Cargando…
Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models
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 meas...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6454769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31007948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6 |
_version_ | 1783409607992934400 |
---|---|
author | Haven, Tamarinde L. de Goede, Marije Esther Evalien Tijdink, Joeri K. Oort, Frans Jeroen |
author_facet | Haven, Tamarinde L. de Goede, Marije Esther Evalien Tijdink, Joeri K. Oort, Frans Jeroen |
author_sort | Haven, Tamarinde L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6454769 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64547692019-04-19 Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models Haven, Tamarinde L. de Goede, Marije Esther Evalien Tijdink, Joeri K. Oort, Frans Jeroen Res Integr Peer Rev Methodology 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6454769/ /pubmed/31007948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Haven, Tamarinde L. de Goede, Marije Esther Evalien Tijdink, Joeri K. Oort, Frans Jeroen Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models |
title | Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models |
title_full | Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models |
title_fullStr | Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models |
title_full_unstemmed | Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models |
title_short | Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models |
title_sort | personally perceived publication pressure: revising the publication pressure questionnaire (ppq) by using work stress models |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6454769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31007948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT haventamarindel personallyperceivedpublicationpressurerevisingthepublicationpressurequestionnaireppqbyusingworkstressmodels AT degoedemarijeestherevalien personallyperceivedpublicationpressurerevisingthepublicationpressurequestionnaireppqbyusingworkstressmodels AT tijdinkjoerik personallyperceivedpublicationpressurerevisingthepublicationpressurequestionnaireppqbyusingworkstressmodels AT oortfransjeroen personallyperceivedpublicationpressurerevisingthepublicationpressurequestionnaireppqbyusingworkstressmodels |