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.

Publication trade-offs for junior scholars in IS: conjoint analysis of preferences for quality, first authorship, collaboration and time

A publication record provides evidence of research productivity and is critical for junior scholars starting their careers in academia. Publication attributes, such as level of the publication outlet, order and number of authors, are typically used to evaluate its quality. However, time spent on a publication is a limited commodity, and researchers face significant trade-offs when deciding which publications they should concentrate on. To better understand the choices made, conjoint analysis with 241 junior IS scholars was conducted. We find that when “quality vs. number of authors” and “quality vs. time” trade-offs are considered, quality is prioritized. However, the emphasis on quality is less pronounced when “rank as an author” is at stake. Especially Ph.D. students tend to choose first authorship when dealing with “quality vs. rank as an author” trade-off. Our findings provide intriguing insights into how publication attributes weigh against each other when research collaboration decisions are made.

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.

All-cause mortality in treated HIV-infected adults with CD4 >=500/mm3 compared with the general population: evidence from a large European observational cohort collaboration{dagger}

Using data from a large European collaborative study, we aimed to identify the circumstances in which treated HIV-infected individuals will experience similar mortality rates to those of the general population.

Accuracy of immunological criteria for identifying virological failure in children on antiretroviral therapy - The IeDEA Southern Africa Collaboration

Objectives  To determine the diagnostic accuracy of World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 and 2006 as well as United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 2008 definitions of immunological failure for identifying virological failure (VF) in children on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Methods  Analysis of data from children (<16 years at ART initiation) at South African ART sites at which CD4 count/per cent and HIV-RNA monitoring are performed 6-monthly. Incomplete virological suppression (IVS) was defined as failure to achieve ≥1 HIV-RNA ≤400 copies/ml between 6 and 15 months on ART and viral rebound (VR) as confirmed HIV-RNA ≥5000 copies/ml in a child on ART for ≥18 months who had achieved suppression during the first year on treatment. Results  Among 3115 children [median (interquartile range) age 48 (20-84) months at ART initiation] on treatment for ≥1 year, sensitivity of immunological criteria for IVS was 10%, 6% and 26% for WHO 2006, WHO 2010 and DHHS 2008 criteria, respectively. The corresponding positive predictive values (PPV) were 31%, 20% and 20%. Diagnostic accuracy for VR was determined in 2513 children with ≥18 months of follow-up and virological suppression during the first year on ART with sensitivity of 5% (WHO 2006/2010) and 27% (DHHS 2008). PPV results were 42% (WHO 2010), 43% (WHO 2006) and 20% (DHHS 2008). Conclusion  Current immunological criteria are unable to correctly identify children failing ART virologically. Improved access to viral load testing is needed to reliably identify VF in children.

Virologic failure and second-line antiretroviral therapy in children in South Africa--the IeDEA Southern Africa collaboration

Background: With expanding pediatric antiretroviral therapy (ART) access, children will begin to experience treatment failure and require second-line therapy. We evaluated the probability and determinants of virologic failure and switching in children in South Africa. Methods: Pooled analysis of routine individual data from children who initiated ART in 7 South African treatment programs with 6-monthly viral load and CD4 monitoring produced Kaplan-Meier estimates of probability of virologic failure (2 consecutive unsuppressed viral loads with the second being >1000 copies/mL, after ≥24 weeks of therapy) and switch to second-line. Cox-proportional hazards models stratified by program were used to determine predictors of these outcomes. Results: The 3-year probability of virologic failure among 5485 children was 19.3% (95% confidence interval: 17.6 to 21.1). Use of nevirapine or ritonavir alone in the initial regimen (compared with efavirenz) and exposure to prevention of mother to child transmission regimens were independently associated with failure [adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval): 1.77 (1.11 to 2.83), 2.39 (1.57 to 3.64) and 1.40 (1.02 to 1.92), respectively]. Among 252 children with ≥1 year follow-up after failure, 38% were switched to second-line. Median (interquartile range) months between failure and switch was 5.7 (2.9-11.0). Conclusions: Triple ART based on nevirapine or ritonavir as a single protease inhibitor seems to be associated with a higher risk of virologic failure. A low proportion of virologically failing children were switched.