Publications In Top-tier Journals Research Articles

In Search of Scholarly Impact

In Search of Scholarly Impact

The science of leadership: A journey from survey research to field experimentation

This is a personal account of the stages through which my thinking and my research career unfolded, beginning with student socialization into questionnaire-based survey research, through originating implicit leadership theory, to initiating “respite research” to study the effects of stress on strain without causal ambiguity, and finally to my adoption of field experimentation as the most internally and externally valid research method. It was a journey of breaking free of popular survey research methods and embracing causally unambiguous experimentation. It struck home for many, inasmuch as almost all the articles that my students and colleagues and I submitted reporting randomized field experiments were accepted for publication in top-tier journals. I describe my transition from survey research to field experimentation as it unfolded, provide successive examples of field experiments, and press home the major lesson: field experiments are doable, replicatable, and causally unambiguous. Moreover, they provide actionable cause-and-effect results that can propel our science forward and put useful tools into the hands of practitioners.

Canadian and international winners of major health research prizes, 1959-2018.

KEY POINTS Common indicators of excellence in biomedical and health research include publications in top-tier journals, citations per publication, measurable impacts of research on practice or policy-making, and major prizes for extraordinary research accomplishments.[1][1] Among major medical

Defining the Barriers to Women Publishing in High-Impact Journals.

Publications are an important measure of success in science, and publications in top-tier journals are often highly prized for that reason. This commentary describes gender differences in publication of HIV-related papers that raise questions about best practices in this important aspect of science. Data are needed in cases where there are differences in the publication rates of manuscripts with female versus male senior authors so that approaches that best support diversity in science can be defined.

Why the need and how to approach the functional diversity of extracellular vesicles.

In the past decade, cell-to-cell communication mediated by exosomes has attracted growing attention from biomedical scientists and physicians, leading to several recent publications in top-tier journals. Exosomes are generally defined as secreted membrane vesicles, or extracellular vesicles (EVs), corresponding to the intraluminal vesicles of late endosomal compartments, which are secreted upon fusion of multi-vesicular endosomes with the cell's plasma membrane. Cells, however, were shown to release other types of EVs, for instance, by direct budding off their plasma membrane. Some of these EVs share with exosomes major biophysical and biochemical characteristics, such as size, density and membrane orientation, which impose difficulties in their efficient separation. Despite frequent claims in the literature, whether exosomes really display more important patho/physiological functions, or are endowed with higher potential as diagnostic or therapeutic tools than other EVs, is not yet convincingly demonstrated. In this opinion article, we describe reasons for this lack of precision knowledge in the current stage of the EV field, we review recently described approaches to overcome these caveats, and we propose ways to improve our knowledge on the respective functions of distinct EVs, which will be crucial for future development of well-designed EV-based clinical applications.This article is part of the discussion meeting issue ‘Extracellular vesicles and the tumour microenvironment’.

Wanting More, Getting Less: Gaming Performance Measurement as a Form of Deviant Workplace Behavior

Investigating the causes of unethical behaviors in academia, such as scientific misconduct, has become a highly important research subject. The current performance measurement practices (e.g., equating research performance with the number of publications in top-tier journals) are frequently referred to as being responsible for scientists’ unethical behaviors. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders of the higher education system (e.g., professors and policy makers; N = 43) to analyze the influence of performance measurement on scientists’ behavior. We followed a three-step coding procedure and found (1) that the participants described a variety of positive behavioral consequences (e.g., higher productivity) but mainly negative behavioral consequences (e.g., questionable publishing practices) of current performance measurement practices in academia; (2) that scientists’ behavior can be described as gaming performance measurement (i.e., achieving performance goals by reducing performance quality and focusing on those tasks that are measured); and (3) that gaming performance measurement shares the same characteristics as deviant workplace behavior (i.e., a voluntary violation of organizational norms that harms the university). We discuss that gaming performance measurement has not been considered as a type of deviant workplace behavior in the previous literature. Furthermore, we draw from research on deviant workplace behavior and goal setting to discuss psychological processes that may underlie gaming performance measurement. Our results indicate the importance of connecting literature on deviant workplace behavior and goal setting to advance our understanding of gaming performance measurement.

