Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown medical students in Germany to have little interest in research while at the same time there is a lack of physician scientists. This study’s aim is to investigate factors influencing publication productivity of physicians during and after finishing their medical doctorate.MethodsWe conducted a PubMed search for physicians having received their doctoral degree at Ludwig-Maxmilians-University Munich Faculty of Medicine between 2011 and 2013 (N = 924) and identified the appropriate impact factor (IF) for each journal the participants had published in. Gender, age, final grade of the doctorate, participation in a structured doctoral study program and joint publication activities between graduate and academic supervisor were defined as factors. For analyses we used nonparametric procedures.ResultsMen show significantly more publications than women. Before their doctoral graduation men publish 1.98 (SD ± 3.64) articles on average, women 1.15 (±2.67) (p < 0.0001, d = 0.27). After completion of the doctorate (up to 06/2015), 40 % of men still publish, while only 24.3 % of women (p < 0.0001, φ = 0.17) continue to publish. No differences were found concerning the value of IFs. Similar results were found regarding the variable ‘participation in a structured doctoral study program’. Until doctoral graduation, program participants publish 2.82 (±5.41) articles, whereas participants doing their doctorate individually only publish 1.39 (±2.87) articles (p < 0.0001, d = 0.46). These differences persist in publication activities after graduation (45.5 vs. 29.7 %, p = 0.008, φ = 0.09). A structured doctorate seems to have positive influence on IFs (4.33 ± 2.91 vs. 3.37 ± 2.82, p = 0.006, d = 0.34). Further significant results concern the variables ‘final grade’ and ‘age’: An early doctoral graduation and an excellent or very good grade for the doctoral thesis positively influence publication productivity. Finally, joint publication activities between the graduate and his/her academic supervisor result in significantly higher IFs (3.64 ± 3.03 vs. 2.84 ± 2.25, p = 0.007, d = 0.28).ConclusionsThe study’s results support the assumption about women’s underrepresentation in science as well as the relevance of structured doctoral study programs for preparing and recruiting young academics in medicine for scientific careers. Promoting women and further development of structured doctoral study programs are highly recommended.

Motives for Obtaining a Doctorate and Perceived Meaningfulness of Doctorates: A Comparison between Medicine and Life Sciences

“…This raises the question of why female medical professionals in particular are less interested in research than their male counterparts are. In line with these results, a lower research-related self-efficacy among female doctoral graduates compared to male doctoral graduates in medicine (6) and a lower publication activity after completion of the doctorate was found (46). It is conceivable that there is a self-selection bias among the female population of medical students, so that females who exhibit less pronounced career goals (clinical or research related) chose medicine more often as a field of study than females with the reverse profile.…”

Academic career intentions in the life sciences: Can research self-efficacy beliefs explain low numbers of aspiring physician and female scientists?

“…However, the simplest answer to the inconsistent findings may be unobserved heterogeneity: whereby, actual differences in scientific performance may possibly explain lower levels of research self-efficacy expressed by females. This is an argument which is also supported by several findings suggesting that female researchers publish less [ 59 – 63 ] despite some evidence that this trend might fade or even reverse in younger generations [ 64 ]. Following from this, it is hypothesized that there are no gender differences in research self-efficacy and academic career intentions when controlling for objective scientific performance:…”

Individual and institutional influencing factors on completion rates in a medical education master’s program in Germany

“…This gets expressed, among other things, in the fact that university teaching methods courses have become an integral part of concepts of continuing education and advanced training, as well as the fact that professorships and institutions for medical education research and disciplinary teaching methods have been established at several universities [1]. Progress was also apparent in publishing activity [29], [31], and in 2015, “National Competence Based Catalogues of Learning Objectives” for medicine (NKML) and dentistry (NKLZ) could be released in Germany [32]. In light of this background, it can be expected that German home faculties will, in the future, accord even greater importance to medical teaching methods and educational research.…”