IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v8y2020i1p14-d327420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comfortably Numb? Researchers’ Satisfaction with the Publication System and a Proposal for Radical Change

Author

Listed:
  • Hans van Dijk

    (Tilburg University, Department of Organization Studies, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands)

  • Marino van Zelst

    (Tilburg University, Department of Organization Studies, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In this preregistered study we evaluate current attitudes towards, and experiences with, publishing research and propose an alternative system of publishing. Our main hypothesis is that researchers tend to become institutionalized, such that they are generally discontent with the current publication system, but that this dissatisfaction fades over time as they become tenured. A survey was distributed to the first authors of papers published in four recent issues of top-15 Work and Organizational Psychology (WOP) journals. Even among this positively biased sample, we found that the time it takes to publish a manuscript is negatively associated with whether authors perceive this time to be justifiable and worthwhile relative to the amount their manuscript has changed. Review quality and tenure buffer the negative relationship with perceived justifiability, but not for perceived worth. The findings suggest that untenured (WOP) researchers are dissatisfied with the publishing times of academic journals, which adds to the pile of criticisms of the journal-based publication system. Since publishing times are inherent to the journal-based publication system, we suggest that incremental improvements may not sufficiently address the problems associated with publishing times. We therefore propose the adoption of a modular publication system to improve (WOP) publishing experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Hans van Dijk & Marino van Zelst, 2020. "Comfortably Numb? Researchers’ Satisfaction with the Publication System and a Proposal for Radical Change," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:14-:d:327420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/1/14/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/1/14/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Hartgerink, 2019. "Verified, Shared, Modular, and Provenance Based Research Communication with the Dat Protocol," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Chris Woolston, 2015. "Scientists share inspiration on Twitter with #IAmAScientistBecause and #BeyondMarieCurie," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7547), pages 267-267, April.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    5. Vogel, Rick & Hattke, Fabian & Petersen, Jessica, 2017. "Journal rankings in management and business studies: What rules do we play by?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1707-1722.
    6. Filieri, Raffaele, 2015. "What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1261-1270.
    7. Gangan Prathap & S. Mini & P. Nishy, 2016. "Does high impact factor successfully predict future citations? An analysis using Peirce’s measure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1043-1047, September.
    8. Kuvaas, Bård & Buch, Robert & Weibel, Antoinette & Dysvik, Anders & Nerstad, Christina G.L., 2017. "Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 244-258.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    2. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Mario Fernandes & Andreas Walter, 2023. "The times they are a-changin’: profiling newly tenured business economics professors in Germany over the past thirty years," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(5), pages 929-971, July.
    4. Book, Laura A. & Tanford, Sarah & Chang, Wen, 2018. "Customer reviews are not always informative: The impact of effortful versus heuristic processing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 272-280.
    5. Bag, Sujoy & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Chan, Felix T.S., 2019. "Predicting the consumer's purchase intention of durable goods: An attribute-level analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 408-419.
    6. Azer, Jaylan & Anker, Thomas & Taheri, Babak & Tinsley, Ross, 2023. "Consumer-Driven racial stigmatization: The moderating role of race in online consumer-to-consumer reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Bhukya, Ramulu & Paul, Justin, 2023. "Social influence research in consumer behavior: What we learned and what we need to learn? – A hybrid systematic literature review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Chris Wagner, 2020. "Deducing a state-of-the-art presentation of the Eclectic Paradigm from four decades of development: a systematic literature review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 51-96, February.
    9. Moradi, Masoud & Dass, Mayukh & Kumar, Piyush, 2023. "Differential effects of analytical versus emotional rhetorical style on review helpfulness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    10. Yani Wang & Jun Wang & Tang Yao, 2019. "What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 257-284, June.
    11. Viglia, Giampaolo & Abrate, Graziano, 2017. "When distinction does not pay off - Investigating the determinants of European agritourism prices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 45-52.
    12. Guha Majumder, Madhumita & Dutta Gupta, Sangita & Paul, Justin, 2022. "Perceived usefulness of online customer reviews: A review mining approach using machine learning & exploratory data analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 147-164.
    13. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.
    14. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Gao, Changyuan & Zhai, LiLi & Shahzad, Fakhar & Khan, Imran, 2021. "Environmental air pollution management system: Predicting user adoption behavior of big data analytics," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    15. Shahzad, Khuram & Zhang, Qingyu & Zafar, Abaid Ullah & Ashfaq, Muhammad & Rehman, Shafique Ur, 2023. "The role of blockchain-enabled traceability, task technology fit, and user self-efficacy in mobile food delivery applications," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    16. Elvira Ismagilova & Emma L. Slade & Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2020. "The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to Buy: A Meta-Analysis," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1203-1226, October.
    17. Jungah Choi & Hyunsuk Han, 2023. "Understanding the Influence of Teacher-Student Relationship on Mathematics Achievement: Evidence From Korean Students," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, November.
    18. Jackie London & Siyuan Li & Heshan Sun, 2022. "Seems Legit: An Investigation of the Assessing and Sharing of Unverifiable Messages on Online Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 978-1001, September.
    19. Blut, Markus & Ghiassaleh, Arezou & Wang, Cheng, 2023. "Testing the performance of online recommendation agents: A meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 440-459.
    20. Boccali, Filippo & Mariani, Marcello M. & Visani, Franco & Mora-Cruz, Alexandra, 2022. "Innovative value-based price assessment in data-rich environments: Leveraging online review analytics through Data Envelopment Analysis to empower managers and entrepreneurs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:14-:d:327420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.