematic research conduct such as falsification, plagiarism, and related protocols and standards. In this work, country-level trends and collaborative structures are examined with respect to economic group. Our results showed that RIRE publications are predominantly led by the West, with North America and Western Europe contributing the most. While there is interest within growing economies such as China, the pace is not comparable to its overall publications. However, international collaborations on RIRE grew to account for nearly 30% of all publications on the subject in 2020. Although there is a stronger preference for high income countries to collaborate with other high income countries, we observe a rise in partnerships between high-/middle-income and middle-/lower-income co-authorship pairs in the last decade. These trends point to a maturing global community with distributed knowledge transfer, towards more unified international standards for research ethics and integrity.

Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies that explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organisational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers with the following questions: (1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e., dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive and organisational justice? (2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 10% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7% and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive and organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and, hence, research quality.

The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists' attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice

Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves—however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.

Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices

This opinion piece aims to inform future research funding programs on responsible research practices (RRP) based on three specific objectives: (1) to give a sketch of the current international discussion on responsible research practices (RRPs); (2) to give an overview of current initiatives and already obtained results regarding RRP; and (3) to give an overview of potential future needs for research on RRP. In this opinion piece, we have used seven iterative methodological steps (including literature review, ranking, and sorting exercises) to create the proposed research agenda. We identified six main themes that we believe need attention in future research: (1) responsible evaluation of research and researchers, (2) the influence of open science and transparency on RRP, (3) research on responsible mentoring, supervision, and role modeling, (4) the effect of education and training on RRP, (5) checking for reproducibility, and (6) responsible and fair peer review. These themes have in common that they address aspects of research that are mostly on the level of the scientific system, more than on the level of the individual researcher. Some current initiatives are already gathering substantial empirical evidence to start filling these gaps. We believe that with sufficient support from all relevant stakeholders, more progress can be made.

Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam

BACKGROUND

Concerns 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?

METHODS

From 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.

RESULTS

One 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%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 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.

Interventions for Organizational Climate and Culture in Academia: A Scoping Review

Organizational climate and culture may influence different work-related outcomes, including responsible conduct of research and research misconduct in academic or research organizations. In this scoping review we collected evidence on outcomes of interventions to change organizational climate or culture in academic or research settings. Out of 32,093 documents retrieved by the search, we analysed 207 documents in full text, out of which 7 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. The included studies measured organizational climate (2 studies), organizational culture (4 studies), or both (1 study) at biomedical faculties (4 studies) or non-academic university departments (3 studies). Four studies had post-test, and three before-and-after study designs. The majority of interventions were face-to-face activities (meetings, different teambuilding activities), and two were based on organizational change. Six studies reported positive changes in organizational climate/culture after the intervention. These positive changes were measured as improvements in score on different questionnaire survey or were described through authors' or external evaluator's narrative reports. However, the methodological quality of the studies was low, both for qualitative and quantitative study designs. Replicable studies, using rigorous methods and clearly defined outcomes are urgently needed if organizations want to achieve a real change in organizational climate or culture for responsible research. The protocol for this scoping review was registered at https://osf.io/7zjqb .

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

When the labs closed: graduate students’ and postdoctoral fellows’ experiences of disrupted research during the COVID-19 pandemic

Government imposed lockdown measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in widespread laboratory closures. This study aimed to examine the impact of this disruption on graduate students and postdoctoral fellows completing laboratory-based research in Canada. We used an anonymous online survey and semi-structured interviews to document the experiences of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows during laboratory closures and following the transition to working from home. We employed a mixed-method approach using survey and interview data to identify shared experiences, concerns, and supports. The emotions reported by respondents at different points during laboratory closures align with the Kübler-Ross model of grief following change. Respondents describe closure processes as chaotic and confusing, primarily resulting from inconsistent communication. Respondents reported increased indications of distress while working from home. Concerns about how COVID-19 might impact trainees were identified, including decreasing competitiveness of applicants while limiting future employment opportunities. Finally, we outline five types of supports that can be implemented by supervisors and administrators to support graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to return to the laboratory. Overall, we document shared experiences of respondents during the COVID-19 laboratory shutdown and identify areas of improvement in the event widespread laboratory closures occur in the future.

Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research

The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants ( N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants ( N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most common reported form of scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they had not violated ethical standards in the past; 3% admitted to scientific misconduct; 51% reported being were aware of colleagues’ scientific misconduct. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) reported being aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants report observing publication pressure in their subordinates. The primary conclusions are: (1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; (2) scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, is frequently observed both by researchers (particularly in their colleagues) and by their managers; (3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report a willingness to engage in scientific misconduct in the future.

