Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity

Measuring publication diversity among the most productive scholars: how research trajectories differ in communication, psychology, and political science

Examining research patterns across scientific fields constitutes a growing research enterprise to understand how global knowledge production unfolds. However, scattered empirical evidence has casted light on how the publication diversity of the most productive scholars differ across disciplines, considering their gender and geographical representation. This study focuses on the most prolific scholars across three fields (Communication, Political Science, and Psychology), and examine all journals where they have published. Results revealed the most common journals in which prolific scholars have appeared and showed that Communication scholars are more prone to publish in Political Science and Psychology journals than vice-versa, while psychologists’ largely neglect them both. Our findings also demonstrate that males and US scholars are over-represented across fields, and that neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the interaction between gender and geographic location has a significant influence over publication diversity. The study suggests that prolific scholars are not only productive, but also highly diverse in the selection of the journals they publish, which directly speaks to both the heterogeneity of their research contributions and target readers.

Publication outperformance among global South researchers: An analysis of individual-level and publication-level predictors of positive deviance

Research and development are central to economic growth, and a key challenge for countries of the global South is that their research performance lags behind that of the global North. Yet, among Southern researchers, a few significantly outperform their peers and can be styled research “positive deviants” (PDs). In this paper we ask: who are those PDs, what are their characteristics and how are they able to overcome some of the challenges facing researchers in the global South? We examined a sample of 203 information systems researchers in Egypt who were classified into PDs and non-PDs (NPDs) through an analysis of their publication and citation data. Based on six citation metrics, we were able to identify and group 26 PDs. We then analysed their attributes, attitudes, practices, and publications using a mixed-methods approach involving interviews, a survey and analysis of publication-related datasets. Two predictive models were developed using partial least squares regression; the first predicted if a researcher is a PD or not using individual-level predictors and the second predicted if a paper is a paper of a PD or not using publication-level predictors. PDs represented 13% of the researchers but produced about half of all publications, and had almost double the citations of the overall NPD group. At the individual level, there were significant differences between both groups with regard to research collaborations, capacity development, and research directions. At the publication level, there were differences relating to the topics pursued, publication outlets targeted, and paper features such as length of abstract and number of authors.

High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers?

The growing scholarly interest in research top performers comes from the growing policy interest in research top performance itself. A question emerges: what makes someone a top performer? In this paper, the upper 10% of Polish academics in terms of research productivity are studied, and predictors of entering this class are sought. In the science system (and Poland follows global patterns), a small number of scholars produce most of the works and attract huge numbers of citations. Performance determines rewards, and small differences in talent translate into a disproportionate level of success, leading to inequalities in resources, research outcomes, and rewards. Top performers are studied here through a bivariate analysis of their working time distribution and their academic role orientation, as well as through a model approach. Odds ratio estimates with logistic regression of being highly productive Polish academics are presented. Consistently across major clusters of academic disciplines, the tiny minority of 10% of academics produces about half (44.7%) of all Polish publications (48.0% of publications in English and 57.2% of internationally co-authored publications). The mean research productivity of top performers across major clusters is on average 7.3 times higher than that of the other academics, and in terms of internationally co-authored publications, 12.07 times higher. High inequality was observed: the average research productivity distribution is highly skewed with a long tail on the right not only for all Polish academics but also for top performers. The class of top performers is as internally stratified as that of their lower-performing colleagues. Separate regression models for all academics, science, technology, engineering and mathematics academics, and social sciences and humanities academics are built based on a large national sample (2525 usable observations), and implications are discussed.

Guideposts and Roadblocks to the Career-Long Scholarly Engagement of Physical Education Teacher Education Faculty

PURPOSE

Scholarship is essential for the growth and development of the physical education field. Over time, scholarship expectations have changed, forcing faculty members to alter time spent for research, teaching, and service. Social-cognitive career theory (SCCT) presents a model for understanding performance and persistence in an occupational environment. The interconnected aspects of SCCT have different emphasis related to self-efficacy, outcome expectations, or personal goals pursuit. This study explored physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty members' continuing engagement in scholarly activity through SCCT.