An examination of the status and evolution of country image research

PurposeCountry image (CI) has been one of the most studied topics in international business, marketing, and consumer behaviour of the past five decades. Nevertheless, there has been no critical assessment of this field of research. The purpose of this paper is to understand the status and evolution of CI research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors review 554 articles published in academic journals over 35 years. The authors examine publication, authorship, and research procedure trends in these articles as an empirical and quantitative assessment of the field. The authors identify weaknesses and strengths, and the authors address disconcerting and encouraging trends.FindingsThe authors find a number of laudatory trends: CI research is becoming less US-centric, more theory driven, more sophisticated in methodology, evaluating more diverse product categories, and making use of multiple cue studies. There are, however, two major methodological concerns: poor replication and questionable generalizability of findings. The authors also noted the influence of CI articles has been decreasing, as well as their rate of publication in top tier journals.Originality/valueSince the authors present data that reflect actual practices in the field and how such practices have changed across time, the authors believe the study is of substantial value to CI researchers, journal editors, and instructors whose curriculum includes CI. The critical assessment and subsequent recommendations are accordingly empirically justified.

Making Great Theories

Making Great Theories

Publication trends in top-tier journals in higher education

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze author and methodological characteristics in top-tier publications in higher education. As the importance of research in the professoriate continues to grow and faculty face ratcheted-up expectations for prestige in their research, such data are important contextually and historically. Design/methodology/approach This descriptive study examines 587 articles within four top-tier higher education research journals from 2008 to 2012. Data were open coded and analyzed with a research team, resulting in an intercoder reliability of 0.96. Findings Results show most authors are assistant professors, overwhelmingly received PhD’s from very high research institutions (Carnegie classification), and currently work in similar institutions. Five degree-granting institutions accounted for 29.0 percent of publications in top-tier journals. Additionally, quantitative research accounted for 60.6 percent of published articles, with regression as the most commonly used analytic technique (34.7 percent). Research limitations/implications This study examined only higher education faculty and institutions based in the USA as well as first authors. Practical implications These results are meant to provide baseline data for top-tier journals within higher education and might inform conversations about methodological acceptability, respectability of qualitative research, graduate education research requirements, journal editor trainings, and tenure and promotion criteria. Originality/value This paper provides an update to previous studies that examined publications in higher education within the last three decades. In addition, this study examines author characteristics, which previous studies have mostly excluded. This study offers empirical data to inform conversations about the state of research in top-tier publications within higher education.

Why So Few New Cardiovascular Drugs Translate to the Clinics.

There are multiple reasons for the failure to successfully translate new drugs to the clinics. One reason, noted by others, is the lack of reproducibility of studies and the problems with accuracy and rigor. However, another reason for translational failure has not been emphasized by others, that is, the lack of state-of-the-art cardiovascular measurements, because of effects of anesthesia, lack of direct measurements of cardiovascular function, and problems of species differences. In part, this is because of the impact of molecular medicine on traditional physiology, which not only affects priority for publication in top-tier journals, but also funding priorities for National Institutes of Health (NIH) study sections, resulting in the closure of almost all cardiovascular physiology laboratories, leaving the cardiovascular physiology in many molecular publications to incidental data that are not peer-reviewed and in many cases are inaccurate. It is the plea of this Viewpoint to correct this deficiency in expertise in our scientific community, a project with no simple solutions. It is widely recognized that relatively few cardiovascular therapeutic modalities are emerging from the plethora of studies in genetically altered mouse models over the past quarter century, for example, the success rate for new drug development projects in Phase II trials fell from 28% to 18%.1 The most popular explanation for this decline has been the irreproducibility of data, in that only in 20% to 25% of projects repeated in industry were the data completely in line with what was in the literature, often because published data were incorrect.1 The current Viewpoint offers a novel reason for failure of translation, that is, the difficulties, limitations, and errors in studying cardiovascular physiology in the 21st century. The goal of this Viewpoint is not to dwell on papers with false or inaccurate data, but rather to offer other reasons …

What Grounded Theory Is…A Critically Reflective Conversation Among Scholars

Grounded theory (GT) is taught in many doctoral schools across the world and exemplified in most methodological books and publications in top-tier journals as a qualitative research method. This limited view of GT does not allow full use of possible resources and restrains researchers’ creativity and capabilities. Thus, it blocks some innovative possibilities and the emergence of valuable theories, which are badly needed. Therefore, understanding the full reach and scope of GT is becoming urgent, and we brought together a panel of established grounded theory scholars to help us in this endeavor through a reflective conversation.

The influence of collaboration on firm publications: Evidence from pharmaceutical cancer research

Although bio-pharmaceutical companies engage intensely in collaboration as well as in scientific publications it is not well understood how and why the choice of distinct partner types affects the quality of companies’ scientific publications. We contribute to this gap in the existing literature by analyzing whether collaboration with particular types of partners and whether network embeddedness influences the quality of publications in cancer research, and specifically of the scientific publications of biotech and of pharmaceutical companies. Our empirical analysis employs two different measures for scientific quality, publication in top-tier journals and the number of forward citations. The results suggest that publication in top-tier journals may depend on different factors and collaboration patterns compared to the number of citations an article receives.

