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

Haven, Tamarinde; Bouter, Lex M.; Smulders, Yvo M.; Tijdink, Joeri K.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217931

Cited by 56 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The survey consisted of three parts, one of which was the list of 60 research misbehaviours described here. The remainder comprised two instruments, one about the research climate for integrity [17] and another about the degree of perceived publication pressure [18]. The data described here extend our previous findings [17] by identifying the research misbehaviours that are perceived to impact the research climate most.…”

Section: Quantitative Data Collection Proceduressupporting

confidence: 52%

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

Haven

Tijdink

Pasman

et al. 2019

Res Integr Peer Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Quantitative Data Collection Proceduressupporting

confidence: 52%

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

Haven

Tijdink

Pasman

et al. 2019

Res Integr Peer Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The publication pressure is perceived to be the highest among assistant and associate professors. This accords well with a study by Haven et al (2019) who focus on different disciplines at four academic institutions in Amsterdam. These are indeed the crucial periods in an academic career when tenure and promotion depend to a large extent on one's publication record.…”

Section: Measuring and Explaining The Work Pressuresupporting

confidence: 90%

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

Dalen

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…We understand publication pressure, or pressure to collect points (Haven et al, 2019a(Haven et al, , 2019b, or "pointing pressure" in Poland, as:…”

Section: Publication Pressure and Misconduct In Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study by Tijdink et al (2014), 72% biomedical scientists rated publication pressure as "too high", and 61% reported that they agreed with the following statement: "Publication pressure leads to serious worldwide doubts about the validity of research results". Strong publication pressure across academic ranks and disciplinary fields has been associated with a negative attitude toward the current publication climate (Haven et al, 2019a(Haven et al, , 2019b, researcher burn-out, and cynicism in published research (Tijdink et al, 2013) and has negatively affected the quality of research and the researchers themselves (Rawat and Meena, 2014;van Wesel, 2016). However, other research (Fanelli et al, 2015(Fanelli et al, , 2017 suggest a lack of clear association between pressure to publish and scientific integrity, which indicates the need for further studies in this area.…”

Section: Publication Pressure and Misconduct In Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

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

Cited by 56 publications

References 43 publications

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

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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About