journal publication dissertation

• Publication Process

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

• 3 minute read
• 211.6K views

Table of Contents

You are almost done with your PhD thesis and want to convert it into a journal article. Or, you’re initiating a career as a journal writer and intend to use your thesis as a starting point for an article. Whatever your situation, turning a thesis into a journal article is a logical step and a process that eventually every researcher completes. But…how to start?

The first thing to know about converting a thesis into a journal article is how different they are:

Thesis Characteristics:

• Meets academic requirements
• Reviewed by select committee members
• Contains chapters
• Lengthy, no word limits
• Table of contents
• Lengthy research of literature
• IRB approval described in detail
• Description and copies of tools used
• All findings presented
• Verb tenses may vary

Journal Article Characteristics:

• Meets journalistic standards
• Reviewed by a panel of “blind” reviewers
• Word limits
• Manuscript format
• Succinct research of literature
• IRB described in 1 to 3 sentences
• Essential and succinct tool information
• Selected findings presented
• Verb tenses are fairly consistent

Converting your thesis to a journal article may be complex, but it’s not impossible.

A thesis is a document of academic nature, so it’s more detailed in content. A journal article, however, is shorter, highlighting key points in a more succinct format. Adapting a thesis for conversion into a journal article is a time-consuming and intricate process that can take you away from other important work. In that case, Elsevier’s Language Editing services may help you focus on important matters and provide a high-quality text for submission in no time at all.

If you are going to convert a thesis into a journal article, with or without professional help, here is a list of some of the steps you will likely have to go through:

1. Identify the best journal for your work

• Ensure that your article is within the journal’s aim and scope. How to find the right journal? Find out more .
• Check the journal’s recommended structure and reference style

2. Shorten the length of your thesis

• Treat your thesis as a separate work
• Paraphrase but do not distort meaning
• Select and repurpose parts of your thesis

3. Reformat the introduction as an abstract

• Shorten the introduction to 100-150 words, but maintain key topics to hold the reader’s attention.
• Use the introduction and discussion as basis for the abstract

4. Modify the introduction

• If your thesis has more than one research question or hypothesis, which are not all relevant for your paper, consider combining your research questions or focusing on just one for the article
• Use previously published papers (at least three) from the target journal as examples

5. Tighten the methods section

• Keep the discussion about your research approach short

6. Report main findings in the results

• Expose your main findings in the results section in concise statements

7. Discussion must be clear and concise

• Begin by providing an interpretation of your results: “What is it that we have learned from your research?”
• Situate the findings to the literature
• Discuss how your findings expand known or previous perspectives
• Briefly present ways in which future studies can build upon your work and address limitations in your study

8. Limit the number of references

• To choose the most relevant and recent
• To format them correctly
• Consider using a reference manager system (e.g. Mendeley ) to make your life easier

If you are not a proficient English speaker, the task of converting a thesis into a journal article might make it even more difficult. At Elsevier’s Language Editing services we ensure that your manuscript is written in correct scientific English before submission. Our professional proofers and editors check your manuscript in detail, taking your text as our own and with the guarantee of maximum text quality.

Language editing services by Elsevier Author Services:

• Research Process

How to Choose a Journal to Submit an Article

• Publication Recognition

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

You may also like.

Publishing Biomedical Research: What Rules Should You Follow?

Writing an Effective Cover Letter for Manuscript Resubmission

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

Research Data Storage and Retention

How to Find and Select Reviewers for Journal Articles

How to Request the Addition of an Extra Author Before Publication

Paper Rejection: Common Reasons

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

The Ultimate Guide to Getting Your Thesis Published in a Journal

7-minute read

• 25th February 2023

Writing your thesis and getting it published are huge accomplishments. However, publishing your thesis in an academic journal is another journey for scholars. Beyond how much hard work, time, and research you invest, having your findings published in a scholarly journal is vital for your reputation as a scholar and also advances research findings within your field.

This guide will walk you through how to make sure your thesis is ready for publication in a journal. We’ll go over how to prepare for pre-publication, how to submit your research, and what to do after acceptance.

Pre-Publication Preparations

Understanding the publishing process.

Ideally, you have already considered what type of publication outlet you want your thesis research to appear in. If not, it’s best to do this so you can tailor your writing and overall presentation to fit that publication outlet’s expectations. When selecting an outlet for your research, consider the following:

●  How well will my research fit the journal?

●  Are the reputation and quality of this journal high?

●  Who is this journal’s readership/audience?

●  How long does it take the journal to respond to a submission?

●  What’s the journal’s rejection rate?

Once you finish writing, revising, editing, and proofreading your work (which can take months or years), expect the publication process to be an additional three months or so.

Revising Your Thesis

Your thesis will need to be thoroughly revised, reworked, reorganized, and edited before a journal will accept it. Journals have specific requirements for all submissions, so read everything on a journal’s submission requirements page before you submit. Make a checklist of all the requirements to be sure you don’t overlook anything. Failing to meet the submission requirements could result in your paper being rejected.

Areas for Improvement

No doubt, the biggest challenge academics face in this journey is reducing the word count of their thesis to meet journal publication requirements. Remember that the average thesis is between 60,000 and 80,000 words, not including footnotes, appendices, and references. On the other hand, the average academic journal article is 4,000 to 7,000 words. Reducing the number of words this much may seem impossible when you are staring at the year or more of research your thesis required, but remember, many have done this before, and many will do it again. You can do it too. Be patient with the process.

Additional areas of improvement include>

·   having to reorganize your thesis to meet the section requirements of the journal you submit to ( abstract, intro , methods, results, and discussion).

·   Possibly changing your reference system to match the journal requirements or reducing the number of references.

·   Reformatting tables and figures.

·   Going through an extensive editing process to make sure everything is in place and ready.

Identifying Potential Publishers

Many options exist for publishing your academic research in a journal. However, along with the many credible and legitimate publishers available online, just as many predatory publishers are out there looking to take advantage of academics. Be sure to always check unfamiliar publishers’ credentials before commencing the process. If in doubt, ask your mentor or peer whether they think the publisher is legitimate, or you can use Think. Check. Submit .

If you need help identifying which journals your research is best suited to, there are many tools to help. Here’s a short list:

○  Elsevier JournalFinder

○  EndNote Matcher

○  Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE)

○  Publish & Flourish Open Access

·   The topics the journal publishes and whether your research will be a good fit.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

·   The journal’s audience (whom you want to read your research).

·   The types of articles the journal publishes (e.g., reviews, case studies).

·   Your personal requirements (e.g., whether you’re willing to wait a long time to see your research published).

Submitting Your Thesis

Now that you have thoroughly prepared, it’s time to submit your thesis for publication. This can also be a long process, depending on peer review feedback.

Preparing Your Submission

Many publishers require you to write and submit a cover letter along with your research. The cover letter is your sales pitch to the journal’s editor. In the letter, you should not only introduce your work but also emphasize why it’s new, important, and worth the journal’s time to publish. Be sure to check the journal’s website to see whether submission requires you to include specific information in your cover letter, such as a list of reviewers.

Whenever you submit your thesis for publication in a journal article, it should be in its “final form” – that is, completely ready for publication. Do not submit your thesis if it has not been thoroughly edited, formatted, and proofread. Specifically, check that you’ve met all the journal-specific requirements to avoid rejection.

Navigating the Peer Review Process

Once you submit your thesis to the journal, it will undergo the peer review process. This process may vary among journals, but in general, peer reviews all address the same points. Once submitted, your paper will go through the relevant editors and offices at the journal, then one or more scholars will peer-review it. They will submit their reviews to the journal, which will use the information in its final decision (to accept or reject your submission).

While many academics wait for an acceptance letter that says “no revisions necessary,” this verdict does not appear very often. Instead, the publisher will likely give you a list of necessary revisions based on peer review feedback (these revisions could be major, minor, or a combination of the two). The purpose of the feedback is to verify and strengthen your research. When you respond to the feedback, keep these tips in mind:

●  Always be respectful and polite in your responses, even if you disagree.

●  If you do disagree, be prepared to provide supporting evidence.

●  Respond to all the comments, questions, and feedback in a clear and organized manner.

●  Make sure you have sufficient time to make any changes (e.g., whether you will need to conduct additional experiments).

After Publication

Once the journal accepts your article officially, with no further revisions needed, take a moment to enjoy the fruits of your hard work. After all, having your work appear in a distinguished journal is not an easy feat. Once you’ve finished celebrating, it’s time to promote your work. Here’s how you can do that:

●  Connect with other experts online (like their posts, follow them, and comment on their work).

●  Email your academic mentors.

●  Share your article on social media so others in your field may see your work.

●  Add the article to your LinkedIn publications.

●  Respond to any comments with a “Thank you.”

Getting your thesis research published in a journal is a long process that goes from reworking your thesis to promoting your article online. Be sure you take your time in the pre-publication process so you don’t have to make lots of revisions. You can do this by thoroughly revising, editing, formatting, and proofreading your article.

During this process, make sure you and your co-authors (if any) are going over one another’s work and having outsiders read it to make sure no comma is out of place.

What are the benefits of getting your thesis published?

Having your thesis published builds your reputation as a scholar in your field. It also means you are contributing to the body of work in your field by promoting research and communication with other scholars.

How long does it typically take to get a thesis published?

Once you have finished writing, revising, editing, formatting, and proofreading your thesis – processes that can add up to months or years of work – publication can take around three months. The exact length of time will depend on the journal you submit your work to and the peer review feedback timeline.

How can I ensure the quality of my thesis when attempting to get it published?

If you want to make sure your thesis is of the highest quality, consider having professionals proofread it before submission (some journals even require submissions to be professionally proofread). Proofed has helped thousands of researchers proofread their theses. Check out our free trial today.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Public Resources
• Publishing Your Dissertation in a…

Publishing Your Dissertation in a Scholarly Journal

So you’ve decided you want to earn a PhD. You have read about the road blocks , you’ve selected your committee, and you’ve started writing your dissertation. But why start thinking about a publication? What does that have to do with earning the ultimate degree?

Writing a dissertation without a publication is like going to the trouble of making a cake but not baking it. No one can taste your cake, no one can benefit from your hard work—of course, no one can criticize your work either. But without a publication, or two or three, the dissertation is not technically a total success. You’d be amazed at how many people don’t get a publication out of their dissertation. Without advanced planning, a publication likely won’t happen, because, once again, there are often unanticipated roadblocks.

1. Publication will be completely driven by you and no one else. A publication will not be on the priority list of your dissertation committee. And you will likely be the only one to understand where to publish.

2. Planning is the most important step and the only way to be successful. If you wait until after you go through the dissertation process, you will be too exhausted to publish, and it won’t happen for a year or two. You must plan.

3. Configure your dissertation for three separate publications. This may be three separate chapters, or it may be three different data sets or arms of your data. Link this to the selection of your committee. In my previous articles, I recommended choosing a committee wisely, with different members being associated with different jobs. Committee members should not have similar areas of expertise. Their “jobs” should not overlap. There should be a content expert or literature review expert, a methods person, a results person and a “whip.” Ideally, the “whip” (think politics, as in majority whip or minority whip in Congress) is your dissertation chair. The jobs of each member should be distinct to avoid having members fighting or making conflicting suggestions. Each article should be aligned with a separate expert. So there can be a Review article, a Methods article, and a Results article.

