How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Tijdink, J K ^a,b   Schipper, K ^c   Bouter, L M ^a,d   Pont, P Maclaine ^e   De Jonge, J ^e   Smulders, Y M ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b TERGOOI HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^e Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE REPORT; COMPETITION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; FUNDING; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; NETHERLANDS; PEER REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PHD STUDENT; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCIENTIST; STAFF; STRESS; UNIVERSITY; VALIDITY; WRITING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION; PERSONNEL; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84960331495     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ridker PM, Rifai N. Expanding options for scientific publication: is more always better? Circulation 2013;127:155-6.
2. Freeman R, Weinstein E, Marincola E, et al. Careers. Competition and careers in biosciences. Science 2001;294:2293-4.
3. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, et al. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014;111:5773-7.
4. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 2014;383:176-85.
5. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014;383:166-75.
6. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014;383:101-4.
7. Thomas LG 3rd. The two faces of competition: dynamic resourcefulness and the hypercompetitive shift. Organ Sci 1996;7:221-42.
8. Hessels LK. Science and the struggle for relevance. Utrecht Univerity, 2010.
9. Ioannidis JP, Boyack KW, Small H, et al. Bibliometrics: is your most cited work your best? Nature 2014;514:561-2.
10. Ioannidis JP, Khoury MJ. Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward. JAMA 2014;312:483-4.
11. Cyranoski D, Gilbert N, Ledford H, et al. Education: the PhD factory. Nature 2011;472:276-9.
12. Tijdink JK, Vergouwen AC, Smulders YM. Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: a nationwide survey. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e73381.
13. Tijdink JK, Vergouwen AC, Smulders YM. Emotional exhaustion and burnout among medical professors; a nationwide survey. BMC Med Educ 2014;14:183.
14. Miller AN, Taylor SG, Bedeian AG. Publish or perish: academic life as management faculty live it. Career Dev Int 2011;16:422-45.
15. van Dalen HP, Henkens K. Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. J Am Soc Info Sci Technol 2012;63:1282-93.
16. Anderson MS. Misconduct and departmental context: evidence from the Acadia Institute's graduate education project. J Info Ethics 1996;5:15-33.
17. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Gokhale M, et al. Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictors. Acad Med 2006;81:137-45.
18. Tijdink JK, Verbeke R, Smulders YM. Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2014;9:64-71.
19. Walsh JP, Hong W. Secrecy is increasing in step with competition. Nature 2003;422:801-2.
20. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.
21. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000.
22. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001;322:1115-17.
23. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50-2.
24. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62107-15.
25. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1985.
26. Meadows LM, Morse JM. Constructing evidence within the qualitative project. In: Morse JM, Swanson JM, Kuzel AJ, eds. The nature of qualitative evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, 2001:187-200.
27. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, et al. The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships. Sci Eng Ethics 2007;13:437-61.
28. Kennedy D. Academic duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
29. Louis KS, Anderson MS, Rosenberg L. Academic misconduct and values: the department's influence. Rev Higher Educ 1995;18:393-422.
30. Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Row, Peterson and Company, 1957.
31. Mays N, Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995;311:109-12.
32. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311:299-302.