Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34527894›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021

STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science.

Sherry E Moss, Morteza Mahmoudi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Academic bullying in science and medicine: the need for reform.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Bullying, harassment, and discrimination of musculoskeletal researchers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: an international study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Article
  13. Academic cyberbullying.EClinicalMedicine · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sherry E MossSchool of Business, Wake Forest University, NC, USA.
Morteza MahmoudiDepartment of Radiology and Precision Health Program, Michigan State University, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcademic bullying is a topic of significant interest of late, with high profile cases featured in scientific journals. Our aim is to document the nature and extent of academic bullying behaviors, examining who are the primary targets and perpetrators as well as the responses to and outcomes of bullying.

methodsWe developed a cross-sectional global survey aimed primarily at those in academic science institutions. The survey was administered

findingsAmong the 2006 survey participants, the majority of targets were graduate students or postdocs. An overwhelming proportion of participants reported either experiencing (84%) or witnessing (59%) abusive supervision, or both (49%). While a majority of perpetrators were male, they were proportionately no more likely to abuse than females. Perpetrators were more likely from the highest-ranked institutions and they were most likely PIs. Females were more likely to report being bullied but their scores on the Tepper abusive supervision scale and the contextual behavior checklist we developed were not greater than male targets. Male targets actually reported higher levels of certain bullying behaviors. While international scholars were no more likely to report being bullied, the severity of the behaviors they reported was significantly greater. Targets (64%) were most likely to use avoidant tactics (not reporting and relying on family/friends for support) in response to bullying due to fear of retaliation (61%). The small percentage that did report the abuse (29%) overwhelmingly reported unfair and biased (58%) outcomes. Additional qualitative analysis of open-ended comments revealed similar patterns. We also noticed that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated academic bullying and changed the patterns of behaviors possibly due to the remote nature of interactions. Open-ended responses from targets are analyzed with examples provided.

interpretationOur results elucidated the various forms of abuse, the most likely perpetrators and targets, as well as the typical reactions of targets and witnesses. We investigated the results of targets' actions following chronic bullying. Our findings highlight the domain, extent, and dynamics of academic bullying to hopefully motivate the scientific community to take action.

Identifiers

PMID34527894
PMCPMC8433114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.