4. You get to decide who is listed as an author on your articles. You will be first author, and your mentor should be last author (a position of honor). If a committee member does not contribute, they ethically should not be included in the list of authors. Many journals now ask you to list the authors along with their meaningful contributions.

5. Decide ahead of time the journals in which you wish to publish. Full disclosure — I am on the board of the Journal of the American Academy of PAs (JAAPA), and I’m a reviewer for the Journal of Physician Assistant Education (JPAE). I’m going to recommend these PA journals for one of your publications. Here is my pitch (although biased): We are THE scholarly journals for the profession. If your data is completely focused on PA education, then select JPAE. Think about JAAPA for any research on PAs themselves or PA analogues. Select a PA journal for a personal touch and some really important feedback. Your article will be on a stage with your peers. This gives you the home crowd advantage.

6. Lose ownership. Remember how I said your dissertation is like your baby? Well, your baby now has gone through elementary school and the tumultuous teenage years and currently is entering college. Your publication needs you to back off and give it some space. It will leave home for a while (often for the long review process). When it comes back, it might need to do some laundry, but it should essentially not look at all like the baby you once knew. A publication should look like a publication, not a dissertation. It should be neat and mature and all grown up.

7. Try for the highest level journal you can realistically get published in. Here is the main problem: time. You cannot ethically submit the same article to multiple journals. You will need to make sure you have three completely separate articles in order to submit to multiple journals. There are many people who believe you should publish in the most prestigious journal you can make it into. I do not disagree with this philosophy; however, the alternative is that your work might not get read in a higher scholarly journal because PAs and PA educators don’t tend to read these other journals. This is for you to decide. There are websites that can help you determine where to publish. But be careful and check out Beall’s List, a list of potentially predatory “scholarly” open-access publishers.

8. Best of luck — and don’t fail to publish. Don’t bake your cake and not put it in the oven. Remember to reach out to your peers within the profession to aid in your success. Ultimately, your committee will be pleased to add a publication to their CVs. They will remember this as their reward for all the hard work that they (and you) put into your PhD.

A publication is the lasting legacy for all of your tough efforts and sacrifice. It is the “so what” of all you have put into this academic Mt. Everest. Consider the impact that your work will have on the profession. Don’t run the marathon (or climb the mountain) and not cross the finish line!

Jennifer Coombs, PhD, MPAS, PA-C

Related news & alerts.

Broaden Your Research Capacity and Professional Networks with AAPA-PAEA Research Fellowship 

The Numbers Are In:  PAEA Announces the Release of Program Report 36 

Don Pedersen Awardees Address Student Performance and Well-Being

Fellows Share Research at Forum

Revising Your Dissertation for Publication

While a dissertation’s in-depth research and analysis can provide a strong foundation for a book, the dissertation itself is not a book and will not be published by an academic press without substantial revisions. Some acquisitions editors are interested first books, especially if they bring new perspectives and fresh ideas to a field, while others do not often publish first books. If you are considering submitting your dissertation for publication, we recommend that you contact editors at university presses that publish in your subject area for guidance on revising your work. Many editors prefer to be involved in the early stages of this process so they can advise you on how to structure the book and your arguments to create a publishable book. Editors generally require changes in the length, content, tone, and style of a dissertation in order to produce a book that will appeal to buyers in the academic market. Read more about submitting a proposal in our Scholarly Publishing Guide .

Below are selected resources to help you revise your dissertation for publication as a book or journal article(s).

Advice from publishers

• Harvard University Press
• Palgrave Macmillan
• Rowman & Littlefield
• Taylor & Francis
• University of North Carolina Press
• Yale University Press
• Publisher Policies on using content in both a thesis or dissertation and an article (from MIT Libraries)
• From Dissertation to Book by William Germano (Lauinger Library, 4th Floor, PN162 .G37 2013)
• Revising Your Dissertation, Updated Edition : Advice from Leading Editors (updated edition, 2008) edited by Beth Luey (online; GU NetID and password required)
• From Dissertation to Book , Duke University (February 27, 2018)
• From Dissertation to Book ( full transcript ), Harvard University (December 17, 2010)
• How To Turn Your Dissertation into a Book , Yale University (April 6, 2016)
• From Dissertation to Book by Leonard Cassuto (Chronicle of Higher Education, May 30, 2011)
• From Dissertation to Published Book (lanugageandphilosophy.com report on an American Comparative Literature Association workshop)
• Give It a Rest by Laura Portwood-Stacer (Inside Higher Ed, August 6, 2019)
• The Stages of Revising a Dissertation into a Book by Amy Benson Brown (Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 52 no. 2, 2021, p. 127-140) (GU NetID and password required)
• Turning Your Dissertation into a Book (University of Washington)
• Publishing your Dissertation (American Psychological Association)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Publishing a Master’s Thesis: A Guide for Novice Authors

Robert g. resta.

1 Swedish Cancer Institute, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA USA

Patricia McCarthy Veach

2 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA

Sarah Charles

3 Jefferson Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA USA

Kristen Vogel

4 Center for Medical Genetics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL USA

Terri Blase

5 Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, IL USA

Christina G. S. Palmer

6 Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

7 Department of Human Genetics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

8 UCLA Semel Institute, 760 Westwood Plaza, Room 47-422, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA

Publication of original research, clinical experiences, and critical reviews of literature are vital to the growth of the genetic counseling field, delivery of genetic counseling services, and professional development of genetic counselors. Busy clinical schedules, lack of time and funding, and training that emphasizes clinical skills over research skills may make it difficult for new genetic counselors to turn their thesis projects into publications. This paper summarizes and elaborates upon a presentation aimed at de-mystifying the publishing process given at the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Education Conference. Specific topics include familiarizing prospective authors, particularly genetic counseling students, with the basics of the publication process and related ethical considerations. Former students’ experiences with publishing master’s theses also are described in hopes of encouraging new genetic counselors to submit for publication papers based on their thesis projects.

Introduction

Scholarship is important for growth of a profession and for clinical care. For these reasons, the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) endorses scholarly activities through Practice Based Competency IV.5 (American Board of Genetic Counseling 2009 ). Boyer ( 1990 ) describes four types of scholarship (Scholarship of Discovery, Scholarship of Integration, Scholarship of Application, and Scholarship of Teaching), all of which are endorsed by ABGC and required of accredited genetic counseling training programs. The first three types of scholarship, which involve generating new knowledge or applying existing knowledge to an important problem, are the basis of the ABGC’s requirement that students in accredited programs engage in scholarship and complete a scholarly product. The ABGC defines a scholarly product to include: a master’s thesis, an independent research project, a literature review/case report, a formal needs assessment, design and implementation of an innovative patient, professional, or community educational program, and/or preparation of a grant proposal.

The purpose of this article is to encourage students to disseminate their scholarly work (except grant proposals) through a journal publication. This article was developed from an Educational Breakout Session (EBS) at the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Annual Education Conference and draws upon the experiences of a past editor and current assistant editor of the Journal of Genetic Counseling ( JOGC ), a student mentor, and recent genetic counseling graduates who successfully turned their student thesis projects into peer-reviewed publications.

Engaging in scholarship is important for increasing genetic counselors’ self-knowledge, but dissemination of scholarship is essential for the growth of the genetic counseling field. McGaghie and Webster ( 2009 ) identify a wide range of types of scholarly products that promote broad dissemination of information, including peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., original research, case reports, review articles), book chapters, books or monographs, edited books, essays, editorials, book reviews, letters, conference reports, educational materials, reports of teaching practices, curriculum description, videos, simulations, simulators, and web-based tutorials. As evidence of the importance of disseminating scholarship to the field of genetic counseling, dissemination of scholarly products is actively promoted by the NSGC, the major professional organization for the genetic counseling profession. A prominent example of NSGC’s commitment to dissemination is the JOGC , a professional journal devoted to disseminating peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice of genetic counseling. The success of this journal over nearly two decades is a strong indicator of the value genetic counselors place on publishing journal articles as an essential product of scholarship.

Individuals who have completed a master’s thesis or equivalent should consider publication. This “call to publish” student work is based on evidence that a large proportion of students engage in a scholarly activity with publication potential. A recent survey of 531 genetic counselors suggests that 75% of respondents fulfilled their scholarly activity requirement via a master’s thesis (Clark et al. 2006 ). Among this group, 21% classified their thesis as “hypothesis driven” and 20% classified it as a “descriptive study.” Although the research may be relatively small scale given the time and resource constraints of short training programs (≤2 years), it nonetheless offers a rich and varied source of information about the practice of genetic counseling that could be shared with the broader community through publication. Yet Clark et al. ( 2006 ) found that only 21.6% of respondents who completed a master’s thesis had submitted a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It appears that many students do not submit their research for professional publication, perhaps due to a combination of time constraints, lack of mentoring and support, unfamiliarity with the publication process, lack of professional confidence, and fear of rejection (Clark et al. 2006 ; Cohen et al. 2008 ; Driscoll and Driscoll 2002 ; Keen 2006 ). Because this is one aspect of scholarship that has received limited attention, guidance regarding the details and vicissitudes of the publication process, and acknowledgement that master’s theses can be successfully published, are needed.

Of course, one might question why students should or would publish the results of their graduate work. The answer is complex, without a “one size fits all,” because scholarship can be intrinsically and/or extrinsically motivated. McGaghie and Webster ( 2009 ) describe intrinsic motives as including sharing knowledge, career advancement, status improvement, collegial approval, personal pleasure, and response to challenge; extrinsic motives include academic pressure, commitment to patient care, practice improvement, and promoting the use of new technologies. Although the reasons genetic counselors publish articles have not been empirically evaluated, Clark et al. ( 2006 ) (i) concluded that a substantial number of genetic counselors consider active involvement in research (a form of scholarship and precursor to publication) to be a core role, and (ii) found that respondents endorsed a range of intrinsic and extrinsic motives for their involvement in research. These reasons included interest in the subject, contributing to the field, personal development/satisfaction, diversifying job responsibilities, job requirements, lack of existing research on a particular topic, and career advancement. It is reasonable to infer that these reasons would extend to publication as well.

The work that culminates in a master’s thesis provides the basis for a professional journal article. However, writing a professional journal article differs from writing a master’s thesis. This article, therefore, provides practical ideas and considerations about the process for developing a master’s thesis into a peer-reviewed journal article and describes successful case examples. Research and publication occur in stages and include many important topics. Previous genetic counseling professional development articles have partially or comprehensively addressed the topics of developing and conducting a research project (Beeson 1997 ), writing a manuscript (Bowen 2003 ), and the peer-review process (Weil 2004 ). This paper expands on previous articles by describing the publication process and discussing publication ethics, with emphasis on aspects pertinent to publishing a master’s thesis. It is hoped that this article will encourage genetic counselors to publish their research.

The primary audience for this article is genetic counselors who are conducting a master’s thesis or equivalent or who completed a thesis in the last few years which remains unpublished. The secondary audience is other novice authors and affiliated faculty of genetic counseling training programs. Although the focus of this paper is on journal publications which are subject to a peer-review process (e.g., original research, clinical reports, and reviews), some of the basic information applies to a variety of publishing forms.

The Publication Process

Publish before it perishes.

