• Funniest Story on the Job Contest Starts Now!

    Contest starts now and ends September 27th. Winner will receive a special user banner and $10 Amazon Gift card!

    JOIN NOW
  • Site Updates Coming Next Week

    Site updates are coming next week on Monday and Friday. Click the button below to learn more!

    LEARN MORE

Research Publications

oathkeeper

Full Member
May 12, 2014
71
20
136
General question about research. I've been collecting data for the past few years on program development- specifically psychological treatment interventions for a specific population. Several students would like to publish off this data (specific subsets of it, including a medical fellow) as would I. Each of us would be looking at different parts of the data (eg- looking at medical markers of treatment efficacy, looking at specific subset of comorbidity)- but wondering how this typically works to have potentially multiple publications off of one sample. We had a pretty wide variety of of out come measures that looked at various aspects of the treatment.
 

szymk1sm

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Jan 31, 2011
137
67
256
  1. Psychologist
Perhaps others who know more will chime in, but my question is whether you can publish program development data?

My understanding was that program development (i.e., data collected without an informed consent) could be used internally, but that you could not publish this data in a journal, as the participants did not provide consent for their information to be used in this manner. You may be able to create a database via a retrospective / medical chart review with your IRB. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I would appreciate feedback. :)

If you are able to publish, then I don't see why it would be a problem to have many projects stemming from this single dataset. I've been able to do this..
 

oathkeeper

Full Member
May 12, 2014
71
20
136
I worked with our research and irb department and it thankfully got approved as a retrospective medical chart review since all of the data we collected was standard of care. So we’re good to publish!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
About the Ads

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
13,744
15,531
276
Somewhere
  1. Psychologist
If the dataset is large enough, and the projects stemming from it different enough in nature and scope, it's fine. The ethical issue that some fail to grasp sometimes in these situations is breaking up similar data into smaller articles purely to increase quantity of pubs, when the analyses would otherwise have fit very well together in a single article. Or, if people are simply p-hacking the data to find anything that is "significant" and then shoe horning an article around that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
10+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
467
534
266
  1. Post Doc
If the dataset is large enough, and the projects stemming from it different enough in nature and scope, it's fine. The ethical issue that some fail to grasp sometimes in these situations is breaking up similar data into smaller articles purely to increase quantity of pubs, when the analyses would otherwise have fit very well together in a single article. Or, if people are simply p-hacking the data to find anything that is "significant" and then shoe horning an article around that.

I wonder sometimes where the line is between "smaller articles purely to increase quantity of pubs" and "analyses would have fit very well together in a single article." As I'm starting to publish more on my own research program and as a lead author I know I've had several conversations now with collaborators/mentors about this, and there seems to be a lot more grey area. In other words, I'd argue there are valid reasons to break up analyses that could fit well together in a single article into multiple brief reports aside from just wanting to "increase quantity of pubs." To name a few, as an early career investigator: increase impact of the research (getting a broad research program pigeon-holed into one article is a risk), reaching different audiences, ensuring acceptability to the editorial board/reviewers, novel research directions requiring dissemination before synthesis, etc. Not to mention the practical difficulty of paring down a manuscript describing multiple innovative studies into a small 3500 word package.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
13,744
15,531
276
Somewhere
  1. Psychologist
I wonder sometimes where the line is between "smaller articles purely to increase quantity of pubs" and "analyses would have fit very well together in a single article." As I'm starting to publish more on my own research program and as a lead author I know I've had several conversations now with collaborators/mentors about this, and there seems to be a lot more grey area. In other words, I'd argue there are valid reasons to break up analyses that could fit well together in a single article into multiple brief reports aside from just wanting to "increase quantity of pubs." To name a few, as an early career investigator: increase impact of the research (getting a broad research program pigeon-holed into one article is a risk), reaching different audiences, ensuring acceptability to the editorial board/reviewers, novel research directions requiring dissemination before synthesis, etc. Not to mention the practical difficulty of paring down a manuscript describing multiple innovative studies into a small 3500 word package.

Multiple innovative studies is one thing, breaking apart small, iterative studies is another. There's definitely some grey area here, but there I've definitely seen people CV padding before. If it makes sense to break things apart, that's great. But, if you're making 3 brief report papers out of what should just be one standard length paper that fits together, you need to re-evaluate your ethics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Ollie123

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
5,199
2,508
276
  1. Psychologist
A little swamped right now, but just popping in quickly because I saw this. Its not unusual for program evals to be published, even if explicit research consent was not obtained at the time. IRBs usually have processes in place for revising data that is collected as part of program evals, QI, etc. and applying secondary data analyses to it. Usually there are some additional securities in place to ensure anonymity, etc. Its essentially the same method used for EHR analysis and the like.

Beyond that, it really just depends and others are correct that there is a TON of grey area here. Some depends on the scope of the project. Trying to eek 7 papers out of a small pilot from a master's thesis is different than generating 3 from a multi-million dollar R01. Large epi studies will sometimes have hundreds (if not thousands) of papers from a single dataset. Available guidance on the topic is - in my experience - incredibly vague. Really, I think its just a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing and there is a difference between 1-2 grey area "Ehhh....I guess I can see it, but I probably wouldn't have split that up" papers versus someone who routinely does it. And at a certain point, you know the folks in your field who make it a habit. We're commonly collecting data across a huge number of modalities now and it would be utterly incoherent to integrate behavioral mechanisms with clinical outcomes, neuroimaging mediators that may or may not be moderated by a different imaging modality baseline scan, combining with 'omics data gathered from a supplement, etc.

Not sure if this helps. If you want to PM specifics, I'm happy to share whether it passes my personal sniff test for whatever that is worth, but I would encourage you to just do so with colleagues. Unfortunately, I think the "sniff test" is about all we have at this point. Generally speaking, I think a lot depends on a serious look at your own motivations and whether its realistic to make something one paper. If something <can> be one <reasonably> large but coherent paper, it probably should be. If the only desire to not do so is so everyone can get publications, that is a problem. If its asking different research questions that would be incoherent in combination, its fine to split. In between, it gets murky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

futureapppsy2

Assistant professor
Volunteer Staff
10+ Year Member
Dec 25, 2008
6,540
3,774
376
Also, sometimes, reviewers and editors will "guide" you one way or another. We did a study where we collected data from both paraprofessionals/support staff and counselors regarding a particular aspect of training/practice. My original idea was the analyze the data together, but the feedback from both reviewers and editors was strongly that the data on the two populations needed to be analyzed and published separately.
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 1 year old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.