Open Access Research

How do scientists perceive the current

publication culture? A qualitative focus
group interview study among Dutch
biomedical researchers
J K Tijdink,1,2 K Schipper,3 L M Bouter,4,5 P Maclaine Pont,6 J de Jonge,6
Y M Smulders1

To cite: Tijdink JK, ABSTRACT

Schipper K, Bouter LM, et al. Strengths and limitations of this study
Objective: To investigate the biomedical scientist’s
How do scientists perceive
perception of the prevailing publication culture. ▪ This is the first empirical study that investigates
the current publication
culture? A qualitative focus Design: Qualitative focus group interview study. in a more structural context Dutch biomedical
group interview study among Setting: Four university medical centres in the scientists’ personal views on and convictions
Dutch biomedical Netherlands. about contemporary publication culture.
researchers. BMJ Open Participants: Three randomly selected groups of ▪ The random selection of potential participants
2016;6:e008681. biomedical scientists (PhD, postdoctoral staff members and the inclusion of half of the total of eight uni-
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015- and full professors). versity medical centres in the Netherlands argue
008681 for generalisability of the findings.
Main outcome measures: Main themes for
discussion were selected by participants. ▪ The qualitative approach suits the aim of the
▸ Prepublication history study best and the reporting quality is optimised
Results: Frequently perceived detrimental effects of
and additional material is by following authoritative guidelines for qualita-
contemporary publication culture were the strong focus
available. To view please visit tive research (the COREQ-criteria).
the journal (http://dx.doi.org/
on citation measures (like the Journal Impact Factor
and the H-index), gift and ghost authorships and the ▪ A quantitative approach could not study in-depth
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-
order of authors, the peer review process, competition, perceptions of the prevailing publication culture.
008681).
the funding system and publication bias. These themes ▪ The results show that Dutch biomedical scien-
Received 6 May 2015 were generally associated with detrimental and tists perceive serious detrimental effects of con-
Accepted 5 January 2016 undesirable effects on publication practices and on the temporary publication culture.
validity of reported results. Furthermore, senior
scientists tended to display a more cynical perception
research, the amount of research waste pro-
of the publication culture than their junior colleagues.
However, even among the PhD students and the duced, the selection of priority research
postdoctoral fellows, the sentiment was quite negative. areas, and talent development.3–6 However,
Positive perceptions of specific features of some argue that increased demands on and
contemporary scientific and publication culture were competition between scientists have more
rare. beneficial than detrimental effects, and that
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the current a transparent reward system based on quanti-
publication culture leads to negative sentiments, tative parameters is better than its alterna-
counterproductive stress levels and, most importantly, tives.7 Regardless of how one evaluates these
to questionable research practices among junior and phenomena, the increasing emphasis on sci-
senior biomedical scientists. entific productivity, authorships and citations
by universities, grant agencies and indeed by
the scientific community itself is undeni-
able.8–10 The significant growth of the
BACKGROUND number of PhD dissertations puts an even
The biomedical scientific enterprise has greater pressure on the system.11 All the
changed dramatically over the past decades. aforementioned phenomena are part of what
For numbered affiliations see
The annual number of published papers and can be described as the ‘publication culture’.
end of article. scientific journals doubles every 12 years.1 Earlier studies suggest that high publica-
There is an increasing imbalance between tion pressure is associated with symptoms of
Correspondence to
requested and available funding,2 3 raising burnout.12–15 Also, scientific integrity may be
Dr J K Tijdink; j.tijdink@ concerns about hypercompetitiveness with related to culture aspects of biomedical
vumc.nl potential distorting effects on the quality of science.16–19

Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681 1

Open Access

Most of the aforementioned phenomena have been Data collection and procedure
studied using quantitative survey methods, which pro- The focus groups were conducted between June 2013
vides some empirical basis for policy and future and April 2014 by a multidisciplinary research team con-
research, but may not capture all aspects and subtleties sisting of three of the authors of this article ( JKT, JdJ
of scientists’ views, thoughts and experiences. A qualita- and PMP) at the four medical centres. The research
tive approach, such as using focus group interviews, typ- team formulated possible discussion themes about publi-
ically seeks to explore, understand and represent the cation culture beforehand based on our previous quanti-
subjective perceptions of people and to interpret their tative research on publication pressure12 and a pilot
behaviour.20 This approach uncovers thoughts and feel- version of a focus group interview that was conducted
ings that survey research could never have highlighted with fellow scientists from the department of the lead
and this has never been studied before. Focus group author. The focus group interviews lasted approximately
interviews are group conversations in which participants 1.5–2 h until the point when no new or relevant infor-
address specific themes (by sharing perspectives, experi- mation emerged (attainment of saturation).22 23
ences and opinions).21 The focus groups were led by a facilitator ( JKT or
We set out to perform focus group interviews about PMP) with professional experience in (focus) group
the perception of publication culture among PhD stu- dynamics. A semistructured protocol (see online
dents, postdoctoral fellows/staff members and full pro- supplementary material) was used which included infor-
fessors who are involved in biomedical research. Our mation on general aspects of focus groups, an introduc-
aim is to learn what biomedical scientists regard as the tion to the subject, and an initial exploration of the
most salient aspects of current publication culture and participants’ motivation to be involved in research. After
to discuss the major positive and negative aspects of this, participants were invited to present themes they felt
these features. were relevant for the discussion on contemporary publi-
cation culture. From their answers, the facilitator, in con-
sultation with the participants, prioritised 6–9 themes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Since it soon became clear that many comments and
Selection of participants dominant opinions were negatively coloured, we expli-
The study consisted of 12 focus groups of biomedical citly encouraged participants to also name positive
scientists working in four university medical centres aspects of the present publication culture.
(UMCs) in The Netherlands. Scientists were eligible to Finally, participants were asked to suggest ways to solve
participate if they were able to speak Dutch, were scien- the experienced problems (not part of this report).
tifically active (scientists who recently authored and pub- Each focus group was audiotaped and transcribed ver-
lished a scientific paper) and were willing to give batim. In addition, members of the research team took
informed consent. notes during the sessions to capture important
Scientists were recruited with the help of the deans’ elements.
offices of the participating medical centres, each of
which provided the email addresses of all active scientists Analysis
in nine departments (2 preclinical (microbiology, path- An inductive content analysis was used to analyse the
ology), 2 supportive departments (methodology/ data. Inductive content analysis is mainly used in cases
epidemiology, anatomy/physiology), 3 clinical depart- where there are no or few previous studies dealing with
ments (internal medicine, surgery and psychiatry)), and the subject. A deductive approach is useful if the
the most and least publishing department (expressed general aim is to test a previous theory in a different
as the average number of papers per active scientist). situation or to compare categories at different time
We used a tool specially designed by the Software periods (but that is clearly not at issue for our rarely
Department of the VU University to randomly select the studied topic).24 By using an inductive content analysis,
participants across the different academic ranks from the we ( JKT, JdJ and PMP) read through the data looking
nine departments. We randomly selected one PhD for recurring themes. First, the entire transcripts were
student, one postdoctoral fellow or staff member (usually read and emerging themes were coded. New themes in
an MD with a PhD degree, involved in a combination of the transcripts were added to the list of codes and
patient care and research), and one full professor per added to the previously analysed results. The transcripts
department and per UMC, and sent an invitation by of the focus groups were analysed and coded independ-
email explaining the purpose of the focus group inter- ently by three team members ( JKT, PMP and JdJ) with
views. If the invited participant declined participation, we different professional backgrounds ( psychiatry, philoso-
randomly selected a second participant of the same type phy and sociology). Individual analyses of the team
from the same department, and so on, until we had 6–8 members were compared and discussed to achieve con-
participants from different departments per focus group. sensus and to increase reliability.25
This resulted in three focus groups (1 with PhD students, To check validity, participants received a written inter-
1 with postdoctoral fellows and 1 with full professors) per pretation of the focus groups in which they participated,
UMC with 6–8 participating scientists per focus group. asking them to reflect26 on our interpretation and to