Like produce and dairy products, data have a limited shelf life. Research results may be rendered marginal by new research, social changes, and shifts in research trends. For example, a study of patient reluctance to undergo genetic testing due to concerns about health insurance discrimination conducted in December 2007 would have been obsolete when the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Pub.L. 110–233, 122 Stat. 881, enacted May 21, 2008) was enacted 5 months later. Or studies of whether patients think they might undergo testing if a gene for a particular condition were identified become less relevant once the gene is actually mapped and sequenced.

The hardest part about writing is actually writing. Making the time to sit down and compose a report of research findings is a very difficult first step. As noted in the three case examples, this is particularly true for a recent graduate whose time is occupied with searching for a new job, moving to a new city, and learning the details of a new job. However, the longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes, and the greater the risk that your data will grow stale. If you do not write it, the paper will likely not get written. The three case examples identify strong mentorship, ongoing communication with co-authors, constructive criticism, and commitment to publication by every author as key elements for successfully preparing a manuscript. The following sections describe basic processes for preparing a paper. See also Table  1 for helpful references about technical aspects of manuscript preparation.

Table 1

Selected Resources For Manuscript Preparation

Choosing a Journal

Research delivered to an inappropriate audience is ignored. Many journals publish genetic counseling research—as demonstrated by the three case examples—and therefore, choosing the right journal is critical (Thompson 2007 ). The first step is to decide who the audience should be. Is it important to reach genetic counselors? Medical geneticists? Or is the audience outside of the genetic counseling community? Some genetic counseling research is of interest to researchers in patient education, decision-making, or the social sciences. Clinicians such as surgeons, radiology technicians, psychologists, and family practice physicians might benefit from a greater understanding of genetic counseling and how it interfaces with their specialties.

The next step is to decide whether the journal is interested in the type of research conducted. For example, does the journal publish articles mostly on medical and clinical issues? Does it publish qualitative research? A description of the scope, aims, and types of research that are published is located in the “Instructions to Contributors” section on the web page of most journals. A look at the journal’s editorial board might also provide a good idea of a journal’s theoretical approaches, philosophical orientation, and research interests. Another strategy is to contact the journal’s editor or a member of the editorial board prior to submitting a manuscript to discuss the appropriateness of the manuscript for the journal. Many editors welcome such pre-submission contact since it reduces their workload of reading inappropriate manuscripts.

A journal’s “impact factor” may be important to some authors when considering where to publish a manuscript. The impact factor is a—perhaps imperfect—statistical measure of a journal’s importance. The impact factor was developed in the early 1960s by Eugene Garfield and Irving Sher and is technically defined as A/B, where A = the number of times articles published in that journal were cited and B = the number of citable articles published by the journal (letters and editorials are not usually citable articles) (Garfield 1994 ). An impact factor of one indicates that on average, articles published in the journal were cited once by other authors.

A journal’s impact factor can vary greatly from year to year, and its practical utility is widely debated (Andersen et al. 2006 ; Chew et al. 2006 ; Greenwood 2007 ; Ha et al. 2006 ; The PLoS Medicine Editors 2006 ). Genetic counselors often publish small studies and case reports. The journals that might publish such papers usually have impact factors of ten or less. Thus the impact factor may be a less important consideration for many genetic counselors when deciding where to publish.

A publisher’s copyright policy may also influence the choice of where to publish. The majority of publishers own the copyright (United States Copyright Office 2008 ) and authors do not have the right to copy, re-use, or distribute their own publications without buying reprints, which can be a significant source of income for publishers. Some journals, like the Public Library of Science (PLoS), are completely Open Access and make all articles fully available online. Other journals have Delayed Open Access, which makes articles publicly available after a specified period of time, often a year or two. Many journals, such as the JOGC , promote Hybrid Open Access in which authors, for a fee, can make their articles publicly available. Some journals will make select articles publicly available, usually those that attract media attention. For grant-funded research, consider the requirements of the funding source; some granting agencies require that the research results be made publicly available at some point.

Peer Review

Peer review is the process in which two or three experts evaluate a manuscript to determine whether it is worthy of publication. Peer review is the backbone of scholarly publishing; no research manuscript gets published until a team of reviewers and journal editors vets it. Ideally, reviewers are objective, constructively critical, open-minded, fair, and insightful. Some journals blind the reviewer to the author’s identity, in hopes that the authors’ reputations or professional relationships will not influence the review. Some journals will let authors suggest reviewers or request that certain people not review a manuscript. A journal’s peer review policies may be another important consideration in choosing where to submit a manuscript.

In practice, peer review is not always ideal (Benose et al. 2007 ; Curfman et al. 2008 ; Hames 2007 ; Wager et al. 2006 ). Nonetheless, no better or viable alternative has been proposed. Reviews may sometimes appear to be arbitrary, unfair, and poorly performed. Reading such reviews can be very difficult and frustrating, even for experienced authors. However, it is a reviewer’s job to be critical, and there may be elements of truth in even the most negative reviews. Some editors may be willing to send a manuscript to another reviewer if an original reviewer produces a harshly critical or poorly thought out critique. Some journals have a formal appeals process if a manuscript is rejected or an author feels a review is inaccurate, inappropriate, or biased. However, sometimes it is simply easier to submit the manuscript to a different journal. Case # 2 describes a successful example where submitting a manuscript to a different journal led to publication.

The manuscript rejection rate varies widely across journals, but about half of all manuscripts are rejected or require significant revisions (Armstrong et al. 2008 ; Hall and Wilcox 2007 ; Liesegang et al. 2007 ). About half of rejected manuscripts are published in other journals (Armstrong et al. 2008 ; Hall and Wilcox 2007 ; Liesegang et al. 2007 ). Even among articles that are accepted for publication, the vast majority will require significant revisions. All three case examples describe manuscripts that underwent significant revision. Thus, prospective authors should not be disheartened if a manuscript is rejected or needs extensive re-writing; this is the rule rather than the exception . Many editors are willing to work with authors who have questions about specific comments or how best to incorporate the reviewers’ suggestions. Busy journal editors would rather answer questions up front than have to laboriously edit a revised manuscript and send it back for further revisions.

Peer review, and the subsequent manuscript revisions, along with the number of manuscripts submitted to the journal, are probably the most critical bottlenecks in determining how long it takes before a manuscript appears in print. Typically, a year or more may pass from the time of submission to the publication date. The three case examples include their timeframes to highlight the need for perseverance and patience with the publication process.

The clearest way for authors to respond to editors’ and reviewers’ comments is to prepare a table that lists each comment and how the authors addressed them, item by item. Some reviewers’ comments may be inaccurate or simply unrealistic (e.g. “The authors should re-do the entire research study...”); these can be discussed in the table or in the cover letter that accompanies the table. Additional information about the peer-review process can be found in Weil ( 2004 ).

Acceptance!

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, the publisher or the journal editor will send a copyright transfer statement that spells out ownership of the article. This statement must be signed and returned in short order before the manuscript will be published. The corresponding author will receive page proofs, usually electronically, which must be read by the author for accuracy and returned fairly quickly (usually 2–3 days). Many publishers are reluctant to make significant changes in the page proofs, and they may charge for substantial revisions. Thus, the version of the manuscript that is submitted to the journal before the page proofs are generated should be very close to what the author wishes to see in print. Usually at this time publishers will offer the author the option to purchase reprints to allow the author to share the publication with other researchers, co-authors, and colleagues. Some journals will provide a limited number of free reprints or a complimentary copy of the issue of the journal in which the paper appears. The steps in the publication process are summarized in Table  2 .

Table 2

Steps in the Publication Process

a ∼50% of manuscripts are rejected or require significant revision before being accepted for publication

Ethics of Publishing

“Scholarship (like life) is not always fair or precise.” (Thompson 1994 )

Manuscript preparation and submission for publication can be complicated by ethical issues. Many authors may not be aware of these ethical conundrums, let alone have a plan for addressing them. Ethics is not a stagnant concept. As research methodologies and research questions evolve, new ethical issues in publishing arise. This section contains a description of several issues broadly relevant to the publishing practice of genetic counselors, particularly as students or recent graduates. However, it is important for genetic counselors-as-authors to keep abreast of ethical issues relevant to their own work.

“Ethics” are principles that govern the behavior of individuals or groups (Merriam-Webster 1974 ). Ethical codes of conduct exist in order to preserve the integrity of a profession, ensure the public’s welfare, and protect scholars. Ethical issues particularly relevant to writing for publication, include: (1) authorship determination, (2) disclosure and conflicts of interest, (3) plagiarism, (4) subject confidentiality, (5) accuracy of information, and (6) publishing in multiple sources.

Authorship Determination

Consider the following situation: A student conducted an excellent study for her master’s thesis project. At the beginning of the project, her supervisor promised her that she would have first authorship on any manuscripts based on the project. However, when the time came to write the paper, the student procrastinated. Finally, after the supervisor repeatedly “nagged” her, she submitted a draft to her, but it was very poorly written. The supervisor decided the only way to salvage the paper was to totally rewrite it herself. Now the supervisor thinks that she deserves to be the first author. Is this ethical? Does it matter if the project was the student’s master’s thesis rather than a project in which she was voluntarily involved? Are there guidelines that might be implemented in advance to handle this kind of situation?

This complex situation may be all too familiar for many supervisors and students. It raises issues about valuing contributions to the publication process, the power differential between supervisors and students, determining when renegotiation of authorship is warranted, and setting expectations and priorities up front. Whenever manuscripts are authored by more than one individual, order of authorship should be negotiated as early in the process as possible. Only individuals who have actually contributed to the work should be listed as authors. Their order should indicate “...the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status” (Shadish 1994 ) (p. 1096). In the sciences, the first and last authors typically are the individuals that made the greatest contributions to the project (Laflin et al. 2005 ). Many journals require a listing of each author’s contribution to the manuscript in order to make sure each person meets the journal’s requirements to be listed as an author.

Student authors pose a special situation. Doctoral students usually are the first authors of papers based on their dissertation research (Nguyen and Nguyen 2006 ). Authorship order is less clear for masters’ projects because masters’ students may lack sufficient knowledge and skills to conduct a project and prepare a manuscript of publishable quality without considerable input from their supervisor (Shadish 1994 ). Thompson ( 1994 ) recommends that when there is any question as to who made the primary contribution, the student should receive higher authorship. His recommendation helps to protect the person who has less power in the situation. Often students are involved in studies that are not based on their own master’s or doctoral research, but rather are connected to an existing research program, such as case examples 1 and 2. In those situations, some authors contend that their involvement should be creative and intellectual in order to warrant authorship; otherwise, student input can be credited in an acknowledgement section (Fine and Kurdek 1993 ; Holaday and Yost 1995 ; Thompson 1994 ).

