ArticlePloS one2020
Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2022Pooled it
- The NIH 2025 Public Access Policy: Immediate access, unequal costs.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Animal Research in Otorhinolaryngology: Shifts in Publication and Practice Over Two Time Periods.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2026Article
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Gendered male and high-income country authors dominate publication at a One Health research organization.PloS one · 2026Article
- A survey of how biology researchers assess credibility when serving on grant and hiring committees.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Examining gender and ethnic disparities in scientific authorship to promote a culture of equity, diversity and inclusion at a university school of public health.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- From Podium to PubMed: Successful Manuscript Publication of Oral Breast Surgery Abstract Presentations at National Meetings from 2017 to 2022.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Creating different global health futures: mapping the health research ecosystem and taking decolonial action.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Role of low-impact-factor journals in conservation implementation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Historical and ongoing inequities shape research visibility in Latin American aquatic mammal paleontology.Communications 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
- From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies.PloS one · 2025Article
- Inequality in measuring scholarly success: Variation in the h-index within and between disciplines.PloS one · 2025Article
- Librarian involvement on knowledge synthesis articles and its relationship to article citation count and Journal Impact Factor.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2024Article
- A Nationwide Evaluation of Cardiothoracic Resident Research Productivity.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- "The Best Home for This Paper": A Qualitative Study of How Authors Select Where to Submit Manuscripts.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
- Career development in pragmatic clinical trials to improve care for people living with dementia.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2023Article
- Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
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
Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication. Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT. Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors. These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.
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.