2 Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681

 Open Access

indicate if they recognised the analysis and coding. All admittance to a residency programme for any of the
participants agreed or had minor additional comments. medical specialties.
Three team members ( JKT, JdJ and PMP) interpreted We identified eight themes related to contemporary
each of these transcripts and formulated the major publication culture. Each theme is described below, and
themes discussed. This process of coding yielded eight typical quotes that illustrate the opinions are reported in
major themes. The results of the 12 focus groups were tables 2–4. Quotes in the tables are used as an illustra-
then compared, analysed and interpreted by the three tion of the conclusions that were drawn per theme.
investigators, using an inductive approach. The final Since the focus group interviews were conducted in
result was a summary of the eight themes. Typical quotes Dutch, the quotes were translated into English by an
were identified per theme and per scientific rank (PhD official translation office for this report. The themes are
student, postdoctoral fellow/staff member and full pro- presented in order of total frequency with which they
fessors) to clarify the coded themes. For review of the were discussed in the 12 focus groups.
quality of reporting, the COREQ checklist was used.
Research funding
Ethical considerations A dominant perception across all focus groups was that
All participants took part on a voluntary basis after there is hypercompetition for scarce funding.
giving consent by confirming participation through Furthermore, the procedures of funding agencies are
email. The study was not registered and reviewed by an generally perceived as being subjective and prone to
ethics committee because the study only included scien- manipulation, since participants felt that knowing the
tists. Confidentiality was maintained using restricted, right people (committee members, reviewers of propo-
secure access to the data, destruction of audiotapes after sals) has a substantial impact on the chance of success.
transcription, and anonymous analysis of transcripts. To obtain funding, participants also mentioned the
dominant role of the Impact Factors (IFs) of journals in
Inclusion of participants which publications were published, the number of publi-
We obtained 1810 email addresses of active scientists cations and the Hirsch index. Finally, a common percep-
(stratified by department and by scientific rank) from tion was that preparing grant applications was highly
four UMCs in the Netherlands (UMC 1, 2, 3 and 4). time-consuming and thus expensive. Participants univer-
The 12 focus groups involved 79 participants (table 1). sally acknowledged that obtaining funding is a prerequis-
The number of invitations that had to be sent out per ite for promotions and a bright career perspective.
included participant was: 1.75 for PhD students, 2.8 for Most participants believed that positive results are
postdoctoral staff members and 2.16 for professors. The required to obtain funding.
main reasons for declining participation were lack of By comparing different focus group interviews in differ-
time or having conflicting agendas. ent academic ranks, it was obvious that for postdoctoral
fellows and full professors funding is the most important.
It can generate jobs and future job opportunities.
RESULTS
In the introduction of the focus group, participants were Authorships and author sequence
asked about their motivation for engaging in scientific The second theme was authorships and author sequence.
research. Across all academic ranks and most strongly A frequently reported negative experience was that of dis-
among PhDs, all participants most frequently reported agreement regarding authorships and authorship
curiosity and a quest for truth as their main driving sequence. According to the participants, this is often an
force. Other less frequently described factors were to important cause for disputes in research groups.
obtain funding and to show the world the results of your This theme was also related to the importance of first
research. Among PhD students, an important motivation and last authorships in the evaluation of institutions and
to start a PhD trajectory was to increase the chance of individual scientists by funding agencies and universities.
Also, most scientists considered the presence of gift
authors ( people who do not contribute significantly to a
Table 1 Dividing 79 participants among 12 focus groups manuscript but are named in the author list) as a nuis-
Postdoctoral ance, even if it increases the chances of manuscript
PhD fellows/staff Full acceptance. ‘If you don’t contribute to a paper, you
students members professors Total should not be on the author list’. Interestingly, reward-
UMC 1 6 (3) 7 (3) 6 (2) 19 (8) ing team effort was hardly mentioned as a positive effect
UMC 2 8 (3) 7 (4) 4 (0) 19 (7) of the increased number of authors per paper.
UMC 3 8 (5) 3 (1) 6 (1) 17 (7) A less frequently raised topic was the increasing
UMC 4 8 (4) 8 (4) 8 (0) 24 (8) number of authors. Some participants reported a sense
Total 30 (15) 25 (12) 24 (3) 79 (30) of frustration, as multiple authors decreases the reward
The number of women within the group are shown in parentheses. and value of an authorship.
UMC, university medical centre.
No positive comments were identified on this theme.

Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681 3

Open Access

Table 2 Quotations to illustrate the content of the publication culture themes in PhD students
Theme Quote
Research funding You get grants because of friends and luck. Grants are no measure of ability but of who is who,
who do you know and how you present it

Authorships Oh, we need to add that professor to the list of authors, because if he is on the list it will be easier
to get accepted by such and such journal

Quantity vs quality What they measure now is how much and where you publish, but that says nothing about your
qualities as a scientist

Publication If the pressure on the number of publications decreases, the quality of the publications will increase
pressure
Scientific integrity (with regard to scientific integrity) It is not very common that the voice of the PhD student
supersedes the voice of the person who is hierarchically superior. The boss calls the shots

Publication bias If you find a positive association it is much easier to get published than in case of a negative result

Impact factor When you have an article published, the first question always is, what’s the impact factor. And if it
is not very high they generally react; oh, but it is a really nice journal

Competition, The loudest voice generally gets the best results

prestige,
self-satisfaction People often begrudge the other person also having his name on a paper
and vanity

Quality versus quantity individual performance evaluations as frustrating

The perceived tension between quality and quantity was because the primary evaluation tool was felt to be the
a recurrent theme. Most scientists experienced quantity of their scientific output rather than its quality.

Table 3 Quotations to illustrate the content of the publication culture themes in postdoctoral fellows/staff members
Theme Quote
Research funding If you have no decent publications to put on your CV, you basically have no chance on the
grants-market, that is what they look at, that is your fundraising capacity

Authorships Authorship is a political game, sometimes you list someone as a co-author because you have to
and you don’t want an argument over something as trivial as one publication

If you confront him about it my boss becomes really angry and so I just list him

You often need a hotshot to be published in a high-impact journal. He often has to be the last
author

Quantity vs quality A lot of what is published is nonsense

Publication pressure The stress of having to have at least 4–6 interesting and solid high-impact papers published
each year; failure to produce means you will be judged to some extent

Scientific integrity One is easily inclined to leave things out just to get it published

Publication bias That (publication bias) is the reason that fraud exists because without positive results I can
forget about my career

Impact factor That is what a professor said, that he preferred not to publish in lower-impact journals because
it wouldn’t look good on his CV

Competition, prestige, I think it is a universal quality of scientists that they are vain people, especially when they start
self-satisfaction and publishing, they are often people who like the limelight and to be admired
vanity

4 Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681

 Open Access

Table 4 Quotations to illustrate the content of the publication culture themes in full professors
Theme Quote
Research funding The willingness to take risks continues to decrease whereas I feel that scientists should be
willing to take risks, you see this especially when grants are involved

Authorships If you didn’t feel so much pressure to publish you would also think more often that you don’t
need to have your name on a paper

Quantity vs quality The highest goal of a professor is to deliver as many PhDs as possible, something I disagree
with, by the way

Publication pressure Too many publications are premature and slipshod

Scientific integrity I think fraud and the pressure to publish are communicating vessels

Publication bias People want to be absolute, so everything (in papers, red.) is described in such a way that the
message is earth shattering and unique; I get so tired of that

Impact factor The scientific system, especially the biomedical disciplines, is totally fixated on impact factors,
it’s like a religion, when it’s actually outdated

Competition, prestige, We need to be careful we don’t get bogged down in measurements and who is the best
self-satisfaction and
vanity Publishing becomes such an idée fixe, such an important part of you…because you are
published you are suddenly the man and then you may start to think you are a very important
person

They expressed concerns regarding governmental policy- because publication pressure consists of more than
makers who value journal IFs ( JIFs) more than scientific quantity; it also includes the consequences for grant
quality. application success rates and position as a researcher.
Scientists also felt (albeit less often) that the number Publication pressure was also not directly linked to scien-
of publications is wrongly considered to be more import- tific quality by the participants.
ant than societal impact or clinical relevance. Many focus group participants personally felt strong
Apart from these frustrations, professors and postdocs publication pressure, and had ideas about the under-
also perceived pressure to employ as many PhD students lying causes. They perceived a culture in which scientists
as possible, stimulated by the financial rewards for a doc- are judged by the number of manuscripts published
torate. (In the Netherlands, government funding allo- each year. Many felt a strong pressure to obtain funding
cates a weight of €90 000 to each PhD thesis.) and to publish in high-impact journals in order to main-
Some participants believed that the main motivation tain their position in academia. This pressure was per-
for biomedical PhD students to start a PhD trajectory ceived as an external as well as a self-inflicted pressure.
was to improve their chance of obtaining a resident pos- Publication pressure was reported to compromise
ition in a medical specialty training programme. Such a attention to other tasks, such as patient care or educa-
lack of intrinsic scientific motivation could also affect sci- tional activities.
entific quality, according to focus group participants. A minority of focus group participants experienced no
Except for occasional expressions of a sense of pride publication pressure, but did notice such pressure
regarding Dutch ‘publication efficiency’ and number of among their colleagues.
publications per invested Euro, no positive comments
were identified on this theme. Scientific misconduct and integrity
PhD students were more resentful that quantity is Scientists perceived ample room and opportunity to
more important than quality in the present publication engage in questionable research practices (QRP). A
culture. This was of less concern to postdocs and commonly expressed cause for this was that research is
professors. perceived as solitary work: data analysis is often per-
formed alone. There is little auditing by colleagues or
Publication pressure fellow researchers, making scientific work vulnerable to
Although there is overlap between this theme and the QRP and research misconduct.
theme quality versus quantity, participants identified The participants also acknowledged that many bio-
publication pressure as a separate theme, mainly medical scientists are not properly educated as to how to

Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681 5

Open Access

avoid the grey areas of QRP. Their perception was that their career. One professor felt he would be sanctioned
much sloppy science is in fact due to a lack of sound by his superiors if he would publish in low-IF journals,
methodological education, generating room for a grey because of effects on the ranking and prestige of his
area between responsible conduct of research and scien- university.
tific fraud. According to virtually all participants, there is Many PhD students expressed their outright anger
in most cases no intention to deceive readers. about the extreme focus on the IF. They felt that this
All focus group participants felt that the pressure to was damaging to the scientific enterprise. Such frustra-
publish positive results often stimulates a scientist to tions were not expressed by more senior scientists.
cross the line of responsible conduct of research. A positively perceived aspect of the IF was that,
The PhD students reported that, owing to the strict although it is not a good indicator, it can to some extent
hierarchy, they are reluctant to bring up QRP and help when deciding where to publish your research.
research misconduct with their supervisors; they experi-
ence a lack of trust and confidentiality to talk to a senior Disputes, prestige, self-satisfaction and competition
researcher about possible research misconduct. Many scientists experienced disputes among colleagues
Many participants—especially postdocs and professors working in the same department. They believed that this
—expressed that they can understand to some extent is often caused by disagreements about authorships,
why some colleagues cannot resist the temptation of envy and the unwillingness of some researchers to
engaging in QRP or even research misconduct. cooperate. Many also felt that scientists begrudge their
A positive comment was that most participants colleagues’ scientific success. Some participants believed
thought scientific fraud is very rare in their communi- that resentment and envy could negatively influence the
ties; they felt that there is almost never an intention to quality of scientific studies, compromise peer review and
deceive. frustrate collaboration.
Recognition and prestige were considered to be
Publication and reporting bias important personal factors in this process. As one profes-
Most participants felt that there is hardly any possibility sor stated: ‘scientists can get high on a high-impact
to publish negative or ‘no difference’ results. For this publication’.
they hold the scientists, reviewers, editors and other sta- Recognition and prestige were perceived as problem-
keholders that take part in the publication process atic mostly by experienced postdocs and professors. PhD
responsible. students did not perceive this to be a major problem but
Many participants thought that ‘sexiness of research emphasised the problem that sometimes they become
results’ (ie, popular research areas with spectacular find- involved, (to some degree) involuntarily, in disputes
ings), rather than scientific quality, is essential to achieve among senior researchers in their department.
high-impact publications. A few participants also underlined the beneficial
Some participants expressed severe doubt as to effects of competitiveness. They see competition as an
whether high-impact journals judge and select submis- essential ingredient for a flourishing, productive scien-
sions objectively based on scientific quality only, or tific culture.
whether they also select based on sexy results or citability.
Most scientists were aware that it is tempting to exag- Differences between scientific ranks
gerate their research results as a consequence of this Most PhD candidates have rather naïve opinions about
‘positivitis’. As one associate professor said: ‘The sexier contemporary publication culture. They argue that
the research results, the easier it gets published’. science should be a genuine quest for truth and see
As a consequence of published results being skewed scientists as truth-seekers who focus on scientific quality.
towards positive outcomes, these results become difficult Anything that disrupts this perception is judged nega-
to replicate, according to many participants. No positive tively. The present focus on the quantity of scientific
comments were identified on this theme. output instead of scientific quality especially is a thorn
in their side.
Impact Factor Postdoctoral fellows/staff members and professors
Participants reported that when they have to decide hold more realistic or perhaps even slightly cynical views
which journal to publish in, the JIF is more important about the publication culture and are more sympathetic
than the aim and scope of a journal. They felt, however, to the somewhat dubious elements in the scientific
that judging a journal solely on its IF is wrong. Most par- process. They accept these influences more readily.
ticipants emphasised that the IF is not a good index to Regarding publication pressure, the focus group inter-
measure scientific quality, as it predominantly measures views show that postdoctoral fellows/staff members feel
impact based on recent citation scores, and does not the strongest pressure to publish. They experience the
necessarily reflect methodological rigour, let alone clin- urge to produce in order to secure their positions and
ical relevance. get the prestige and recognition for their publications,
Some participants would not publish in journals with to get funded and prosper in their career (with a
an IF<2 as they believed this could negatively impact tenured professorship on the horizon). The present