Negotiating authorship is an important step that should begin in the initial stages of a project. This step usually involves assessing and agreeing upon each person’s tasks, contributions, and efforts. The amount of supervision required for an individual’s contributions is usually considered as well (Fine and Kurdek 1993 ). Sometimes renegotiation of authorship order is necessary due to unexpected changes and/or substantial revision of the manuscript. The key is to remember that authorship is negotiated. Questions to consider throughout this negotiation process include: Who had the original idea for the basis of the publication? Who designed and conducted the study that generated the data? Who will write most of the first draft of the paper? Is the study part of someone’s research lab? Students should maintain early and on-going communication with their co-authors about their investment of time and efforts and the outcomes of those efforts (Sandler and Russell 2005 ). However, scholarly contribution is more important than actual time and effort expended when determining authorship. For more information regarding authorship determination, it may be useful to review guidelines for discussing and clarifying authorship order (Gibelman and Gelman 1999 ) or developing individualized contracts for research collaboration (Stith et al. 1992 ). These guidelines also may be useful for initiating discussion of authorship as part of the curriculum in genetic counseling training programs.

Take another look at the authorship scenario. At the time of the original negotiation of authorship, it is likely that the supervisor (and other parties) believed the student warranted first authorship due to her creative contributions and time allotted to the study. In most authors’ minds, first authorship is equated with substantial contribution to writing the manuscript, usually the first draft, so it is important the student understand this is part of the responsibilities of being first author. Typically students have no experience writing a journal article, and so some procrastination is likely. In this scenario, the authorship dilemma may have been averted by having in place a plan to mentor the student, providing support, and delineating a specific process for writing the first draft of the manuscript.

Manuscripts invariably undergo substantial revision as co-authors and reviewers weigh in, so it is not unusual that the supervisor would revise the student’s first draft. This activity does not prima facie warrant a change in authorship order. However, by developing a specific plan to support the student’s writing, it may minimize the extent of the supervisor’s revisions. It is possible, though, that the student’s procrastination and poor writing should initiate a renegotiation of authorship order because the level and nature of her contributions to the work may be changing. The supervisor and student should discuss the reasons for changing authorship order; the supervisor should not unilaterally make this change without discussion. Keep in mind that the bar for changing authorship should be much higher if the paper is based on the student’s master’s thesis than if it is based on a project in which she was voluntarily involved. It is also important to inform students early in the process that most research is a collaborative effort, requiring time, energy, and sometimes funding, and therefore their collaborators have expectations that their contributions will be rewarded through publication. Developing an a priori policy for renegotiation may often reduce misunderstandings and minimize conflict.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Consider the following situation: A student conducted a study to evaluate a new program that her clinic is offering to its patients. She interviewed ten patients who participated in the program about their experience. Nine of these patients were in general agreement about the value of the program, while the 10th patient was quite negative about her experience. The student’s impression of this patient is that she is a generally negative person. The student believes that the patient came into the program expecting not to like it. Furthermore, the student is concerned her clinic will lose funding for this program if she reports this patient’s responses. The student decides to exclude her data from the paper. Is this decision ethical? Why or why not?

One ethical issue raised in this scenario involves determining when it is appropriate to exclude data points. Data collected from research can be messy, and it is not unusual for some data points to be excluded from analyses. However, there must be an explicit methodology for excluding data points or subjects, and this information usually is reported in the manuscript. Examples for exclusions include: missing data (e.g., a participant did not complete a majority of the items on a questionnaire); measurement error (e.g., the recorded measurement of a biological process or part of the anatomy is simply impossible); small sample sizes (e.g., an insufficient number of individuals from a minority group participated in the research resulting in numbers too small for meaningful analysis). In the scenario described above, the rationale provided for excluding the 10th patient’s experience is not sufficient to warrant exclusion. Instead, it appears that exclusion of this individual is based on a desire to promote the new program in the student’s clinic. In order to eliminate this form of conflict of interest, one could consider involving a clinic outsider in the analysis and interpretation of the data. By including a clinic outsider in the project, editor and reviewer concerns about the integrity of the data, analyses, and conclusions will be allayed.

Most journals provide another “safeguard,” by requiring a statement about possible conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest statement requires the author to acknowledge in writing the nature of any circumstances that might bias the process and/or outcome of their work. For example, any project and published report that might result in direct financial gains for an author(s) should be disclosed to a journal’s editor and to the readership. Examples of possible conflicts of interest include conducting a study of the effectiveness of a genetic test funded by the company that developed and is marketing the test, or a program evaluation study whose outcome would determine the continuation of the investigators/authors’ jobs.

Plagiarism is a familiar concept to most people. Everyone generally understands the importance of “giving credit where credit is due.” Yet, the National Science Foundation estimates that the prevalence of plagiarism may be as high as 50% (Roig 2001 ). Probably many of these incidents are unintentional and/or occur because the authors were unaware of some of the nuances regarding plagiarism. Although there is some variability within and across disciplines about the specific behaviors that constitute plagiarism, there is general agreement about two broad types (Roig 2001 ): cryptamnesia -an individual thinks their idea is original when it actually was presented by someone else previously; and inappropriate paraphrasing —an individual uses another person’s published text without properly citing that use, and/or using their statements with little or no modification. Specific examples of inappropriate paraphrasing include: (1) publishing another person’s work as one’s own; (2) copying part of another author’s paper and claiming it as one’s own; (3) copying text from another source without using quotations marks and without citing that source in the text; (4) paraphrasing text from another source without providing an in-text citation; (5) summarizing material from another source without clearly connecting the summary to that source; and (6) using copyrighted materials without author/publisher permission (East 2006 ; Lester and Lester Jr. 1992 ).

Additional types of plagiarism include ambiguous use of citations. For instance, an individual includes a citation in a paragraph but does not clearly indicate which content in the paragraph is from the cited work. Another type of plagiarism is self-plagiarism . Self-plagiarism occurs when an individual includes published work of their own for which they do not own the copyright (e.g., reprinting a table from one of their previously published papers); repeating verbatim text from a previously published article. Permission to reprint material from the publisher must be obtained.

Plagiarism is a serious ethical breach which can result in a legal penalty. Strategies for avoiding plagiarism include limiting the use of direct quotes; avoiding the use of secondary sources—it is always better to read and cite an original source when available; and restating ideas in one’s own words while providing in-text citation of the work that contains the original ideas (East 2006 ; Lambie et al. 2008 ; Lester and Lester Jr. 1992 ). When in doubt regarding the originality of one’s words, it is best to cite the source(s) on which they are based. In this regard, it may help to bear in mind that readers will assume all words in the paper are the author’s unless the source(s) are cited.

Subject Confidentiality

Published papers must be written in a way that no subjects can be recognized by others without their written consent (Gavey and Braun 1997 ). Given the unique nature of genetics, family members may also need to provide written consent (McCarthy Veach et al. 2001 ). When possible, identifying information should be removed or disguised (e.g., use of pseudonyms) and data based on multiple subjects should be reported in aggregate (group) form. Institutional review boards (IRBs) play a critical role in assuring protection of subject confidentiality. Many journals require authors to indicate either in the paper or a cover letter that they have obtained institutional review board approval to conduct their animal or human subjects study. In some cases, an ethics board may have been consulted regarding ethical dilemmas reported in a clinical paper and this should be acknowledged in the paper.

Accuracy of Information

Authors are responsible for rigorously checking the accuracy of their facts, data, and conclusions. However, despite one’s best efforts, substantial errors sometimes are not discovered until after a paper is published. In that case, the corresponding author should contact the journal immediately and ask that an erratum be published. On a related note, authors have a professional responsibility to make data sets reported in published papers available to other professionals. This practice allows for verification of the findings and conclusions, and it also makes possible research replications and extensions of the original study. The length of time for retaining research records depends on institutional policy and sponsor policy, so it is important to be aware of how these policies apply to the research generated by a master’s thesis. Often institutional review boards require researchers to state how long they will maintain a data set, and the researchers must adhere to that time frame.

Another accuracy issue concerns modifying and reporting the use of published material (e.g., an interview protocol, psychological instrument, curriculum) without clearly describing the precise nature of the modifications. Interpretation of findings and their comparison to other studies using the “same” instrumentation may be severely compromised when an author fails to report modifications. Further, professional courtesy suggests that permission be sought from the author before changing her or his material. Also, use of published material requires crediting the author(s) of that material by including relevant citations.

Publishing in Multiple Sources

In the sciences, a manuscript should not be under review by more than one journal at a time. It is, however, acceptable to submit material for presentation at a conference prior to its actual publication in a journal, as the authors in case examples 1 and 3 did. Some conferences publish proceedings , and some journals will not publish work that is already published in a Proceedings unless the two papers differ substantially. When in doubt, it is good practice to contact a journal’s editor to determine the journal’s policy. Journals typically only publish original work, but on occasion there may be interest in reprinting an article. Reprinting a previously published paper requires written permission from the owner of the publication copyright. As a matter of courtesy, one should also seek the corresponding author’s permission, even if the author does not own the copyright.

Examples of Success

The benefits of sharing knowledge within the medical community and with the public via publication have been delineated. The publication of original work contributes to the advancement of the genetic counseling field overall, and at the individual level, authorship establishes a level of professional credibility, enhancing opportunities for future employability, funding and job satisfaction. The opportunity to develop a genetic counseling master’s thesis into a manuscript should therefore not be overlooked. Below are the personal accounts of three recent graduates who successfully transformed their individual master’s theses into published manuscripts. These examples were not systematically ascertained, and as such, do not necessarily represent all experiences with trying to publish a master’s thesis. These stories provide “first-hand accounts” of the authors’ experiences and, while acknowledging the challenges, demonstrate commitment to publishing their own projects throughout their careers. Table  3 contains a list of helpful hints gleaned from these cases.

Table 3

Helpful Hints for First Time Authors

Case 1: Consider Writing Your Thesis and Journal Article Concurrently

As a result of personal determination, and above all, strong mentorship, I was able to turn my master’s thesis work into a manuscript published in Patient Education and Counseling , titled “Satisfaction with genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among African American women” (Charles et al. 2006 ). My work was a small component of an existing research project being conducted within a university academically affiliated with my genetic counseling training program. The project was an evaluation of the overall effects of “Culturally Tailored vs. Standard Genetic Counseling Protocol” among African American women.

I started by reviewing previous publications this group of researchers had produced and using these as a guide for my first draft, followed by multiple revisions. Approximately 17 months elapsed between first submission and publication. We submitted the manuscript in its original form in May 2005. We received the reviewers’ comments later that summer, and submitted revisions five months later. The article was accepted in that same month, published online five months later and in print seven months after the online version appeared. Shortly after graduating from my program I submitted an abstract of the work to NSGC for presentation at the 2005 Annual Education Conference, and subsequently learned that it was selected for the NSGC Beth Fine Student Abstract award.

My experience may be unusual because I worked on the manuscript and thesis project concurrently. Composing separate but related documents while still juggling second year genetic counseling student responsibilities was certainly a challenge. Preparing a comprehensive thesis project is a very different task than manuscript composition, the latter of which is more focused and narrow in scope. Challenges posed by this concurrent approach included ensuring that text requirements and deadlines specific to each document were met, as well as incorporating and addressing the reviews of both the training program and peer-reviewers. The main benefits of this approach were that I was still in school and therefore geographically close to my mentors, which facilitated ongoing communication throughout the process, and that the manuscript was under review by a journal before I started my new job.

Factors contributing to the successful publication of this project include mentorship, accountability, and commitment to publication by every author. Supportive, constructively critical, and well published, my mentors had high standards and knew the process. Frankly, I did not want to disappoint them. I found setting deadlines and meeting them, along with the accountability of in-person meetings (as opposed to email), to be effective approaches. Finally, publishing the project was a stated goal of the authors at the initiation of the project. I will not claim that the process was easy, but the goal is certainly attainable and worthwhile.

