Being highly productive in the Biomedical Sciences: A qualitative study of motivation and habits of high-throughput researchers

J. Vissoci, Aline Chotte de Oliveira, Nelly Moraes Gil, Paulo Rafael Sanches Calvo, Ney Stival, T. Yen, M. Haglund, C. Staton
{"title":"Being highly productive in the Biomedical Sciences: A qualitative study of motivation and habits of high-throughput researchers","authors":"J. Vissoci, Aline Chotte de Oliveira, Nelly Moraes Gil, Paulo Rafael Sanches Calvo, Ney Stival, T. Yen, M. Haglund, C. Staton","doi":"10.21171/GES.V13I34.2472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Quantity, quality, and impact of scientific publications are used to assess national, institutional, and individual levels of research productivity. While the importance of quality research is stressed among the medical research community, minimal research has been conducted on analyzing which factors affect research productivity. Current literature assesses the quality of research institutions rather than that of individual researchers; there is also no research on the difference between high-impact researchers and other researchers. This study, conducted in 2015, sought to investigate the underlying reason for high-throughput authors' success by understanding their similar habits and motivations leading to high productivity. \nMethods: The authors conducted a qualitative study via interviews of high-throughput researchers from around the world. Semi-structured interview scripts guided the interviews in accordance to the grounded theory method for qualitative studies. Broad themes from preliminary interviews were identified and explored in subsequent interviews. \nResults: Qualitative analysis of participant interviews identified eight major themes: “Writing habits,” “Writing strategy,” “Previous training and writing experience,” “Major driver,” “Balancing volume and impact of publications,” “Ideal and non-ideal conditions,” “Timelines,” and “Role of networking on high-throughput productivity.” These themes are not exclusive nor required qualities of high-throughput researchers but highlight similarities and broadly unifying characteristics of these researchers. \nConclusion:This study identified the common qualities and attitudes of high-throughput researchers. We found common factors in most individuals that can be considered markers of high productivity.","PeriodicalId":347158,"journal":{"name":"Gestão e Sociedade","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gestão e Sociedade","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21171/GES.V13I34.2472","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Quantity, quality, and impact of scientific publications are used to assess national, institutional, and individual levels of research productivity. While the importance of quality research is stressed among the medical research community, minimal research has been conducted on analyzing which factors affect research productivity. Current literature assesses the quality of research institutions rather than that of individual researchers; there is also no research on the difference between high-impact researchers and other researchers. This study, conducted in 2015, sought to investigate the underlying reason for high-throughput authors' success by understanding their similar habits and motivations leading to high productivity. Methods: The authors conducted a qualitative study via interviews of high-throughput researchers from around the world. Semi-structured interview scripts guided the interviews in accordance to the grounded theory method for qualitative studies. Broad themes from preliminary interviews were identified and explored in subsequent interviews. Results: Qualitative analysis of participant interviews identified eight major themes: “Writing habits,” “Writing strategy,” “Previous training and writing experience,” “Major driver,” “Balancing volume and impact of publications,” “Ideal and non-ideal conditions,” “Timelines,” and “Role of networking on high-throughput productivity.” These themes are not exclusive nor required qualities of high-throughput researchers but highlight similarities and broadly unifying characteristics of these researchers. Conclusion:This study identified the common qualities and attitudes of high-throughput researchers. We found common factors in most individuals that can be considered markers of high productivity.
在生物医学科学中高效:高通量研究人员的动机和习惯的定性研究
背景:科学出版物的数量、质量和影响被用来评估国家、机构和个人的研究生产力水平。虽然医学研究界强调高质量研究的重要性,但对影响研究生产力的因素进行分析的研究却很少。目前的文献评估的是研究机构的质量,而不是研究人员个人的质量;也没有关于高影响力研究人员和其他研究人员之间差异的研究。这项研究于2015年进行,旨在通过了解高通量作者导致高生产力的相似习惯和动机,来调查高通量作者成功的潜在原因。方法:作者通过采访来自世界各地的高通量研究人员进行定性研究。半结构化访谈脚本按照扎根理论的定性研究方法指导访谈。在随后的访谈中确定并探讨了初步访谈的主要主题。结果:对参与者访谈的定性分析确定了八个主要主题:“写作习惯”、“写作策略”、“以前的培训和写作经验”、“主要驱动因素”、“出版物数量和影响的平衡”、“理想和非理想条件”、“时间表”和“网络对高吞吐量生产力的作用”。这些主题不是高通量研究人员所独有的,也不是必需的品质,而是突出了这些研究人员的相似性和广泛的统一特征。结论:本研究确定了高通量研究人员的共同素质和态度。我们在大多数人身上发现了可以被认为是高生产力标志的共同因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信