Panel report ECIS 2012: publication strategy for junior researchers: quantity vs. quality, importance of the first authorship and collaboration

The publication record is a key component of a successful academic career in IS. Despite its importance, its definition - especially for junior researchers―remains unclear. Is it better to have one A-publication or three Bpublications? Does being the third author on an A-publication carry more weight than being the first author on a Bpublication? Is it better to publish with as few co-authors as possible to demonstrate ability for independent work or is publishing with others a sign of good teamwork and academic excellence? Faced with these uncertainties, young researchers increasingly question the choices they make regarding their publication strategy. If unaddressed, these issues are bound to interfere with the quality of the IS research and scholars’ job satisfaction. This article raises these concerns associated with a publication strategy for junior researchers and reports the views voiced by five academics at a panel session at the European Conference on Information Systems 2012. In particular, the following topics are discussed: quantity vs. quality, value of the first authorship, the “optimal” number of authors, and the issues of co-authorship with an academic supervisor.

Let’s collaborate, but I will be the first author! Exploring the importance of the first authorship for IS researchers

Collaboration among researchers is typically seen as the quintessence of academic excellence, leading to improvements in the research quality, capitalization on the diversity of perspectives and gains in productivity. Despite these benefits, many research teams find themselves torn by competition, antagonism and resentment. Desire to be the first author and resultant underperformance of non-first co-authors is often at the root of these conflicts. At the same time little is known about what motivates researchers in general and IS researchers in particular to engage as first authors. To fill this gap, this study uses survey methodology to explore the attitudes of IS researchers and their resulting behavior when it comes to authors order. Qualitative and quantitative evidence collected from 398 IS researchers is used to support our analysis. We find that researchers’ desire to be the first authors is mainly driven by such determinants as career aspirations, visibility, leadership and sense of ownership, and less so by the desire to satisfy their self-esteem and self-actualization needs. In addition, the value placed on being the first author appears to be the function of researchers’ career level, with Ph.D. students attaching significantly higher value to it than senior scholars.

Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium

To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.

Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the valve academic research consortium

To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2)

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

The aim of the current Valvular Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)- clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.