36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To investigate the biomedical scientist's perception of the prevailing publication culture.

          Design

          Qualitative focus group interview study.

          Setting

          Four university medical centres in the Netherlands.

          Participants

          Three randomly selected groups of biomedical scientists (PhD, postdoctoral staff members and full professors).

          Main outcome measures

          Main themes for discussion were selected by participants.

          Results

          Frequently perceived detrimental effects of contemporary publication culture were the strong focus on citation measures (like the Journal Impact Factor and the H-index), gift and ghost authorships and the order of authors, the peer review process, competition, the funding system and publication bias. These themes were generally associated with detrimental and undesirable effects on publication practices and on the validity of reported results. Furthermore, senior scientists tended to display a more cynical perception of the publication culture than their junior colleagues. However, even among the PhD students and the postdoctoral fellows, the sentiment was quite negative. Positive perceptions of specific features of contemporary scientific and publication culture were rare.

          Conclusions

          Our findings suggest that the current publication culture leads to negative sentiments, counterproductive stress levels and, most importantly, to questionable research practices among junior and senior biomedical scientists.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Rigour and qualitative research.

          N Mays, C Pope (1995)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws.

            The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession--and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research ecosystem.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships.

              Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others' ability to use one's work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                17 February 2016
                : 6
                : 2
                : e008681
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, Tergooi Hospital , Hilversum, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Medical Humanities, VU University Medical Center, EMGO+ Institute , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [5 ]Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Rathenau Institute , The Hague, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr J K Tijdink; j.tijdink@ 123456vumc.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1826-2274
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-008681
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681
                4762115
                26888726
                aa8933dd-844d-4fa2-a907-46308f599d3a
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 6 May 2015
                : 5 January 2016
                Categories
                Medical Publishing and Peer Review
                Research
                1506
                1711
                1711
                1725

                Medicine
                qualitative research,medical ethics,education & training (see medical education & training)

                Comments

                Comment on this article