Choosing "interesting" research methods and facing the challenges for publication

This paper discusses the choice to use two less conventional or “interesting” research methods, Q Methodology and Experience Sampling Method, rather than “status quo” research methods so common in the marketing discipline. It is argued that such methods have value for marketing academics because they widen the potential for discovery. The paper outlines these two research methods, providing examples of how they have been used in an experiential consumption perspective. Additionally the paper identifies some of the challenges to be faced when trying to publish research that use such less conventional methods, as well as offering suggestions to address them.

Education higher degree research students writing for publication

Higher Degree Research (HDR) student publications are increasingly valued by students, by professional communities and by research institutions. Peer-reviewed publications form the HDR student writer's publication track record and increase competitiveness in employment and research funding opportunities. These publications also make the results of HDR student research available to the community in accessible formats. HDR student publications are also valued by universities because they provide evidence of institutional research activity within a field and attract a return on research performance. However, although publications are important to multiple stakeholders, many Education HDR students do not publish the results of their research. Hence, an investigation of Education HDR graduates who submitted work for publication during their candidacy was undertaken. This multiple, explanatory case study investigated six recent Education HDR graduates who had submitted work to peer-reviewed outlets during their candidacy. The conceptual framework supported an analysis of the development of Education HDR student writing using Alexander's (2003, 2004) Model of Domain Learning which focuses on expertise, and Lave and Wenger's (1991) situated learning within a community of practice. Within this framework, the study investigated how these graduates were able to submit or publish their research despite their relative lack of writing expertise. Case data were gathered through interviews and from graduate publication records. Contextual data were collected through graduate interviews, from Faculty and university documents, and through interviews with two Education HDR supervisors. Directed content analysis was applied to all data to ascertain the support available in the research training environment. Thematic analysis of graduate and supervisor interviews was then undertaken to reveal further information on training opportunities accessed by the HDR graduates. Pattern matching of all interview transcripts provided information on how the HDR graduates developed writing expertise. Finally, explanation building was used to determine causal links between the training accessed by the graduates and their writing expertise. The results demonstrated that Education HDR graduates developed publications and some level of expertise simultaneously within communities of practice. Students were largely supported by supervisors who played a critical role. They facilitated communities of practice and largely mediated HDR engagement in other training opportunities. However, supervisor support alone did not ensure that the HDR graduates developed writing expertise. Graduates who appeared to develop the most expertise, and produce a number of publications reported experiencing both a sustained period of engagement within one community of practice, and participation in multiple communities of practice. The implications for the MDL theory, as applied to academic writing, suggests that communities of practice can assist learners to progress from initial contact with a new domain of interest through to competence. The implications for research training include the suggestion that supervisors as potentially crucial supporters of HDR student writing for publication should themselves be active publishers. Also, Faculty or university sponsorship of communities of practice focussed on HDR student writing for publication could provide effective support for the development of HDR student writing expertise and potentially increase the number of their peer-reviewed publications.

The next publication revolution : open access and the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework

The world is increasingly moving towards more open models of publishing and communication. The UK government has demonstrated a firm commitment to ensuring that academic research outputs are made available to all who might benefit from access to them, and its open access policy attempts to make academic publications freely available to readers, rather than being locked behind pay walls or only available to researchers with access to well-funded university libraries. Open access policies have an important role to play in fostering an open innovation ecosystem and ensuring that maximum value is derived from investments in university-based research. But are we ready to embrace this change?

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

Publication bias in union-productivity research?

This paper develops and applies several meta-analytic techniques to investigate the presence of publication bias in industrial relations research, specifically in the union-productivity effects literature. Publication bias arises when statistically insignificant results are suppressed or when results satisfying prior expectations are given preference. Like most fields, research in industrial relations is vulnerable to publication bias. Unlike other fields such as economics, there is no evidence of publication bias in the union-productivity literature, as a whole. However, there are pockets of publication selection, as well as negative autoregression, confirming the controversial nature of this area of research. Meta-regression analysis reveals evidence of publication bias (or selection) among US studies.

Publication bias in industrial relations research

Publication bias arises when statistically non-significant results are suppressed or when only results satisfying prior expectations are published. Like most fields, research in industrial relations is vulnerable to publication bias. In this paper qualitative and quantitative techniques are used in order to detect publication bias in the union-productivity effects literature. We find no evidence of publication bias in this literature, although there does appear to be autoregression in the published results.

Publication selection bias in minimum-wage research? A meta-regression analysis

Card and Krueger's meta-analysis of the employment effects of minimum wages challenged existing theory. Unfortunately, their meta-analysis confused publication selection with the absence of a genuine empirical effect. We apply recently developed meta-analysis methods to 64 US minimum-wage studies and corroborate that Card and Krueger's findings were nevertheless correct. The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.

Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance

We examined the publication records of a cohort of 168 life scientists in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology to assess gender differences in research performance. Clear discrepancies in publication rate between men and women appear very early in their careers and this has consequences for the subsequent citation of their work. We show that a recently proposed index designed to rank scientists fairly is in fact strongly biased against female researchers, and advocate a modified index to assess men and women on a more equitable basis.

Open scholarship : research and publication

Introduction: Sue Owen, Associate University Librarian, Deakin University Library.

Presentations:
Using Creative Commons licences to provide open access in the education and research sectors / Professor Anne Fitzgerald ;
Elsevier and open access / Macy Lee and David Tempest ;
Electronic rights  in academic publishing; a researcher's perspective / Professor Christoph Antons.

Panel discussion, Question and answer.

Includes audio/visual recording of whole Symposium

Analysis of Abstracts Presented at the Prosthodontic Research Section of IADR General Sessions 2004-2005: Demographics, Publication Rates, and Factors Contributing to Publication

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to describe the demographics of abstracts presented at the prosthodontics section of IADR General Sessions from 2004 to 2005, evaluate the publication rate of abstracts, and analyze the relationship between variables in abstracts and publication.Materials and Methods: Prosthodontics research section abstracts from the IADR General Session in 2004 and 2005 were evaluated for: number of authors, presentation type, origin, affiliation, topic, study design, statistics, study outcome, and funding. The publication rate was calculated following a PubMed search. The journal of publication, year of publication, and the length of time before publication were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used for the data analysis; the relationships between presentation type, study design, study outcome, statistics, funding, and publication were analyzed using logistic regression (alpha = 0.05).Results: From 346 abstracts, 37.0% were published. For oral presentations, 40.7% were published; 35.8% of poster presentations were published. The mean duration before publicationwas 26.4months. North America had themost abstracts, and Europe had the most publications. Fixed prosthodontic research had the highest number and proportion for publication. A significant association with publication was noted for neutral study outcomes (p = 0.018), studies with funding (p = 0.035), and abstracts from Europe (p = 0.001).Conclusions: The majority of abstracts from the prosthodontics research section of IADR General Sessions from 2004 and 2005 remain unpublished. A significant association for publication was noted with neutral outcomes, funding, and abstracts from Europe.

Discrepancies between abstracts presented at international association for dental research annual sessions from 2004 to 2005 and full-text publication

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the discrepancies between abstracts presented at the IADR meeting (2004-2005) and their full-text publication. Material and Methods. Abstracts from the Prosthodontic Section of IADR meeting were obtained. The following information was collected: abstract title, number of authors, study design, statistical analysis, outcome, and funding source. PubMed was used to identify the full-text publication of the abstracts. The discrepancies between the abstract and the full-text publication were examined, categorized as major and minor discrepancies, and quantified. The data were collected and analyzed using descriptive analysis. Frequency and percentage of major and minor discrepancies were calculated. Results. A total of 109 (95.6%) articles showed changes from their abstracts. Seventy-four (65.0%) and 105 (92.0%) publications had at least one major and one minor discrepancies, respectively. Minor discrepancies were more prevalent (92.0%) than major discrepancies (65.0%). The most common minor discrepancy was observed in the title (80.7%), and most common major discrepancies were seen in results (48.2%). Conclusion. Minor discrepancies were more prevalent than major discrepancies. The data presented in this study may be useful to establish a more comprehensive structured abstract requirement for future meetings. © 2012 Soni Prasad et al.