How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

The publish-or-perish principle has become a fact of academic life in gaining a position or being promoted. Evidence is mounting that benefits of this pressure is being countered by the downsides, like forms of goal displacement by scientists or unethical practices. In this paper we evaluate whether perceived work pressure (publishing, acquisition funds, teaching, administration) is associated with different attitudes towards science and the workplace among economists working at Dutch universities. Publication pressure is high and is related to faculty position and university ranking position. Based on a latent class analysis we can detect a clear divide among economists. Around two third of the economists perceives that this pressure has upsides as well as serious downsides and one third only perceives upsides and no downsides. Full professors see more than other faculty members the positive sides of the publish-or-perish principle and virtually no downsides. These different perceptions are also reflected in their appreciation of the academic work environment.

Citation bias and other determinants of citation in biomedical research: findings from six citation networks

OBJECTIVES

When the probability of being cited depends on the outcome of that study, this is called citation bias. The aim of this study is to assess the determinants of citation and how these compare across six different biomedical research fields.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Citation network analyses were performed for six biomedical research questions. After identifying all relevant publications, all potential citations were mapped together with the actually performed citations in each network. As determinants of citation we assessed the following: study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, gender, affiliation, authority and continent of the corresponding author, funding source, title of the publication, number of references, and self-citation. Random effect logistic regression analysis was used to assess these factors.

RESULTS

Four out of six networks showed evidence for citation bias. Self-citation, authority of the author, and journal impact factor were also positively associated with the probability of citation in all networks.

CONCLUSION

The probability of being cited seems associated with positive study outcomes, the authority of its authors, and the journal in which that article is published. In addition, each network showed specific characteristics that impact the citation dynamics and that need to be considered when performing and interpreting citation analyses.

Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

Background

Health Services Research findings (HSR) reported in scientific publications may become part of the decision-making process on healthcare. This study aimed to explore associations between researcher’s individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors and the occurrence of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific HSR publications.

Methods

We employed a mixed-methods study design. We identified factors possibly contributing to QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions through a literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews with HSR institutional leaders, and 13 focus-groups amongst researchers. A survey corresponding with these factors was developed and shared with 172 authors of 116 scientific HSR publications produced by Dutch research institutes in 2016. We assessed the included publications for the occurrence of QRPs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify factors within individual, institutional, and environmental domains. Next, we conducted bivariate analyses using simple Poisson regression to explore factors’ association with the number of QRPs in the assessed HSR publications. Factors related to QRPs with a p-value < .30 were included in four multivariate models tested through a multiple Poisson regression.

Results

In total, 78 (45%) participants completed the survey (51.3% first authors and 48.7% last authors). Twelve factors were included in the multivariate analyses. In all four multivariate models, a higher score of “pressure to create societal impact” (Exp B = 1.28, 95% CI [1.11, 1.47]), was associated with higher number of QRPs. Higher scores on “specific training” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.77–0.94]) and “co-author conflict of interest” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75–0.97]) factors were associated with a lower number of QRPs. Stratification between first and last authors indicated different factors were related to the occurrence of QRPs for these groups.

Conclusion

Experienced pressure to create societal impact is associated with more QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions in HSR publications. Specific training in reporting messages and conclusions and awareness of co-author conflict of interests are related to fewer QRPs. Our results should stimulate awareness within the field of HSR internationally on opportunities to better support reporting in scientific HSR publications.

Bridging the Gap with Clinicians: The Issue of Underrecognition of Pathologists and Radiologists as Scientific Authors in Contemporary Medical Literature

The purpose of this study was to evaluate recognition of pathologists and radiologists as coauthors in case reports in the field of surgical oncology. The MEDLINE database was searched for all full free text case reports involving human material published from April 1, 2011 until March 31, 2016, using search terms: "case report" + "tumors" + "surgery" + "malignant". The search strategy identified a total of 1427 case reports of which 907 were included in this analysis. Of 807 articles with histopathological images and/or descriptions, 352 (43.6%) did not acknowledge or include the pathologist as a coauthor. Of 662 case reports with radiographic images and/or their description, 537 (81.1%) did not list the radiologist as coauthor nor acknowledge them. In case reports containing histopathological images, significantly more pathologists were either listed as coauthors or acknowledged compared to those who were not (Z = 5.128; p = 0.001). However, among case reports containing radiographic images, there were significantly less articles either listing radiologists as coauthors or acknowledging them compared to a larger proportion of articles in which radiologists were omitted (Z = - 22.646; p = 0.001). In conclusion, pathologists and radiologists are underrecognized as coauthors in surgical oncology case reports in spite of obvious proof of their contribution to manuscript preparation. When involved in research and publishing, all physicians should be aware of fair and honest collaboration with specialists in other clinical and non-clinical disciplines to better serve the scientific community.

Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam

Background

There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.

Methods

We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental.

Results

In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher.

Conclusion

We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted ‘insufficient supervision’. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.