Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2019-04-09 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6
Tamarinde L Haven, Marije Esther Evalien de Goede, Joeri K Tijdink, Frans Jeroen Oort
{"title":"Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models.","authors":"Tamarinde L Haven,&nbsp;Marije Esther Evalien de Goede,&nbsp;Joeri K Tijdink,&nbsp;Frans Jeroen Oort","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised PPQ (PPQr) to a convenience sample together with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). To assess which items best measured publication pressure, we carried out a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was sufficient when Cronbach's alpha > 0.7. Finally, we administered the PPQr in a larger, independent sample of researchers to check the reliability of the revised version.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three components were identified as 'stress', 'attitude', and 'resources'. We selected 3 × 6 = 18 items with high loadings in the three-component solution. Based on the convenience sample, Cronbach's alphas were 0.83 for stress, 0.80 for attitude, and 0.76 for resources. We checked the validity of the PPQr by inspecting the correlations with the MBI and the WDQ. Stress correlated 0.62 with MBI's emotional exhaustion. Resources correlated 0.50 with relevant WDQ subscales. To assess the internal structure of the PPQr in the independent reliability sample, we conducted the principal component analysis. The three-component solution explains 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.75 for stress, attitude, and resources, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We conclude that the PPQr is a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure in academic researchers from all disciplinary fields. The PPQr strongly relates to burnout and could also be beneficial for policy makers and research institutions to assess the degree of publication pressure in their institute.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"4 ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Background: The emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.

Method: We constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised PPQ (PPQr) to a convenience sample together with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). To assess which items best measured publication pressure, we carried out a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was sufficient when Cronbach's alpha > 0.7. Finally, we administered the PPQr in a larger, independent sample of researchers to check the reliability of the revised version.

Results: Three components were identified as 'stress', 'attitude', and 'resources'. We selected 3 × 6 = 18 items with high loadings in the three-component solution. Based on the convenience sample, Cronbach's alphas were 0.83 for stress, 0.80 for attitude, and 0.76 for resources. We checked the validity of the PPQr by inspecting the correlations with the MBI and the WDQ. Stress correlated 0.62 with MBI's emotional exhaustion. Resources correlated 0.50 with relevant WDQ subscales. To assess the internal structure of the PPQr in the independent reliability sample, we conducted the principal component analysis. The three-component solution explains 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.75 for stress, attitude, and resources, respectively.

Conclusion: We conclude that the PPQr is a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure in academic researchers from all disciplinary fields. The PPQr strongly relates to burnout and could also be beneficial for policy makers and research institutions to assess the degree of publication pressure in their institute.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
个人感知出版压力:运用工作压力模型对出版压力问卷进行修订。
背景:对影响因子和发表量的重视加剧了研究者之间的竞争。这种竞争传统上被认为是产生高质量作品的一种激励,但这种竞争也有不受欢迎的副作用,比如出版压力。为了测量出版压力对科研人员的影响,我们编制了出版压力问卷(PPQ)。在使用PPQ后,一些问题暴露出来,促使了修订。方法:采用面形法在工作应力模型的基础上构建两个新的子量表。我们将修订后的PPQ (PPQr)与Maslach职业倦怠量表(MBI)和工作设计问卷(WDQ)一起应用于方便样本。为了评估哪些项目最能衡量出版压力,我们进行了主成分分析(PCA)。当Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7时,信度是足够的。最后,我们在一个更大的、独立的研究人员样本中进行了PPQr测试,以检验修订版本的可靠性。结果:三个组成部分被确定为“压力”、“态度”和“资源”。我们在三组分溶液中选择了3 × 6 = 18个高负荷项目。基于便利样本,压力的Cronbach’s alpha为0.83,态度的Cronbach’s alpha为0.80,资源的Cronbach’s alpha为0.76。我们通过检查与MBI和WDQ的相关性来检查PPQr的有效性。压力与MBI的情绪耗竭相关系数为0.62。资源与相关WDQ子量表的相关系数为0.50。为了评估独立可靠性样本中PPQr的内部结构,我们进行了主成分分析。三分量解解释了50%的方差。压力、态度和资源的Cronbach's alpha分别为0.80、0.78和0.75。结论:PPQr是衡量各学科学术人员发表压力的有效、可靠的工具。PPQr与职业倦怠密切相关,也有助于政策制定者和研究机构评估其所在机构的出版压力程度。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1