IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v27y2018i4p347-357..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Continued publications by health science PhDs, 5 years post PhD-Defence

Author

Listed:
  • Lorna Wildgaard
  • Kim Wildgaard

Abstract

There is an increased focus on the outcomes of Health Science PhD-education, particularly if PhD-graduates remain active in research. There is a gap in our knowledge about the extent the investment in Health Science PhDs is moving science forward and no definition of expected investment return from PhD exists. We explore the research production of Danish Health Science PhDs, 5–9 years post PhD-defence, to find the fraction of PhD-graduates that are still actively publishing internationally. Secondary endpoints include analyses of the number of publications over time, identification of consecutive publishers, gender differences, and differences between medical doctors with a PhD (MDs) and non-MDs with a PhD. PhD-theses defended in 2005 and 2006 were identified and collected using the Danish National Research Database and via the four Danish universities offering Health Science PhD-programmes. Publication data were collected from Years 5 to 9 post PhD-defence to allow publications produced during the PhD-period to be washed out. Total 532 unique PhD-graduates (300 female and 232 male) produced a total of 4,530 PubMed-indexed publications. Results show zero publishers represented 31.2% (n = 166), while 25.8% (n = 137) of PhD-graduates published 10 or more publications during the 5-year observation window. Overall publication count increased from post PhD Years 5–9 with 68% (from 720 to 1,049). Number of publications did not differ between MDs and non-MDs. Our results evidence that not all graduates continue in research. Consequently, we need to identify early factors that make graduates remain in research, to identify future PhD-candidates that will continue publication post PhD.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorna Wildgaard & Kim Wildgaard, 2018. "Continued publications by health science PhDs, 5 years post PhD-Defence," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 347-357.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:4:p:347-357.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvy027
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tove Faber Frandsen & Rasmus Højbjerg Jacobsen & Jakob Ousager, 2020. "Gender gaps in scientific performance: a longitudinal matching study of health sciences researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1511-1527, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:4:p:347-357.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.