Case 2: You Need Not Publish Every Thesis Finding—Pick The Most Interesting and Relevant

As is the case for many graduate students, the first time I attempted to publish was after I completed my thesis. My thesis concerned the development of a minority research recruitment database and was the result of my graduate research on underserved populations.

Following graduation, I started my first job as a genetic counselor in a new city. During the overwhelming process of adjusting to “my new life,” my thesis advisor asked me to submit a manuscript to the American Journal of Public Health in response to a call for abstracts on genetics topics. Unfortunately, the deadline was only one week away. I scrambled to cut down my lengthy thesis to a reasonable length and submitted it, knowing that it was not my best work given the time constraint. Needless to say, it was rejected.

I decided that before resubmitting the manuscript to a different journal, I would need to take a different approach to the paper, more or less starting over. While my research results were interesting, they were limited in their application. I decided to publish instead on the success of our research initiative, as other researchers could learn from our process. Since I was changing the focus of the manuscript, I had to do an additional literature search and produce much of the writing from scratch. Most of this work had to be completed in my free time. While it was difficult to stay motivated, working on my manuscript when first starting a job was manageable as my caseload was lightest in the beginning. After several weeks of hard work, I submitted the manuscript to Health Promotion Practice .

About one month later, the editor contacted me and asked me to resubmit my manuscript with revisions. Three different reviewers provided feedback. Initially, it was overwhelming to read through their comments and frustrating, particularly when the reviewers contradicted each other. Despite my frustration, with my co-authors’ guidance I forged ahead and resubmitted, only to have the editor and reviewers ask for additional revisions. There were comments from the same three reviewers, however, far fewer in number. Still, I was beginning to think they would never accept the manuscript. I once again called upon my co-authors for guidance and was able to address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit the manuscript once again.

This time when I heard from the editor, the manuscript was finally accepted. What started out as a 120 page thesis ended up being published as an eight page paper (Vogel et al. 2007 ). It took approximately 8 months of writing and revising before the manuscript was finally accepted and an additional year before it came out in print. While the entire process was a true test of patience and determination, it was ultimately worth it. The experience gave me the foundation to carry on my research career and continue to publish successfully.

Case 3: Expectations and Mentorship are Crucial

I defended my thesis, received my Master’s degree, and was about to move back to the Midwest to start my new job as a genetic counselor, but my long “To-Do” list had one remaining item: Publish master’s thesis. I started the initial master’s thesis process with the expectation from one of my thesis advisors, and now a co-author, that research is not “put down and set aside” until published. I never questioned the process; if I was going to work with this advisor, I would be publishing. I was excited to undertake this challenge and impressed by my thesis advisor’s dedication, mentorship, and desire to see our hard work recognized. Nearly two years later, I could proudly say that this expectation, held by all of my thesis advisors and me, was accomplished. The manuscript, published in the JOGC , describes qualitative research regarding communication of genetic test results within a family (Blase et al. 2007 ).

In the beginning, I was unfamiliar with the publication process, but because of the support and guidance of my advisors, I began to learn the process, and so the frustrations and uncertainties were minimal. I also had a great working relationship with my co-authors that included communicating regularly and setting and meeting deadlines. After deciding the JOGC was the most appropriate venue for my research, I spent a good deal of time reducing and reformatting the 80 page thesis to a 20–25 page manuscript to meet the journal’s guidelines. Given the page constraints, this process necessitated determining which data to focus on and re-framing some information to appropriately fit the readers of my selected journal. Conversations with my advisors were instrumental in this phase.

There was nothing quick about publishing my master’s thesis. I graduated in June 2005, received an email shortly thereafter from one of my advisors about how to begin constructing a first draft of a manuscript, and began working on the manuscript in July 2005. I submitted the manuscript to JOGC in May 2006 and subsequently was informed by the editor that based on the reviews, revisions were required before the manuscript could be considered for publication. In September 2006, after two rounds of revisions, my manuscript was accepted, and by June 2007 it was published in the journal.

Although ultimately I was successful in publishing my master’s thesis, the process had its moments of frustration. I remember getting my first round of comments from the reviewers; I thought I was never going to get to the point of publication. My co-authors supported and encouraged me by explaining that revisions are truly part of the process. I was overwhelmed by the reviewers’ list of questions and changes after my initial submission, followed by additional reviews and revisions. Not only did I have to figure out how to keep the manuscript a priority in light of my new job, but I had to weed through and address the reviewers’ comments, and the suggestions of each co-author. The guidance of my thesis advisors, now co-authors, helped me navigate this process.

I have gained much through this experience. The process has opened doors for me including opportunities to work with other professionals with impressive publishing experiences, as well as speaking and poster presentation opportunities at national conferences. I also have greater confidence about the publishing process. What seemed like such a daunting and impossible task is now an attainable outcome. Although my master’s thesis was my most recent publication, the thought of taking on the publication process again is not nearly as intimidating as I once thought.

Publication of original research, clinical experience, and literature reviews are vital to the growth of the genetic counseling field and to the delivery of genetic counseling services. Publishing also promotes personal growth by counting toward maintenance of ABGC-certification as well as establishing the author as a credible and respected authority both within and outside the genetic counseling field. This professional recognition in turn can lead to employment opportunities, speaking engagements, research funding, and career advancement.

Submitting a manuscript for publication also can be an intellectually challenging, emotionally trying, and time-consuming task. But similar to life’s other difficult tasks, the rewards and satisfaction are commensurately great—to see your name in print, have your work cited by other authors, and know that you have contributed in a meaningful way to the practice and understanding of genetic counseling. Transforming a master’s thesis into a journal article is an obvious first step in developing and sustaining a commitment to publishing for our genetic counseling profession. Common themes in the three success experiences include the importance of mentorship and clear expectations for publishing, recognition of the length of the process and concomitant need for perseverance in the face of revisions, awareness of personal and professional benefits in terms of presentations at national meetings, awards, and motivation to continue publishing. Hopefully the information provided in this article will help to de-mystify the publishing process, promote consideration of ethical issues in publishing, and stimulate genetic counseling students and new graduates to embrace a “Publish for Success” philosophy.

Acknowledgments

This paper was developed from an Educational Breakout Session (EBS) sponsored by the Jane Engelberg Memorial Fellowship Advisory Group at the 2008 NSGC Annual Education Conference.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

• American Board of Genetic Counseling. 2009. Competencies . https://doi.org/www.abgc.net/english/view.asp?x=1529&all=true . Accessed October 26, 2009.
• Andersen J, Belmont J, Cho CT. Journal impact factor in the era of expanding literature. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection. 2006; 39 :436–443. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, Bernhard JD. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology . Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2008; 58 :632–635. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.12.025. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beeson D. Nuance, complexity, and context: qualitative methods in genetic counseling research. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 1997; 6 :21–43. doi: 10.1023/A:1025659701805. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benose DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education. 2007; 31 :145–152. doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blase T, Martinez A, Grody WW, Schimmenti L, Palmer CGS. Sharing GJB2/GJB6 genetic test information with family members. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2007; 16 :313–324. doi: 10.1007/s10897-006-9066-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowen NK. How to write a research article for the Journal of Genetic Counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2003; 12 :5–21. doi: 10.1023/A:1021491016830. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles S, Kessler L, Stopfer JE, Domchek S, Halbert CH. Satisfaction with genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among African American women. Patient Education and Counseling. 2006; 63 :196–204. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chew M, Villanueva EV, Van Der Weyden MB. Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their editors’ views. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006; 100 :142–150. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark HM, Gamm J, Huether CA, Buncher CR, Blough Pfau RI, Steinberg Warren N. Genetic counselors and research: current practices and future directions. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C (Seminars in Medical Genetics) 2006; 142C :276–283. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30106. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen BL, Friedman E, Zier K. Publications by students doing a year of full-time research: what are realistic expectations? The American Journal of Medicine. 2008; 121 :545–548. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.03.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Annas GJ, Drazen JM. Peer review in the balance. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 358 :2276–2277. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe0803516. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Driscoll J, Driscoll A. Writing an article for publication: an open invitation. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing. 2002; 6 :144–152. doi: 10.1016/S1361-3111(02)00053-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• East J. The problem of plagiarism in academic culture. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2006; 2 :16–28. doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v2i2.88. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine MA, Kurdek LA. Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist. 1993; 48 :1141–1147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garfield, E. (1994). The Thomson Scientific Impact Factor Thomson Reuters (formerly the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)) . https://doi.org/www.thomsonreuters.com/business_units/scientific/free/essays/impactfactor/ . Accessed 1/24/2009.
• Gavey N, Braun V. Ethics and the publication of clinical case material. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1997; 28 :399–404. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.28.4.399. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibelman M, Gelman SR. Who’s the author? Ethical issues in publishing. Journal of Social Work Education. 1999; 35 :203–213. doi: 10.1080/10437797.1999.10778960. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwood DC. Reliability of journal impact factor rankings. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2007; 7 :48–53. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-48. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha TC, Tan SB, Soo KC. The journal impact factor: too much of an impact? Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore. 2006; 35 :911–916. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall SA, Wilcox AJ. The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: a study of papers submitted to Epidemiology . Epidemiology. 2007; 18 :262–265. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000254668.63378.32. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hames I. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals—Guidelines for good practice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holaday M, Yost TE. Authorship credit and ethical guidelines. Counseling and Values. 1995; 40 :24–31. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.1995.tb00384.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keen A. Writing for publication: pressures, barriers, and support strategies. Nurse Education Today. 2006; 27 :382–388. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.05.019. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laflin MT, Glover ED, McDermott RJ. Publication ethics: an examination of authorship practices. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2005; 29 :579–587. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.29.6.12. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lambie GW, Sias SM, Davis KM, Lawson G, Akos P. A scholarly writing resource for counselor educators and their students. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2008; 86 :18–25. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00621.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lester JD, Lester JD., Jr . The research paper handbook. Glenview: Goodyear Books; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2007; 143 :551–560. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarthy Veach P, Bartels DM, LeRoy BS. Ethical and professional challenges posed by patients with genetic concerns: A report of focus group discussions with genetic counselors, physicians, and nurses. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2001; 10 :97–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1009487513618. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGaghie WC, Webster A. Scholarship, publication, and career advancement in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 43. Medical Teacher. 2009; 31 :574–590. doi: 10.1080/01421590903050366. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam-Webster . The Merriam-Webster dictionary. New York: Pocket Books; 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen T, Nguyen TD. Authorship ethics: issues and suggested guidelines for the helping professions. Counseling and Values. 2006; 50 :208–216. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.2006.tb00057.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roig M. Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics & Behavior. 2001; 11 :307–323. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler JC, Russell BL. Faculty-student collaborations: ethics and satisfaction with authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior. 2005; 15 :65–80. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shadish W. APA ethics and student authorship on master’s theses. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :1096. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.1096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stith SM, Barasch Jester S, Linn JL. Student-faculty collaborative research. Family Relations. 1992; 41 :470–474. doi: 10.2307/585594. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The PLoS Medicine Editors. (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Medicine , 3, e291 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Thompson B. The big picture(s) in deciding authorship order. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :1095–1096. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.1095. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson PJ. How to choose the right journal for your manuscript. Chest. 2007; 132 :1073–1076. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-1340. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Copyright Office. (2008). Copyright basics . https://doi.org/www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf . Accessed 1/14/2009.
• Vogel K, Murthy VS, Dudley B, Grubs RE, Gettig E, Ford A, et al. The use of family health histories to address health disparities in an African-American community. Health Promotion Practice. 2007; 8 :350–357. doi: 10.1177/1524839906293395. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine. 2006; 30 :13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-13. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weil J. Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2004; 13 :183–187. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGC.0000028252.93942.40. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Patterns of dissertation dissemination: publication-based outcomes of doctoral theses in the social sciences