Commentary

Klingner and Boardman (this issue) offer a cogent and compelling argument for opening the door for the acceptance and use of mixed methods in special education research. Self-identifying as pragmatists, they embody this paradigmatic view by focusing on the utility, efficacy, and accuracy of mixed methods, an argument that should appeal to the values and logic of many special education researchers. In my view, the authors chose a smart rhetorical strategy because utility, efficacy, and accuracy map broadly to reliability and validity. And, in this field, methodologies that are thought to increase a work's reliability and validity are especially valuable in raising the quality and quantity of other highly valued fruits of the labor of research (i.e., results-based processes, outcomes, and evidence). To illustrate their point, Klingner and Boardman discuss the inadequate and overly simplistic conceptualizations of participants' sociodemographic characteristics, contributing to a static view of culture in reading intervention research. Here, the authors argue convincingly that the use of mixed methods can help researchers focus on multiple and multilayered research questions that also include the collection and analysis of data that capture cultural practices, institutional cultures, and context. In some ways, when it comes to mixed methods, I am a choir member to whom Klingner and Boardman preach. I have used mixed methods and do not need to be convinced of their methodological value. Their both/and argument also appeals to me because I find the qual/quant dichotomy mind-numbing and unproductive. I wholeheartedly agree with the underlying argument the authors posit: The overemphasis on randomized control experiments in special education research minimizes our adept use of a variety of research strategies, particularly when we address questions about inequity and cultural and linguistic diversity. Unfortunately, narrow views of what counts as research also have potentially negative and far-reaching consequences in the lives of scholars who value innovation and other ways of knowing as they problematize issues and solutions. If reviewers categorically reject studies with few participants or interpretivist designs and analyses, dissemination of a broad spectrum of research is effectively halted. For researchers, who often work under the demand of high productivity measured by numbers of publications in top-tier journals, such reviewing practices could prevent them from reaching a wide audience, receiving grants, and/or becoming tenured. Expanding the scope of research approaches, Klingner and Broadman argue, is closely connected to broader issues of diversity. Here I am extending their argument to include scholars who are themselves representative in some way of (dis)ability, racial/ethnic, linguistic, and other dimensions of diversity. Although it is important not to overgeneralize, a plethora of examples from the larger field of education research illustrates the point that for scholars who have experienced marginalization and been academically successful, acknowledging multiple realities and using the tools of interpretivism are essential and defining characteristics of their scholarly contributions (for examples, see Delpit, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Trueba, 1999; Valenzuela, 1999). In no way should my point be interpreted to mean that members of the dominant group are not also drawn to interpretivist methodologies, or that scholars who have experienced marginalization never embrace positivistic methodologies. In fact, the influence of researcher-identities likely waxes and wanes as we pursue opportunities to study our field (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2003). Using mixed methods research allows us to escape the false dichotomy of interpretivism--positivism while simultaneously expanding the community of scholars, and thus the knowledge we generate. Equally important, mixed-methods research provides an opportunity to expand our thinking, too. …

Contributors

Contributors

Does Publication in Top-Tier Journals Affect Reviewer Behavior?

We show that when ecologists act as reviewers their reported rejection rates recommended for manuscripts increases with their publication frequency in high impact factor journals. Rejection rate however does not relate to reviewer age. These results indicate that the likelihood of getting a paper accepted for publication may depend upon factors in addition to scientific merit. Multiple reviewer selection for a given manuscript therefore should consider not only appropriate expertise, but also reviewers that have variable publication experience with a range of different journals to ensure balanced treatment. Interestingly since age did not relate to rejection rates, more senior scientists are not necessarily more jaded in reviewing practices.

Publishing in the Majors: A Comparison of Accounting, Finance, Management, and Marketing

Publication in top-tier journals is the primary criterion for promotion at many business schools and a strong influence on salary, teaching load, and research support. Business schools evaluate publication records by comparing the quality and quantity of top-tier research articles to those of peers within the same discipline (intradisciplinary) and to those of academics from other business disciplines (interdisciplinary). An analytical model of the research review process (the q-r model) predicts that interdisciplinary differences exist in the standards that top-tier journals use for accepting articles. If true, decision makers should consider these differences. I examine the period from 1980 to 1999 and, consistent with the model's predictions, find that significant differences exist in the number of articles and proportion of faculty who published in the journals in accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Most notably, top-tier accounting journals publish substantially fewer major articles than journals in the other three business disciplines. In addition, I find the proportion of doctoral faculty publishing a major article has declined in all four disciplines over the 1980 to 1999 period.