‘Publication pressure’ evident albeit not overwhelming in medical imaging

Radiology researchers feel no less squeezed to “publish or perish” than academics working in any other medical specialty.

It’s no surprise, then, that a new study finds perceptions of such pressure to be substantial across ages and ranks of medical imaging academics.

The study is noteworthy since publication pressure can aggravate workplace burnout—and tempt sufferers to commit publication fraud. Examples of the latter include selectively reporting findings, plagiarizing other researchers, fabricating or falsifying findings, and “double-dipping,” in which researchers stealthily repurpose portions of their own prior work for different journals.

The new look at perceived publication pressure comes from Zuyderland Medical Center and the University of Groningen, both in the Netherlands. The European Journal of Radiology presents the study in its May edition.

For the study, Robert Kwee, MD, PhD, and co-investigators sent surveys to researchers who were listed as corresponding authors in any of 12 general radiology journals bearing competitive impact factors in 2023. A few more than 200 invitees returned completed surveys.

(The 12 journals they included were Radiology, Radiologica Medica, Investigative Radiology, European Radiology, Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, American Journal of Roentgenology, Korean Journal of Radiology, Academic Radiology, Insights into Imaging, Journal of the American College of Radiology, European Journal of Radiology, and Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal.)

The surveys used a revised version of the established Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQr). This uses a 5-point Likert scale in which 5 represents the strongest level of agreement with a series of statements designed to gauge “publication stress,” “publication attitude” and awareness of resources for mitigating publication anxiety (“publication resources”).

Kwee and co-authors report the median PPQr scores in these three domains were 3.33, 3.50 and 3.67, respectively.

Breaking the responses into demographic subgroupings, the team found researchers with the highest levels of perceived publication stress had three characteristics in common. They were females of 25 to 34 years of age with 5 to 10 years of research experience.

The subgroup carrying the least perceived publication pressure was comprised of researchers of ages 65 and up.

In addition:

• Age 55 to 64 years and age > 65 years were associated with a more positive view toward the publication climate.  
• Age 45 to 54 years was associated with a perception of fewer factors available to alleviate publication pressure.
• Age 25 to 34 years was associated with a perception of more factors available to alleviate publication pressure.

“The results of this study show that researchers who published in one of the top 12 general radiology journals in 2023 have a generally more negative experience with publication stress, the publication climate and the availability of factors to alleviate publication pressure,” Kwee et al. comment in their discussion.

At the same time, the results were “not extremely negative,” they point out, noting that the median PPQr scores in the three domains of interest varied between 3.33 and 3.67 on the 5-point scale (in which a score of 3 corresponds with a neutral view).

“These findings do not have any moral or ethical implications at this moment, because it remains unclear if the perceived publication pressure among medical imaging researchers is too high,” the authors add. “It can even be argued that some degree of publication pressure is necessary for researchers to achieve the levels of performance required.”

More:

‘[O]ur study did not demonstrate any significant association between perceived publication pressure and reported scientific misconduct, although further research on this topic is required. Our results on publication pressure should be regarded as a valuable benchmark that can be used for comparison by individual radiology departments and by future studies.’

The full study is posted here (behind paywall).