• Open access
• Published: 29 February 2024
• Volume 129 , pages 2389–2405, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Anastasiya-Mariya Asanov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3080-4213 1 ,
• Igor Asanov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8091-4130 1 ,
• Guido Buenstorf   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2957-5532 1 ,
• Valon Kadriu   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-1101-5349 1 &
• Pia Schoch   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-9471-4590 1  

1254 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Dissemination of knowledge through the publication of findings is a cornerstone of the academic research system. Doctoral dissertations document the findings made by early-stage researchers during their doctoral studies. However, prior research suggests that dissertations may not be effective in disseminating these findings to the broader community of researchers. We study how knowledge documented in doctoral dissertations is disseminated. Specifically, we investigate which dissertation characteristics and institutional factors are related to the number of journal publications based on these dissertations and the number of citations that these publications receive. Our analysis uses a random sample of doctoral dissertations from German universities in economics, political science, and sociology. We find that “cumulative” dissertations—dissertations consisting of a number of separate articles—are turned into three times more publications which receive three times more citations than monographic dissertations. We also find explorative evidence that dissertations written in English and empirical dissertations have higher publication-based outcomes. We conclude that a policy allowing doctoral candidates to write their dissertations in a cumulative format provides them with an opportunity to share the results of their research through publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring Research Fields Through Institutional Contributions to Academic Journals

Use of dissertation data in science policy research.

Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: the case of Poland

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Doctoral candidates contribute in many ways to the productivity of their universities—for example, as research and teaching assistants (Kifor et al., 2023 ; Larivière, 2012 ; Rodríguez-Montoya et al., 2023 ). However, their primary task and the key prerequisite for being awarded a doctoral degree is to make a research contribution to the respective discipline, which is documented in the doctoral dissertation. Moreover, dissertations turn into published papers serving dissemination of the acquired and documented knowledge. Yet, not many factors are known that determine the success of knowledge dissemination from dissertations (Mayir et al., 2017 ; Paglis et al., 2006 ; Rojko et al., 2020 ).

Depending on the country and discipline, it takes about 3 to 6 years for a doctoral candidate to fulfil all requirements for the doctoral degree, including submitting a comprehensive dissertation of 100 to 400 pages and to graduate (Günauer et al., 2013 ; Siegfried & Stock, 2001 ). Prior evidence indicates that dissertations contain high-quality research. For example, one review (McLeod & Weisz, 2004 ) shows that the methodology in experiments from dissertations was stronger, while the mean effect size reported in dissertations was smaller than in the published articles in the same field, suggesting the dissertations were less susceptible to overestimating the effect size than the published articles. Despite this, compared to journal publications, the citation rate of dissertations in the scientific literature has declined over time (Larivière et al., 2008 ). Less than 12% of the dissertations produced by UK doctoral candidates have at least one citation on platforms like Scopus, Microsoft Academic, or Google Books (Kousha & Thelwall, 2020 ).

Even though dissertations themselves are not cited much in the academic literature, one might expect that the research and data that dissertations are based on contribute to publications in peer-reviewed journals. However, research shows that only about 25–29% of dissertations in psychology, counseling, and social work (Evans et al., 2018 ; Maynard et al., 2014 ; Osborn et al., 2023 ) ended up with at least one article derived from them published in a peer-reviewed journal. Similarly, only around 40% of electronic theses and dissertations in engineering produced at a South African university received at least one citation, and only 16.8% of them were converted into research outputs such as books, journal articles, or conference proceedings (Bangani, 2018 ). Studies of medical theses dissemination show similarly low publication rates of 17% in France (Salmi et al., 2001 ), 17.6% in Peru (Arriola-Quiroz et al., 2010 ), and 23.8% in Finland (Nieminen et al., 2007 ). Finally, 53.2% of dissertations in Turkish language education are turned into journal publications (Karagöz & Şeref, 2021 ).These prior findings indicate that substantial resources are dedicated to producing high-quality research that is documented in doctoral dissertations but often not disseminated to the broader community of researchers. Yet, little is known about how universities can enhance dissertation-based research dissemination. Several studies have explored individual factors associated with the research productivity of doctoral candidates. Paglis et al. ( 2006 ) found no significant association between advisor mentoring and research productivity, which was defined as the total number of conference papers, journal publications, book chapters, and grant proposals accepted. Rojko et al. ( 2020 ) did not find a significant difference in the average publication performance of doctoral candidates before and after the implementation of the Bologna reform in Slovenia.

Other research has explored differences in the extent of doctoral dissertation dissemination. For example, making doctoral dissertations available through open-access repositories at universities resulted in higher citation counts (Ferreras-Fernández et al., 2013 ). Mayir et al. ( 2017 ) did not reveal an association between the publication rate and citation counts of dissertations in surgery and the type of study on which a dissertation was based (e.g., randomized study, case study, cross-sectional study). Closest to our study, Smaldone et al. ( 2019 ) compared the number of peer-reviewed publications based on dissertations from the Columbia University School of Nursing that were written in a monographic or an article-based (i.e., “cumulative”) format. The study found that article-based dissertations were associated with larger numbers of publications in peer-reviewed journals. Similarly, a survey of Australian students and alumni (Thomas et al., 2016 ) from instructional technology programs found that those who chose an article-based dissertation format reported receiving more citations on their dissertations.

In this study, using a random sample of German dissertations, we investigate dissertation characteristics and institutional factors that may be related to higher research output. We quantify research output as the number of papers based on the dissertation that are published in peer-reviewed journals and the number of citations from these papers.

We aim to answer the following four questions: First, do rates of publications based on dissertations and their citations differ between economics, sociology, and political science; second, do monographic and “cumulative” (article-based) dissertations differ in publication and citation rates; third, do dissertations from universities with and without an established graduate school or graduate academy differ in publication and citation rates; and fourth, do dissertations from universities that were successful in the German excellence initiative differ in publication and citation rates.

Materials and methods

Pre-analysis plan.

Prior to conducting the empirical analysis underlying the present paper, we specified in a pre-analysis plan the process of sampling, data collection, a set of outcomes and explanatory variables, a set of control variables, a set of hypotheses, and the empirical strategy. We store the pre-analysis plan and a replication package at Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U7M2A .

We selected a sample of 1500 doctoral dissertations from 2004 to 2006 and 1500 doctoral dissertations from 2012 to 2014, drawn randomly from the German National Library’s database of all dissertations published in Germany during those years. We determined the desired sample size and sampling strategy based on statistical power calculations before data collection to have a representative sample of dissertations for the sampling frame years. We focused on dissertations classified under the fields of Economy (“Wirtschaft”), Politics (“Politik”), and Social Sciences (“Sozialwissenschaften, Soziologie, Anthropologie”). To ensure accuracy, our team manually classified the dissertations in the sample, particularly distinguishing between those in economics and those in management sciences, which are both classified as “Wirtschaft” in the database. After this classification process, we were left with a total of 1840 dissertations from 73 German universities. Given 1840 dissertations (observations) across 73 universities (clusters) with observed intra-university (-cluster) correlation (ICC) of 0.04 for the main outcomes, assuming a conventional significance level of 5% and 80% of statistical power, the minimum detectable effect (MDE) size is 0.19 of a standard deviation. Thus, we have sufficient statistical power even to detect a correlation of about 0.1 ( r ), which can be considered a small effect size given empirically observed effect sizes in observational research in economics (Ioannidis et al., 2017 ).

Outcome variables

We were interested in two primary outcomes—the number of publications based on the doctoral dissertation and the total number of citations from these publications. Relevant publications were identified as follows. Initially, our team of research assistants, under the supervision of the research team, exhaustively searched for one peer-reviewed publication of each author in various sources (the author’s personal website, the author’s university page, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and WISO) and recorded the author identifiers. To ensure the correct person was found, we verified that the author’s publication lists contained the dissertation as well. Author identifiers were then matched with the Scopus database, and the list of publications was cross-referenced with the dissertation itself to identify which publications were based on the dissertation. The identification of dissertation-based publications was conducted manually by research assistants based on a formalized algorithm created by us, which entailed comparing titles, abstracts, and, if necessary, the introductions of the dissertation and each publication. Research assistants were encouraged to leave comments regarding uncertainties, which were then resolved by a member of the research team. To additionally ensure accuracy, the research assistants’ work was systematically and independently double-checked at random by senior researchers, i.e., a random sample of 30% dissertations was extracted to check for potential mistakes. In both instances—resolving an uncertainty and double-checking a random sample of dissertations—the senior researchers followed the same formalized protocol: check whether the title, abstract, and if necessary, introduction match. To determine whether the paper and a dissertation match, the algorithm required to compare the topic and the object of the study, the study sample, the method and the location of the study. When there was a significant overlap in these categories between the paper and a dissertation/dissertation chapter, the paper was classified as a match. After independent double-checking, the rate of agreement between research assistants’ and senior researchers’ classification was 94%.

Most of the publications from Scopus matched to the dissertations were classified as journal articles. We base our analysis on these observations. However, some of the Scopus items classified as conference proceedings, reviews, book chapters, notes, etc., were (later) also transformed into journal articles. Therefore, two senior researchers independently re-classified these cases manually (agreement between researchers in this classification was more than 95%). We performed a robustness check based on the dataset including these cases (Online Appendix S12 ).

Explanatory variables

We pre-specified four explanatory variables:

Cumulative dissertation

A “cumulative” doctoral dissertation is a dissertation written in a specific format. In addition to introductory and concluding chapters, it includes three or more chapters written in the format of journal articles. Writing cumulative dissertations is a recent and still relatively uncommon practice at German universities. According to the German Federal Statistical Office, only 13% of doctoral candidates in 2021 pursued a cumulative dissertation, with the remaining doctoral candidates opting for the traditional monographic dissertation format. For doctoral candidates in law, economics, and social science, the share of cumulative dissertations in 2021 was 18% (Bildung & Kultur, 2021 ). Cumulative dissertations have been suggested to address the low rates of dissertation citations observed in the past (Francis et al., 2009 ; Larivière et al., 2008 ). We accordingly hypothesize that cumulative dissertations have a higher number of publications and citations (hypothesis 1.1).

Graduate academy

Graduate academies are specialized institutions within universities that offer comprehensive support and guidance to doctoral candidates from all academic disciplines. The first graduate academies in Germany were established in 2000 and have since become an integral part of most German universities (Bundesbericht Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs, 2017 ). In addition to offering general support and advice, graduate academies typically provide additional quality assurance measures and offer specialized training and mentorship programs for doctoral candidates. These programs are designed to enhance the academic and professional skills of doctoral candidates and to help them succeed in their respective fields.

