Productivity, impact, and collaboration differences between transdisciplinary and traditionally trained doctoral students: A comparison of publication patterns
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Anna-Sigrid Keck, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 51.8 KB | 11/13/2017 10:21:AM |
|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 40.1 KB | 11/13/2017 10:21:AM |
|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 21.3 KB | 11/13/2017 10:21:AM |
Project Citation:
Keck, Anna-Sigrid. Productivity, impact, and collaboration differences between transdisciplinary and traditionally trained doctoral students: A comparison of publication patterns. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2017-11-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/E101146V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
Transdisciplinary (TD) approaches are increasingly used to address complex public
health problems such as childhood obesity. Compared to traditional grant-funded
scientific projects among established scientists, those designed around a TD, teambased
approach yielded greater publication output after three to five years. However,
little is known about how a TD focus throughout graduate school training may affect
students' publication-related productivity, impact, and collaboration. The objective of
this study was to compare the publication patterns of students in traditional versus TD
doctoral training programs. Productivity, impact, and collaboration of peer-reviewed
publications were compared between traditional (n = 25) and TD (n = 11) students
during the first five years of the TD program. Statistical differences were determined by
t-test or chi square test at p < 0.05. The publication rate for TD students was 5.2 ± 10.1
(n = 56) compared to 3.6 ± 4.5 per traditional student (n = 82). Publication impact
indicators were significantly higher for TD students vs. traditional students: 5.7 times
more citations in Google Scholar, 6.1 times more citations in Scopus, 1.3 times higher
journal impact factors, and a 1.4 times higher journal h-index. Collaboration indicators
showed that publications by TD students had significantly more co-authors (1.3 times),
and significantly more disciplines represented among co-authors (1.3 times), but not
significantly more organizations represented per publication compared to traditional
students. In conclusion, compared to doctoral students in traditional programs, TD
students published works that were accepted into higher impact journals, were more
frequently cited, and had more cross-disciplinary collaborations.
health problems such as childhood obesity. Compared to traditional grant-funded
scientific projects among established scientists, those designed around a TD, teambased
approach yielded greater publication output after three to five years. However,
little is known about how a TD focus throughout graduate school training may affect
students' publication-related productivity, impact, and collaboration. The objective of
this study was to compare the publication patterns of students in traditional versus TD
doctoral training programs. Productivity, impact, and collaboration of peer-reviewed
publications were compared between traditional (n = 25) and TD (n = 11) students
during the first five years of the TD program. Statistical differences were determined by
t-test or chi square test at p < 0.05. The publication rate for TD students was 5.2 ± 10.1
(n = 56) compared to 3.6 ± 4.5 per traditional student (n = 82). Publication impact
indicators were significantly higher for TD students vs. traditional students: 5.7 times
more citations in Google Scholar, 6.1 times more citations in Scopus, 1.3 times higher
journal impact factors, and a 1.4 times higher journal h-index. Collaboration indicators
showed that publications by TD students had significantly more co-authors (1.3 times),
and significantly more disciplines represented among co-authors (1.3 times), but not
significantly more organizations represented per publication compared to traditional
students. In conclusion, compared to doctoral students in traditional programs, TD
students published works that were accepted into higher impact journals, were more
frequently cited, and had more cross-disciplinary collaborations.
Funding Sources:
View help for Funding Sources
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative of the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2011-67001-30101)
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
Transdisciplinary;
doctoral programs;
program evaluation
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
8/1/2011 – 8/31/2016 (Aug 2011-Aug 2016)
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
8/1/2011 – 8/31/2016
Universe:
View help for Universe
Participants
included all doctoral students enrolled in the TD pre-doctoral fellowship
I-TOPP training program (n = 11) and traditional doctoral students (n = 25) enrolled
as full-time students during the same years (fall 2011, fall 2012 or fall 2013)
in similar academic units as the TD students at a leading land-grant research
university in the U.S
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
experimental data
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.