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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haven, Tamarinde L., de Goede, Marije Esther Evalien, Tijdink, Joeri K., Oort, Frans Jeroen
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