Uses of published research: An exploratory case study

Patrick J Fahy

doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1382

Abstract

Academic publications are too often ignored by other researchers. There are various reasons: Researchers know that conclusions may eventually be proved wrong; publications are sometimes retracted; effects may decline when studied later; researchers occasionally don’t seem to know about papers they have allegedly authored; there are even accusations of fraud (Cohen, 2011). In this exploratory case study, 10 papers were examined to determine the various ways they were used by others, whether there were cases of reported effects declining, and whether, among those who referenced the papers, there were suggestions that anything in the papers ought to be retracted. Findings showed that all the papers had been referenced by others (337 user publications were found, containing a total of 868 references). Other findings include the following: Single references were far more common than multiple references; applications/replications were the least common type of usage (23 occurrences), followed by contrasts/elaborations (34), and quotations (65); unlike reports regarding publications in the sciences, whether the paper was solo- or co-authored did not affect usage; appearance in a non-prestige journal was actually associated with more usage of some kinds; and well over 80% of uses were in heavily scrutinized sources (journal articles or theses/dissertations). The paper concludes with recommendations to writers about how to avoid producing publications that are ignored.

Highlights

The target papers continued to be cited over time: The mean period from publication to last citation was 7.4 years. (The target papers were originally published from 2000 to 2007.) These findings show how users accessed, studied, and applied the target papers: frequently, soon after publication, and continuously over time
The majority of uses were in theses and dissertations, and journal articles, suggesting that the target papers were applied in the context of further research
This case study was motivated by several convictions: that publications should be used by others; that longevity is one of the tests of the validity of published research; and that the pattern of usage can indicate how and whether a researcher’s work has been received and used over time. It was conducted because the literature indicated that such an examination had not yet been performed in relation to published distance education research

Summary

Introduction

Introduction and BackgroundIn addition to the long-lamented, generally poor state of distance education research (Keegan, 1985; Moore, 1985; Cannell, 1999; Saba, 2000; Gibson, 2003; Zawicki-Richter, Backer, & Vogt, 2009), there are increasing problems with published academic papers, from a range of disciplines, being ignored after publication (Lehrer, 2010), eventually being proven wrong (“Publish and be wrong,” 2008), being retracted for various reasons by their authors or publishers (Groopman, 2010), or being accused of fraud (“Liar! Liar!,” 2009). The problem even plagues summaries of research in the popular press, where readers are warned that if they do not see subsequent confirmation of research they should suspect that the original, innovative findings “may have fallen by the wayside” (“Journalistic deficit disorder,” 2012). It is not unusual for effects observed initially to decline when studied later, the “declining verification” problem (Ioaniddis, 2005; Coyne, 2010). This paper explores these issues in specific reference to my own work. Most were written by me alone (8), most were peerreviewed (8), and all were old enough to have garnered attention from the field (if they were ever to do so)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion