IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0073381.html

Publication Pressure and Burn Out among Dutch Medical Professors: A Nationwide Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Joeri K Tijdink
  • Anton C M Vergouwen
  • Yvo M Smulders

Abstract

Background: Publication of scientific research papers is important for professionals working in academic medical centres. Quantitative measures of scientific output determine status and prestige, and serve to rank universities as well as individuals. The pressure to generate maximum scientific output is high, and quantitative aspects may tend to dominate over qualitative ones. How this pressure influences professionals’ perception of science and their personal well-being is unknown. Methods and Findings: We performed an online survey inviting all medical professors (n = 1206) of the 8 academic medical centres in The Netherlands to participate. They were asked to fill out 2 questionnaires; a validated Publication Pressure Questionnaire and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. In total, 437 professors completed the questionnaires. among them, 54% judge that publication pressure ‘has become excessive’, 39% believe that publication pressure ‘affects the credibility of medical research’ and 26% judge that publication pressure has a ‘sickening effect on medical science’. The burn out questionnaire indicates that 24% of medical professors have signs of burn out. The number of years of professorship was significantly related with experiencing less publication pressure. Significant and strong associations between burn out symptoms and the level of perceived publication pressure were found. The main limitation is the possibility of response bias. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of medical professors believe that publication pressure has become excessive, and have a cynical view on the validity of medical science. These perceptions are statistically correlated to burn out symptoms. Further research should address the effects of publication pressure in more detail and identify alternative ways to stimulate the quality of medical science.

Suggested Citation

  • Joeri K Tijdink & Anton C M Vergouwen & Yvo M Smulders, 2013. "Publication Pressure and Burn Out among Dutch Medical Professors: A Nationwide Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0073381
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073381&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0073381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2012. "Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1282-1293, July.
    2. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    3. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    4. Neal S Young, 2008. "Why Current Publication May Distort Science," Working Papers id:1757, eSocialSciences.
    5. Neal S Young & John P A Ioannidis & Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2008. "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-5, October.
    6. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226750248 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Julian Decius & Miriam Schilbach, 2025. "Fair credit? The impact of shared first authorship on academic career evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1731-1750, March.
    2. Cristina Sestili & Stefania Scalingi & Sara Cianfanelli & Alice Mannocci & Angela Del Cimmuto & Simone De Sio & Massimiliano Chiarini & Marco Di Muzio & Paolo Villari & Maria De Giusti & Giuseppe La T, 2018. "Reliability and Use of Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Italian Sample of University Professors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-11, August.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0217931 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Daniele Fanelli & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    5. Tahira M Probst & Jasmina Tomas & Lara Roll & Darja Maslić Seršić & Lixin Jiang & Melissa R Jenkins, 2024. "Attenuating the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction: An examination of the role of organizational learning climate in three countries," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 45(2), pages 304-334, May.
    6. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Thomas Klebel & Petr Knoth & Nancy Pontika, 2024. "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 337-351.
    7. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2018. "Invisible barriers to the top for female economists," Other publications TiSEM 86a9c814-6feb-4056-b7dd-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Julia Heuritsch, 2021. "Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, November.
    9. Halizah Mat Rifin & Mahmoud Danaee, 2022. "Association between Burnout, Job Dissatisfaction and Intention to Leave among Medical Researchers in a Research Organisation in Malaysia during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.

    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. Mark D Lindner & Richard K Nakamura, 2015. "Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Daniele Fanelli & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Mitesh Kataria, 2010. "The Role of Preferences in Disagreements over Scientific Hypothesis: An Empirical Inquiry into Environmental and Economic Decision Making," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-088, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Nelson, Jon P., 2014. "Estimating the price elasticity of beer: Meta-analysis of data with heterogeneity, dependence, and publication bias," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 180-187.
    7. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Kirmayer, Laurence J., 2012. "Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics of pluralism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 249-256.
    9. T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Does economics add up? An introduction to meta-regression analysis," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 10(2), pages 207-220.
    10. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    11. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "The alleged citation advantage of video abstracts may be a matter of self-citations and self-selection bias. Comment on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts” by Zong et al," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 751-757, January.
    12. Christine R Harris & Noriko Coburn & Doug Rohrer & Harold Pashler, 2013. "Two Failures to Replicate High-Performance-Goal Priming Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    13. Martin Paldam, 2016. "Simulating an empirical paper by the rational economist," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1383-1407, June.
    14. Costa-Font, Joan & McGuire, Alistair & Stanley, Tom, 2013. "Publication selection in health policy research: The winner's curse hypothesis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 78-87.
    15. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    16. Moritz Edlinger & Finn Buchrieser & Guilherme Wood, 2023. "Presence and consequences of positive words in scientific abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6633-6657, December.
    17. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    18. José María Cavero & Belén Vela & Paloma Cáceres, 2014. "Computer science research: more production, less productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2103-2111, March.
    19. Siobhan C Dongés & Jessica M D’Amico & Jane E Butler & Janet L Taylor, 2017. "The effects of cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb in humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    20. Chris Doucouliagos & T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition And Selectivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 316-339, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0073381. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.