METHOD

Data collection included interviews with 9 senior PETE faculty members who met the criteria for "productive scholars over time." Curriculum vitae were collected to verify productivity.

RESULTS

Data analysis revealed guidepost themes that included collaborating, finding balance, defining a research process, and maintaining a strong work ethic. Roadblocks encountered included other obligations and lack of support for research.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants demonstrated strong self-efficacy; held high, positive expectations for success; and set very specific, clear, and deliberate goals. Participant behavior was moderated by their personal attributes (capacity to build relationships, set goals, and maintain interest and passion) and was tempered by the environments in which they worked. Fostering similar behaviors has the potential to guide future and current PETE faculty members in creating supportive and encouraging atmospheres for sustained productivity. The lack of literature relating to this topic warrants the need for more research exploring the influential factors and benefits gained from sustained scholarly productivity over time for PETE faculty members.

Peer support of a faculty "writers' circle" increases confidence and productivity in generating scholarship

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Publishing is critical for academic medicine career advancement. Rejection of manuscripts can be demoralizing. Obstacles faced by clinical faculty may include lack of time, confidence, and optimal writing practices. This study describes the development and evaluation of a peer-writing group, informed by theory and research on faculty development and writing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five clinical-track radiology faculty members formed a "Writers' Circle" to promote scholarly productivity and reflection on writing practices. Members decided to work with previously rejected manuscripts. After members' initial meeting, interactions were informal, face to face during clinical work, and online. After the first 6 months, an anonymous survey asked members about the status of articles and evaluations of the writing group.

RESULTS

Ten previously rejected articles, at least one from each member, were submitted to the Circle. In 6 months, four manuscripts were accepted for publication, five were in active revision, and one was withdrawn. All participants (100%) characterized the program as worth their time, increasing their motivation to write, their opportunities to support scholarly productivity of colleagues, and their confidence in generating scholarship.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-support writing groups can facilitate the pooling of expertise and the exchange of recommended writing practices. Our peer-support group increased scholarly productivity and provided a collegial approach to academic writing.

Scientific research in school psychology: Leading researchers weigh in on its past, present, and future

A survey of established researchers in school psychology was conducted to reflect on the state of the science of school psychology research. A total of 54 members of the Society for the Study of School Psychology shared their perceptions of (a) the most significant findings of the past 25years that have influenced research and practice in school psychology, (b) current, exciting research topics, and (c) topics that are likely to guide the future of research in school psychology. Qualitative analyses revealed 6 major categories and 17 minor categories within the major categories. Four major categories were present across each of the three time periods: (a) Data-Informed Practices and their Implementation, (b) Theory Development, (c) Changing Role and Function, and (d) Biological Bases of Behavior. Additional major categories included Advances in Research Methodology and Psychometrics (found across past and present time periods) and There is Not One Single Most Important Idea (found during only the past time period). Quotations are provided to illustrate these categories and share the respondents' ideas in their own words.

Thoughts and recommendations concerning impact and productivity in school psychology journals

Having been personally involved in several examinations of productivity in various sub-disciplines of psychology, I read with great interest the articles in this special issue. I commend the authors for engaging in this activity, as I feel that a field benefits from occasional self-examinations. In this commentary, I caution against placing too much emphasis on impact factors, arguing that they are not measured without error and unethical behaviors could increase if they are weighted too heavily. I recommend examinations of methodological trends, whether implications for practice are based on observational data, whether female participation in the publication process matches their participation as members of the field, and finally including other characteristics in defining highly productive scholars that would attract potential graduate students.

School psychology publishing contributions to the advancement of knowledge, science, and its application: an introduction to the themed issue

This introductory article briefly reviews the studies and commentaries making up this themed issue on the process and products of professional publications in school psychology. Each article highlights important considerations for advancing scholarly scientific publishing in the field of school psychology. A case is made that enhancing the quality of scientific publications, as well as accumulating scholarly findings over time, serve as the primary mechanisms for improving practice for children, families, and school professionals. This article highlights features of the studies and commentaries directly related to advancing knowledge, science, and its application in school psychology.