IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v4y2016i2p14-d71683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?

Author

Listed:
  • Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean

    (Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania)

  • Sorana D. Bolboacă

    (Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania)

  • Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu

    (Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania)

  • Tudor Cătălin Drugan

    (Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania)

Abstract

Purpose : To assess the assumption that differences exist between the traditional and publication-based PhD routes in terms of the thesis’ length and the scientific publications originating from it. Method : A retrospective comparative study on medical PhD theses offered by an online repository was performed. All free full-text medical PhD theses defended at United Kingdom institutions between 2003 and 2015 were analyzed and assigned to the traditional (TT) or publication based thesis (PBT) group. Several characteristics of theses and thesis-related articles were collected and analyzed. The thesis-related articles were investigated regarding quantity and visibility (citations, impact factor, and journal rank). Results : The theses length proved similar in PBT and TT group. PBT group included significantly more studies than TT group (mean 4.44 vs. 2.67) also reflected in significantly more thesis-related articles. The percentage of articles listed in Web of Science and published in a journal with impact factor proved significantly lower in TT compared with PBT group. On the contrary, article citations were significantly higher for TT. Both groups published similarly in high-ranked journals (Q1 or Q2). Conclusion : The research productivity originating from the PBT group was, as expected, significantly larger but not significantly more visible than those from TT group.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean & Sorana D. Bolboacă & Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu & Tudor Cătălin Drugan, 2016. "Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:4:y:2016:i:2:p:14-:d:71683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/14/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/14/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pinheiro, Diogo & Melkers, Julia & Youtie, Jan, 2014. "Learning to play the game: Student publishing as an indicator of future scholarly success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 56-66.
    2. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2014. "How do you define and measure research productivity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1129-1144, November.
    3. Mercedes Echeverria & David Stuart & Tobias Blanke, 2015. "Medical theses and derivative articles: dissemination of contents and publication patterns," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 559-586, January.
    4. Malen Hollmann & Carme Borrell & Olatz Garin & Esteve Fernández & Jordi Alonso, 2015. "Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 60(4), pages 495-504, May.
    5. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    6. Katarina Prpić, 2000. "The Publication Productivity of Young Scientists: An Empirical Study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(3), pages 453-490, November.
    7. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    8. Don Schauder, 1994. "Electronic publishing of professional articles: Attitudes of academics and implications for the scholarly communication industry," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 45(2), pages 73-100, March.
    9. Wendy A. Stock & John J. Siegfried, 2013. "One Essay on Dissertation Formats in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 648-653, May.
    10. Peng Dong & Marie Loh & Adrian Mondry, 2006. "Publication lag in biomedical journals varies due to the periodical's publishing model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(2), pages 271-286, November.
    11. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    12. Nils T. Hagen, 2010. "Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 567-579, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    2. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    3. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    5. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    6. Meyer, Matthias & Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. & Duscher, Irina & Just, Alexander, 2018. "Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 24-46.
    7. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    9. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2016. "Why the referees’ reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 967-986, March.
    11. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    12. Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. A. García & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2018. "Editorial decisions with informed and uninformed reviewers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 25-43, October.
    13. Randa Alsabahi, 2022. "English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    15. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    16. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    17. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    18. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2020. "What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(1), pages 195-217, March.
    19. Weinhold, Ines & Gurtner, Sebastian, 2014. "Understanding shortages of sufficient health care in rural areas," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 201-214.
    20. Minhyeok Lee, 2023. "Game-Theoretical Analysis of Reviewer Rewards in Peer-Review Journal Systems: Analysis and Experimental Evaluation using Deep Reinforcement Learning," Papers 2305.12088, arXiv.org.

    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:gam:jpubli:v:4:y:2016:i:2:p:14-:d:71683. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.