We hypothesize that dissertations written at universities with established graduate academies have higher numbers of publications and citations (hypothesis 1.2.a).

Graduate school

The traditional format of doctoral education at German universities relied on on-the-job training under the supervision of an individual doctoral advisor. The adoption of the graduate school model in Germany originated from the establishment of the first Research Training Groups (“Graduiertenkollegs” in German), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the mid-1980s.

In Research Training Groups, a team of professors and post-doctoral researchers jointly provide guidance and supervision to a number of doctoral candidates, all working on dissertations within the group’s common thematic focus. In addition to on-the-job learning opportunities, research training groups offer specialized training programs to enhance doctoral candidates’ academic and professional skills. Research Training Groups emphasize the training of early-career researchers subsequently embarking on academic careers (DFG, 2010 ). In the 2000s, they provided the template for graduate schools funded by the German Excellence Initiative.

We classify both the Research Training Groups funded directly by the German Research Foundation and the graduate schools funded by the Excellence Initiative as graduate schools. We hypothesize that dissertations written at universities with a graduate school in the respective discipline have a higher number of publications and citations (hypothesis 1.2.b).

Excellence university

The Excellence Initiative is a large-scale funding program that was jointly established by Germany’s federal government and the individual federal Länder in 2006. Its objective was to promote the best German universities to top positions in international university rankings and increase collaboration between German universities and the non-university research sector. The Excellence Initiative encompassed three funding lines: graduate schools, clusters of excellence funding thematically focused research centers connecting universities and research institutes or businesses, as well as university-wide development strategies (“future concepts”). Success in the Excellence Initiative entailed substantial resource and reputation effects on the respective universities. In particular, winning universities in the funding line for development strategies were often considered “excellence universities” (Buenstorf & Koenig, 2020 ; Möller et al., 2016 ).

There is mixed evidence of the changes in universities that received Excellence Initiative funding. Some evidence shows a decrease in the number of citations per researcher at universities funded in the first round of the Excellence Initiative compared to universities that did not receive funding (Menter et al., 2018 ). Other evidence points out that universities funded for their development strategy attracted students with higher GPAs—the effect remained for three years after the funding was awarded—and that students perceived these universities as having higher quality (Fischer & Kampkötter, 2017 ). Based on these findings, we hypothesize that dissertations written at excellence universities have a higher number of publications and citations (hypothesis 1.3).

Control variables

We collected control variables available from the dissertations, the German National Library portal, and the university websites for each dissertation in the sample. We used the post-double-selection Lasso procedure (Belloni et al., 2014 ) to select relevant control variables from the set of available control variables. This machine learning procedure relies on a two-step method to identify control variables for inclusion: (1) fitting a lasso regression to predict the outcome variable and (2) fitting a lasso regression to predict the explanatory variables of interest. The union of the variables selected by the procedure is included in the regression. The post-double-selection Lasso procedure reduces the risk of omitted variable bias, while at the same time avoiding overfitting in the presence of many potential control variables (Belloni et al., 2014 ). It is popular in many social sciences (Kreif & DiazOrdaz, 2019 ) and in medical research (Dukes & Vansteelandt, 2020 ), but has not yet been widely adopted in the scientometric literature despite the abovementioned advantages. The full list of control variables is available in Table S1 in the Online Appendix.

We pre-specified that a set of available control variables used in the post-double-selection Lasso procedure will consist of variables with less than 20% missing values. Most variables like language, university and field were retrieved from the German National Library portal and have no missing values. Some explained and controlled variables that could only be obtained from the dissertation text have missing values as 23 dissertations could not be obtained. The analysis included these variables due to a very low missingness rate.

Empirical strategy

We use the following main regression to estimate the relationship between publication-based outcomes and the format of the dissertation (cumulative or monographic), as well as the presence of graduate academies, graduate schools, or excellence funding:

where \(Y_{ij}\) is the publication-based measure for dissertation i in university j ; \(CD_{ij}\) is a binary variable equal to 1 if dissertation i at university j is in a cumulative format; \(GS_{ij}\) is a binary variable equal to 1 if dissertation i comes from a university j with an established graduate school in economics/sociology/political science; \(GA_{ij}\) is a binary variable equal to 1 if dissertation i comes from a university j with an established graduate academy; \(EU_{ij}\) is a binary variable equal to 1 if dissertation i comes from an excellence university j ; \(Controls_{ij}\) is a vector of control variables selected through the post double-selection Lasso procedure (Belloni et al., 2014 ). We cluster at the university level. \(f\) stands for a general functional form in regression analysis. We mainly use negative binomial regression as the number of papers and citations (publication-based measures) is prone to have a skewed distribution and to be overdispersed. We also estimate the Poisson regression model following Azoulay et al. ( 2019 ) and a simple linear regression as robustness checks. We performed control variables selection based on the post-double Lasso procedure for each hypothesis tested to see the sensitivity of the results with respect to the second stage of the procedure. In addition, we estimated negative binomial regressions including (i) the full set of institutional variables collected, (ii) the full set of individual author-dissertation variables collected, and (iii) the union of them as additional robustness checks. All estimations were done with R software version 4.0.3. except we had to use STATA for the robustness check regressions with full sets of controls (to ensure model convergence with many controls).

Additional outcome variables

While we hypothesize that cumulative dissertations convert into more journal publications that receive more citations, monographic dissertations may get more citations themselves. We test this conjecture and supplement the main pre-specified analysis using the methodology developed by Donner to estimate the number of citations the dissertations received (Donner, 2021 ). We followed the algorithm he described and searched for citations to the dissertations in Google Books (using Webometric Analyst) and Scopus and combined the results (Table S4 in the Online Appendix).

Specifically, we used a snapshot of the Scopus data from April 2022. In the first step, we restricted the cited reference data to the publication years of our dissertation sample ± 1 year. In the second step, we looked for exact matches with our dissertation sample regarding the author’s surname and initials and the dissertation publication year being around ± 1 year. Lastly, we compared the dissertation title to the Scopus cited item title and cited source title after standardizing them to the length of the shorter title. We calculated the similarity using the Optimal String Alignment (OSA) method and divided the result by the length of the standardized dissertation title, which led to outcomes between 0 and 1 (with 0 being an exact match and 1 being no match). If the outcome was between 0.00 and 0.25, we deemed the citation valid. After manually checking some dissertations at random, we observed that some authors were occasionally stored in the reference data with their full first name instead of their initials, so we also considered those cases.

Furthermore, we considered names containing German Umlaute (ä, ö, ü) by turning those into a, o, u, and ae, oe, ue. As we focus on the dissertations, we do not include the non-dissertation cited source titles containing words like “Journal”, and “Conference”. Following Donner’s ( 2021 ) approach, we applied the same approach to find indexed Scopus source publications matching with our dissertation sample. Lastly, to make sure that we do not have false-positive matches, we sampled 100 citations from the 2376 citations found and manually checked in the actual publications if the references list contains matched dissertations. We did not find any mismatch.

After obtaining the dissertation citations from Google Books and Scopus, we searched for the overlap between both sources. We found 18 citations present in both citations retrieved from the Google Books database and the Scopus database and removed them from the Google Books citations. We then combined the citations from both sources as described in (Donner, 2021 ).

We provided the analysis on combined Scopus and Google Books citations in line with the pre-specified empirical strategy above, being interested in whether monographic dissertations receive more citations. Finally, we manually collected Google Scholar citations, which have been used before to estimate the scholarly impact of dissertations (Kousha & Thelwall, 2020 ), and applied the above empirical strategy to assess if the results also hold for Google Scholar citations.

Our data shows that 26% of the dissertations in economics, 11% in sociology, and 7% in political sciences end up with at least one publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, the average number of papers based on the dissertations is 0.52 for economics, 0.18 for sociology, and 0.1 for political science. The corresponding citation counts of papers resulting from these dissertations are 14.63, 8.74, and 1.28, respectively (Table  1 ). We also observe that variance exceeds the mean on both primary outcomes—overdispersion for the number of papers and citations from these papers—suggesting that the negative binomial is the preferred specification.

Interestingly, we observe a considerable increase in the number of publications for dissertations in economics during the years 2012–2014, as shown in Fig.  1 .

Share of cumulative dissertations and average number of publications based on the dissertations per field over time

Results based on tests of the pre-specified hypotheses

Results based on tests of the pre-specified hypotheses with and without control variables selected by the double-lasso selection algorithm (Belloni et al., 2014 ) can be found in Table  2 . We find that cumulative dissertations are associated with a significantly higher number of journal articles than monographic dissertations ( p value < 0.00001). Furthermore, the total citation count of papers based on cumulative dissertations is also significantly higher than for monographic dissertations ( p value = 0.06).

On average, cumulative dissertations turn into three times as many publications as monographic dissertations (Table  2 \({\text{Model }}2:{ }\beta_{CD} = 1.13;e^{{\beta_{CD} }} = 3.1\) ), even if we account for a large set of controls algorithmically selected by double lasso. Moreover, the average total citation count of the papers from the cumulative dissertations is more than three times as high as for monographic dissertations (Table  2 \({\text{Model }}4:{ }\beta_{CD} = 1.11;e^{{\beta_{CD} }} = 3.03\) ). In addition, we observed a notable increase in the share of cumulative dissertations in economics during the second period, followed by a higher number of publications, as shown in Fig.  1 .

Our analysis indicates that dissertations from universities with established graduate academies are initially associated with a higher number of publications in peer-reviewed journals. This association becomes insignificant with the inclusion of algorithmically selected control variables and we do not observe any significant difference in citation counts with or without control variables. We also investigated whether the presence of graduate schools in the respective discipline or recognition as an excellence university was related to the publication-based outcomes. However, we did not find statistically significant difference at any conventional level of significance in the number of publications or citation counts between dissertations from universities with or without graduate schools and universities with or without excellence status.

Out of all journal publications for which the year of publication is known, 62.2% were published in the years after the dissertation defense, and 37.8% were published in or before the year of the defense. We re-ran Model 2 from Table  1 separately for publications from the years before and after the defense (Table S2 in the Online Appendix). The significantly positive relationship between cumulative dissertations and the number of publications holds for publications both before and after the defense.

One might expect that, while cumulative dissertations are turned into more journal publications that receive more citations, monographic dissertations receive more citations themselves. We scrutinize this conjecture using the same empirical strategy as before on the following two outcome variables: (a) dissertation citations in Google Books and Scopus constructed following (Donner, 2021 ) and (b) Google Scholar citations.

We find a significantly negative relationship between cumulative dissertations and the number of dissertation citations. On average, a cumulative dissertation receives 36% fewer citations in Google Books and Scopus (Table  3 \({\text{Model }}2:{ }\beta_{CD} = - 0.45;e^{{\beta_{CD} }} = 0.64\) ). In other words, monographic dissertations receive only 1.5 times more citations in Google Books and Scopus than cumulative ones. We also find a significantly negative relationship between cumulative dissertations and Google Scholar citations. The average number of Google Scholar citations is 63% lower for cumulative dissertations than for monographic dissertations (Table  3 \({\text{Model }}4:{ }\beta_{CD} = - 0.99;e^{{\beta_{CD} }} = 0.37\) ), which implies less than a threefold increase in Google Scholar citations for monographic dissertations compared to cumulative ones. Finally, we do not see a stable association between dissertations from excellence universities and the number of dissertation citations.