6 Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681

 Open Access

credit cycle in biomedicine mainly focuses on first perceived as detrimental and related to scientific integ-
authorship papers for PhD students and last authorships rity and personal job satisfaction. The results related to
for professors. Postdoctoral fellows feel that they were the theme competition are in line with these results.
sometimes denied last authorships, which in their Other research also supports the existence of a pre-
opinion they deserved because of their role in the dominantly negative perception of publication culture.
research process. For example, competitiveness and a focus on productiv-
PhD students do not feel this amount of pressure, ity and citations have been related to perceived publica-
unless they are at the end of their PhD trajectory. tion pressure.12 Excessive competitiveness is believed to
Professors perceive less pressure than postdocs, since have potentially perverse effects.27 Authors are reported
they already have a successful career and plenty of to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings
recognition. and overstate the importance of their results.3 These
findings are confirmed by our participants.
The possible effects of a hypercompetitive scientific
DISCUSSION environment on scientific integrity are visible in fre-
The purpose of our study was to identify and understand quent anecdotal reports.28 There is also empirical evi-
the perception of contemporary publication culture dence in line with our findings; scientists who perceive
among Dutch biomedical scientists. Participants of the high levels of pressure are more likely to withhold data
focus groups identified eight themes in contemporary or results,17 19 and studies suggest a correlation between
publication culture as relevant for their daily work. the level of perceived competition, publication pressure,
In general, the current publication culture has a nega- observed misconduct, fears of retaliation and con-
tive connotation, which is apparent in all eight themes. flicts.16 18 29 Nevertheless, the focus on publication
With respect to research funding, participants expressed culture as in the present study has never been systematic-
concerns over excessive competitiveness, unfairness, and ally investigated.
lack of accessibility for newcomers and original con-
cepts. Authorships and author sequence were commonly Interpretation of the results
associated with disputes and conflicts among colleagues. Our study addresses contemporary publication practices
Concerning quality versus quantity, it was generally felt as seen through the eyes of biomedical scientists.
that the focus on the quantity of scientific output However, what do the results mean for the biomedical
affected scientific quality. Publication pressure was scientific community? Our results suggest that percep-
described as an external source of stress from funding tions of the current publication culture are mostly nega-
agencies and institutions, as well as an internal urge to tive, causing a pessimistic and sometimes cynical view on
improve personal career perspectives. (the validity of ) scientific research.
Engagement in QRP and even in research misconduct Analysis of differences between job titles suggests that
was associated with pressure to publish, and participants younger scientists hold a stronger view of science as a
did to some extent understand why colleagues could genuine quest for truth than many of their senior collea-
not resist the temptation to stray from a course of gues. Could this indicate a gradual decline of ideals over
responsible conduct of research. The participants also the course of a scientific career, caused by hypercompe-
believed that preferentially publishing positive findings titiveness? Or is the explanation found in the idealistic
( publication bias and positive outcome bias) in high- scientists preferring other career paths and leaving aca-
impact journals substantially improves scientific career demia, causing selection of scientists as they become
perspectives. more senior? An answer can be found in the Cognitive
The IF has become increasingly dominant in the Dissonance Theory (CDT).30 Cognitive dissonance
current publication culture. Although the IF is not per- would mean that researchers who find themselves vested
ceived as a quality predictor, it dominates the publica- in a path that does not align with their ideals—hence in
tion process. Participants regard the IF as one of the a state of conflicting attitudes, or cognitive dissonance—
most important factors in deciding which journal they can either modify their behaviour (or quit) or modify
want to publish in. their attitudes. The observed variation is congruent with
Finally, the participants underline the important role the extent to which careers depend on publication pres-
of competition, prestige and vanity in scientists’ motiv- sure. Our study cannot differentiate between these and
ation and conduct. other possible explanations, but the finding itself calls
for further research.
Comparison with existing literature
A previous focus group study among biomedical scien- Limitations
tists in the USA27 that investigated the role of competi- Qualitative methods can be helpful when investigating
tion in scientific practices found that competition has complex, new or under-researched topics to generate
profound effects on the way science is performed. In hypotheses for further investigation.31 However, such
that study, competitive experiences (such as prestige, studies lack advantages of quantitative studies, such as
grant application and pressure to publish) were precise measures of effect sizes and variation.

Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681 7

Open Access

Moreover, group dynamics can lead to distorted per- mentioned. Nevertheless, we cannot exclude unwilling-
spectives. The idea behind the focus group method is ness to participate as a possible source of response bias.
that group processes can help people to explore and
clarify their views in group discussions with peers. On Changing the culture
the one hand, these dynamics may have caused exagger- It is not easy to push an established culture in another
ation of some themes if an atmosphere of complaining direction. Academic structure is complex, which makes
and negativity in discussions develops in a group. On it hard to predict which interventions will work and to
the other hand, group dynamics may have caused whom they should be directed. Nevertheless, change
shyness to openly express every opinion, doubt or starts with increased awareness among all parties
experience, thus causing under-reporting and underesti- involved. In this light, the good news is that numerous
mation of themes, experiences and perceptions. Group initiatives across different scientific areas have recently
work can actively facilitate the discussion of taboo topics emerged. (To name a few: METRICS, the DORA mani-
because the less inhibited members of the group break festo, Force11, ALTmetrics, Science in Transition, the
the ice for shyer participants.32 This atmosphere was REWARD alliance, etc.) These initiatives will eventually
often created in the focus groups by our discussion result in new values and forms to reshape current publi-
leaders who have extensive experience with group cation practices.
dynamics.
Another factor that may have caused bias is prejudice
in the group facilitators. Indeed, the facilitators were CONCLUSION
part of research groups or organisations involved in Active biomedical scientists from four UMCs in the
assessment of research culture, and concerns over some Netherlands describe a publication culture with an
aspects of research culture are indeed part of their extreme focus on IFs, funding, authorships and publish-
everyday work. Nonetheless, facilitators with strong pre- ing positive papers. These factors intensify competition
judices regarding likely outcomes could not guide focus between them and emphasise the dominance of quanti-
groups, and instructions to facilitators were to be as tative scientific output over methodological quality, espe-
objective as possible. They were instructed not to partici- cially over the replicability of findings. This raises serious
pate in discussions and to make sure that the partici- concerns about the credibility of scientific results.
pants decided for themselves which subjects and themes Future research should identify alternatives and inter-
were discussed. ventions to restore core values such as trust, credibility,
Regarding gender aspects, males were over- integrity and collaboration.
represented in the full professor group. This is in
accordance with the male/female ratio among profes- Author affiliations
sors in the Netherlands.12 Gender differences should be 1
Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam,
interpreted with caution in qualitative analysis. The The Netherlands
2
study population was too small to draw firm gender- Department of Psychiatry, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands
3
Department of Medical Humanities, VU University Medical Center, EMGO+
related conclusions. Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Considering the generalisability of the results, the 4
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center,
sample is large enough to draw conclusions. The results Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5
can be seen as reasonably valid, as we reached saturation Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
per layer22 23. Nevertheless, the reader must decide, 6
Rathenau Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands
interpret and reflect whether the results are generalis-
able for their scientific practice. It can be questioned Twitter Follow Joeri Tijdink at @jongepsychiater
whether our findings apply to other countries. Contributors JKT, KS and YMS contributed to the conception and design of
Academic structure and culture in other countries may the study. JKT, KS, LMB, PMP, JdJ and YMS contributed to the analysis and
interpretation of data. JKT was responsible for the drafting of the manuscript.
certainly differ. Nevertheless, the problems that were
KS, JdJ, PMP, LMB and YMS participated in the revising of the manuscript
presented in the focus group study by Melissa critically for important intellectual content. All the authors gave final approval
Anderson27 showed similar results in the USA. of the version to be published.
Furthermore, publication pressure measured by the Funding The study is funded by ZonMW and the Rathenau Institute.
Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was also high
in a Flemish population.18 Disclaimer The funding sources had no influence on design, draft or final
version of the manuscript.
Finally, the influence of a response bias cannot be
ruled out. The number of invitations that had to be sent Competing interests None declared.
per participant was 1.75 for PhD students, 2.8 for post- Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
doctoral staff members and 2.16 for professors. Most of Data sharing statement No additional data are available.
the invited scientists who did not participate were asked
Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with
to explain their reasons for declining participation. the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license,
Reasons such as lack of time, conflicting agendas, mater- which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-
nity leave or non-mastery of the Dutch language were commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided

8 Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681

 Open Access

the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http:// 16. Anderson MS. Misconduct and departmental context: evidence from
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 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.
REFERENCES Acad Med 2006;81:137–45.
1. Ridker PM, Rifai N. Expanding options for scientific publication: is 18. Tijdink JK, Verbeke R, Smulders YM. Publication pressure and
more always better? Circulation 2013;127:155–6. scientific misconduct in medical scientists. J Empir Res Hum Res
2. Freeman R, Weinstein E, Marincola E, et al. Careers. Competition Ethics 2014;9:64–71.
and careers in biosciences. Science 2001;294:2293–4. 19. Walsh JP, Hong W. Secrecy is increasing in step with competition.
3. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, et al. Rescuing US biomedical Nature 2003;422:801–2.
research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 20. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing
2014;111:5773–7. among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.
4. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and 21. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for
reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. applied research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Lancet 2014;383:176–85. 2000.
5. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and 22. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative
reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001;322:
2014;383:166–75. 1115–17.
6. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: 23. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing
increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014;383:101–4. quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50–2.
7. Thomas LG 3rd. The two faces of competition: dynamic 24. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv
resourcefulness and the hypercompetitive shift. Organ Sci Nurs 2008;62107–15.
1996;7:221–42. 25. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
8. Hessels LK. Science and the struggle for relevance. Utrecht Publications, 1985.
Univerity, 2010. 26. Meadows LM, Morse JM. Constructing evidence within the
9. Ioannidis JP, Boyack KW, Small H, et al. Bibliometrics: is your most qualitative project. In: Morse JM, Swanson JM, Kuzel AJ, eds. The
cited work your best? Nature 2014;514:561–2. nature of qualitative evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
10. Ioannidis JP, Khoury MJ. Assessing value in biomedical research: publications, 2001:187–200.
the PQRST of appraisal and reward. JAMA 2014;312:483–4. 27. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, et al. The perverse effects
11. Cyranoski D, Gilbert N, Ledford H, et al. Education: the PhD factory. of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Sci Eng Ethics
Nature 2011;472:276–9. 2007;13:437–61.
12. Tijdink JK, Vergouwen AC, Smulders YM. Publication pressure and 28. Kennedy D. Academic duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
burn out among Dutch medical professors: a nationwide survey. Press, 1997.
PLoS ONE 2013;8:e73381. 29. Louis KS, Anderson MS, Rosenberg L. Academic misconduct and
13. Tijdink JK, Vergouwen AC, Smulders YM. Emotional exhaustion and values: the department’s influence. Rev Higher Educ
burnout among medical professors; a nationwide survey. BMC Med 1995;18:393–422.
Educ 2014;14:183. 30. Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Row,
14. Miller AN, Taylor SG, Bedeian AG. Publish or perish: academic life Peterson and Company, 1957.
as management faculty live it. Career Dev Int 2011;16:422–45. 31. Mays N, Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ
15. van Dalen HP, Henkens K. Intended and unintended consequences 1995;311:109–12.
of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. J Am Soc Info Sci 32. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ
Technol 2012;63:1282–93. 1995;311:299–302.

Tijdink JK, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681 9