ArticleBMC medical education2010
Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment.
Article in BMC medical education, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Exploring the presence of DFG-funded publications in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Role of low-impact-factor journals in conservation implementation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Power to the People: Measuring Social Media and Mass Media Impact for Promotion and Tenure in Social and Applied Sciences.Higher education policy · 2025Article
- Global Trends in the Value of Author Order Across Medical Publications: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Study.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Review
- Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Subgroup analysis of scientific performance in the field of arthroplasty.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada.PloS one · 2022Article
- Preparing for tenure at a research-intensive university.BMC proceedings · 2021Review
- Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles.Accountability in research · 2021Article
- Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?eLife · 2019Article
- Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.PloS one · 2019Article
- Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.PLoS biology · 2018Article
- The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future.F1000Research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the past 50 years there has been a substantial increase in the volume of published research and in the number of authors per scientific publication. There is also significant pressure exerted on researchers to produce publications. Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey corresponding authors in published medical journals to determine their opinion on publication impact in relation to performance review and promotion.
methodsCross-sectional survey of corresponding authors of original research articles published in June 2007 among 72 medical journals. Measurement outcomes included the number of publications, number of authors, authorship order and journal impact factor in relation to performance review and promotion.
resultsOf 687 surveys, 478 were analyzed (response rate 69.6%). Corresponding authors self-reported that number of publications (78.7%), journal impact factor (67.8%) and being the first author (75.9%) were most influential for their annual performance review and assessment. Only 17.6% of authors reported that the number of authors on a manuscript was important criteria for performance review and assessment. A higher percentage of Asian authors reported that the number of authors was key to performance review and promotion (41.4% versus 7.8 to 22.2%). compared to authors from other countries.
conclusionsThe number of publications, authorship order and journal impact factor were important factors for performance reviews and promotion at academic and non-academic institutes. The number of authors was not identified as important criteria. These factors may be contributing to the increase in the number of authors per publication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.