We assess our results using Poisson and linear regressions as robustness checks. All results hold with these alternative specifications, both for primary outcomes (Tables S4 and S5 in the Online Appendix) and dissertation citations (Tables S6 and S7 in the Online Appendix).

In addition to estimating the regressions with covariates selected by the post-double Lasso selection procedure, we also estimate regressions with all institutional (Kifor et al., 2023 ; Rojko et al., 2020 ) and/or individual author-dissertation factors (Larivière, 2012 ; Mayir et al., 2017 ; Maynard et al., 2014 ; Paglis et al., 2006 ) as robustness checks (Tables S8 , S9 , S10 and S11 in the Online Appendix, columns 1–3). The results remain robust to the inclusion of these control variables. They are also robust to the inclusion of covariates selected at the second stage of the post-double Lasso algorithm for each pre-specified explanatory variable, except for the association between graduate academy and the number of papers (Tables S8 , S9 , S10 and S11 in the Online Appendix, columns 4–7). Thus, we consider the association between the number of papers and the presence of a graduate academy non-robust.

In summary, our findings suggest that cumulative dissertations are turned into more publications in peer-reviewed journals and receive more citations to these peer-reviewed publications. In contrast, monographic dissertations receive more citations as separate works.

Explorative results

We also exploratively examine the variables selected as control variables by the double-lasso procedure. Of the dissertations in our sample, 33.4% were written in English, with the rest being written in German (except for four dissertations in French, two in Italian, and two in Spanish). With 45.1%, the share of dissertations in English is highest in economics, while in sociology and political science, the shares were 18% and 16.6%, respectively.

Our findings indicate that dissertations written in English have significantly higher publication-based outcomes. On average, English dissertations turn into almost twice as many published papers as other dissertations (Table  2 \({\text{Model }}2:{ }\beta_{English} = 0.94;e^{{\beta_{English} }} = 2.56\) ). In addition, the average citation count for papers based on English dissertations is more than three times as high as that for dissertations in German and other languages (Table  2 \({\text{Model }}4:{ }\beta_{English} = 1.07;e^{{\beta_{English} }} = 2.92\) ). These results are consistent with other research comparing publication and citation levels of dissertations written in English versus the local language (Nieminen et al., 2007 ; Donner, 2021 ).

Empirical dissertations comprise 34.6% of our sample, with economics having the highest share at 48%, followed by sociology at 21.2%, and political science at 6.4%. We defined a dissertation as empirical if it contained hypothesis-testing statistical procedures, including moments of statistical distribution (mean, median, variance, etc.), regression coefficients, standard errors, p values, t values, or z values. Empirical dissertations had 50% more publications than other dissertations (Table  2 \({\text{Model }}2:{ }\beta_{Empirical} = 0.45;e^{{\beta_{Empirical} }} = 1.57\) ) and more than three times as many citations to these papers (Table  2 \({\text{Model }}4:{ }\beta_{Empirical} = 1.21;e^{{\beta_{Empirical} }} = 3.35\) ). Furthermore, our analysis shows an upward trend in the share of dissertations written in English and in the share of empirical dissertations (see Fig.  2 ).

Share of dissertations in English and share of empirical dissertations per field over time

The algorithm also selected control variables denoting online dissertations, the number of pages, and the field of the dissertation as control variables, but these variables are not consistently associated with significantly different publication-based outcomes in our analysis. Finally, we inspected control variables that were not selected by the algorithm but that we included in additional robustness estimations (with the full set of institutional variables collected, the full set of individual author-dissertation variables collected, and the union of them). We do not observe any associations between these additional control variables and publication-based outcomes that are robust across model specifications. Notably, we do not observe gender differences in publication-based outcomes of dissertations across model specifications.

In this study, we investigated how publication-based outcomes of social science dissertations in Germany are associated with dissertation characteristics and institutional factors. Consistent with our hypothesis specified in a pre-analysis plan, we observe that cumulative dissertations lead to a higher number of publications in peer-reviewed journals as well as a higher number of citations from these publications. We also find that the share of cumulative dissertations increased over time in economics. Our analysis does not suggest that the citation advantage enjoyed by publications based on cumulative dissertations is offset by a lower number of citations to the dissertations themselves. While we found that monographic dissertations receive more citations than cumulative ones, their implied advantage in direct citations is smaller than their disadvantage in publication-based citations. We thus conclude from our analysis that results of social science dissertation research documented in cumulative dissertations tend to be disseminated more extensively than results documented in monographic dissertations.

As dissertations are not randomly allocated into cumulative and monographic formats, the patterns we observe in our data cannot be interpreted as causal effects. Indeed, our analysis suggests that publication and citation outcomes for dissertations are affected by dissertation characteristics and institutional factors and that controlling for these variables helps explain some of the differences in outcomes. Regarding institutional factors, we do not see any robust significant difference in publication-based outcomes of dissertations from universities with or without graduate academies, graduate schools in the respective discipline and recognition as “excellence universities”.

Going beyond the hypothesized associations that were specified in our pre-analysis plan, we explored how differences in control variables selected by the double-lasso procedure (Belloni et al., 2014 ) are related to publication and citation outcomes. These exploratory analyses indicate, first, that dissertations written in English are associated with significantly more publications in peer-reviewed journals and higher citation counts compared to those written in German or other languages. Second, empirical dissertations in our sample also had higher publication-based outcomes compared to other types of dissertations. Overall, shares of dissertations in English and empirical dissertations seem to be increasing over time. In a nutshell, it appears that dissertations written in English or empirical dissertations increase in number and tend to particularly contribute to the dissemination of knowledge produced by doctoral students in German universities.

Various factors, however, like author characteristics and institutional conditions can affect the choice of dissertation language and topic. Moreover, we did not hypothesize in the pre-analysis plan if dissertations written in English or empirical dissertations are associated with higher publication-based outcomes, barely allowing us to post-hoc speculate about the cause of the higher publication-based outcomes of the dissertations with these characteristics. Thus, we interpret these findings as indicative and encourage further empirical work to probe into their robustness in other settings.

It is hard to distinguish the causal effect of the dissertation features and institutional factors on the publication-based outcomes as this study is based on observational data. More research can be done in the future to identify causal effects and extrapolate the results for other countries. Additionally, automatic, or alternative formal matching algorithms between publications and dissertations could be used to cover more research fields, languages or countries (e.g. Donner, 2022 ; Echeverria et al., 2015 ; Heinisch & Buenstorf, 2018 ). However, based on the results of the study, we can conclude that a policy that allows doctoral students to write cumulative dissertations permits them to strengthen their research output counted as papers published or cited.

Arriola-Quiroz, I., Curioso, W. H., Cruz-Encarnacion, M., & Gayoso, O. (2010). Characteristics and publication patterns of theses from a Peruvian medical school. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 27 (2), 148–154.

Article   Google Scholar  

Azoulay, P., Fons-Rosen, C., & Zivin, J. S. G. (2019). Does science advance one funeral at a time? American Economic Review, 109 (8), 2889–2920. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161574

Bangani, S. (2018). The impact of electronic theses and dissertations: A study of the institutional repository of a university in South Africa. Scientometrics, 115 (1), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2657-2

Belloni, A., Chernozhukov, V., & Hansen, C. (2014). Inference on treatment effects after selection among high-dimensional controls. Review of Economic Studies, 81 (2), 608–650.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bildung und Kultur/Statistik der Promovierenden. Wiesbaden. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2021). https://www.statistischebibliothek.de/mir/receive/DESerie_mods_00007247

Buenstorf, G., & Koenig, J. (2020). Interrelated funding streams in a multi-funder university system: Evidence from the German Exzellenzinitiative. Research Policy, 49 (3), 103924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103924

Bundesbericht Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs. (2017). Statistische Daten und Forschungsbefunde zu Promovierenden und Promovierten in Deutschland . WBV.

Google Scholar  

DFG. (2010). 20 years of research training groups–Matrix for new doctoral cultures: Innovative, interactive, international. https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/geschaeftsstelle/publikationen/20_jahre_graduiertenkolleg_en.pdf

Donner, P. (2021). Citation analysis of Ph.D. theses with data from Scopus and Google Books. Scientometrics, 126 (12), 9431–9456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04173-w

Donner, P. (2022). Algorithmic identification of PhD thesis-related publications: A proof-of-concept study. Scientometrics, 127 (10), 5863–5877.

Dukes, O., & Vansteelandt, S. (2020). How to obtain valid tests and confidence intervals after propensity score variable selection? Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 29 (3), 677–694.

Echeverria, M., Stuart, D., & Blanke, T. (2015). Medical theses and derivative articles: Dissemination of contents and publication patterns. Scientometrics, 102 , 559–586.

Evans, S. C., Amaro, C. M., Herbert, R., Blossom, J. B., & Roberts, M. C. (2018). “Are you gonna publish that?” Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology. PLoS ONE, 13 (2), e0192219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219

Ferreras-Fernández, T., Merlo-Vega, J. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2013, November). Impact of scientific content in open access institutional repositories: a case study of the repository Gredos. In Proceedings of the first international conference on technological ecosystem for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 357–363).

Fischer, M., & Kampkötter, P. (2017). Effects of German universities’ Excellence Initiative on ability sorting of students and perceptions of educational quality. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft . https://doi.org/10.1628/093245617X14816371560173

Francis, K., Mills, J., Chapman, Y., & Birks, M. (2009). Doctoral dissertations by publication: Building scholarly capacity whilst advancing new knowledge in the discipline of nursing. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4 , 97–106.

Günauer, F., Krüger, A. K., Moes, J., & Steidten, T. (2013). Promovieren mit Perspektive-Ein Handbuch von DoktorandInnen für DoktorandInnen. Zum Anliegen des Handbuchs (pp. 17–55).

Heinisch, D. P., & Buenstorf, G. (2018). The next generation (plus one): An analysis of doctoral students’ academic fecundity based on a novel approach to advisor identification. Scientometrics, 117 , 351–380.

Ioannidis, J. P., Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2017). The power of bias in economics research. The Economic Journal, 605 (127), F236–F265. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12461

Karagöz, B., & Seref, İ. (2021). A holistic approach to PhD theses in Turkish Language education (1995–2020). Selcuk Universitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi Dergisi-Selcuk University Journal of Faculty of Letters , 46.

Kifor, C. V., Benedek, A. M., Sîrbu, I., & Săvescu, R. F. (2023). Institutional drivers of research productivity: A canonical multivariate analysis of Romanian public universities. Scientometrics, 128 (4), 2233–2258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04655-z

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2020). Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Mendeley for impact assessment of doctoral dissertations: A multidisciplinary analysis of the UK. Quantitative Science Studies, 1 (2), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23170

Kreif, N., & DiazOrdaz, K. (2019). Machine learning in policy evaluation: New tools for causal inference . Oxford University Press.

Larivière, V. (2012). On the shoulders of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics, 90 (2), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0495-6

Larivière, V., Zuccala, A., & Archambault, É. (2008). The declining scientific impact of theses: Implications for electronic thesis and dissertation repositories and graduate studies. Scientometrics, 74 , 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0106-3

Mayir, B., Bilecik, T., