NEWS

Study explores disparities between researchers publishing in high- and low-impact journals

Open access has not significantly changed the publishing landscape regarding impact factors. That is the conclusion of a study investigating the differences between authors who publish in high- and low-impact factor medical journals. 

The authors, Carlos Eduardo Paiva et al, from Brazil, collected responses from 269 participants who had published in 30 journals that they grouped according to their impact factor.  The survey evaluated the personal characteristics of the researchers, their perceptions of the barriers to the development of research, the process of manuscript writing and journal publication and work-life balance, career satisfaction and motivation. 

The main indicator for the increased likelihood of publishing in a higher impact factor journal was living in a country where English is the official language, which was associated with an almost three-fold greater chance of publication. This factor was more relevant than being located in a wealthy country. However, living in a country with a higher per capita gross domestic product was still associated with a greater chance of being published in a high-impact journal.

The majority of the responders from both groups also complained about difficulties caused by a lack of time in which to do their research, with the chance of publishing in a high-impact journal increasing gradually as the researcher dedicated more time to research. Other variables increasing the chance of publishing in a high-impact factor journal were having more than five graduate students under supervision and never using text editing services, pointing again to the importance of having English as a first language as a marker of successful publication. The results of the survey also suggest that an intense mentoring activity such as tutoring junior researchers was extremely significant and is more relevant than occupying a high ranking position in an academic institution.

Researchers who published in high impact journals received more frequent funding from the government, industry and non-governmental awards and funds, whereas one’s own financial resources were the key source for the authors who published in low-impact journals.

 However, when questioned regarding their preference between being very well financially compensated or being considered leaders in their areas, the majority of the participants of both groups declared that they would prefer to be a leader. Despite this, one of the most interesting outcomes of the study was that researchers who published in high-impact journals considered themselves significantly more satisfied with their present work situation than the researchers who published in low-impact journals.

Raphael Araujo (Barretos Cancer Hospital, Sao Paulo), one of the co-authors, reported: 'The results showed that scholars that successfully publish medical research in high-impact journals have distinct profiles pertaining to the actual amount of time dedicated to research, their scientific writing and English language abilities, and the availability of financial resources.'

The paper was published on 7 February 2017 in ecancermedicalscience.

Twitter icon
Google icon
Del.icio.us icon
Digg icon
LinkedIn icon
Reddit icon
e-mail icon
Feature

Cartoon abstracts are a very effective way to bring research to life, writes Daniel Pullin

Analysis and opinion
Interview

Judy Verses is executive vice president for research at John Wiley and Sons

Feature

From pilots to practice, more and more publishers are warming to open peer review, reports Rebecca Pool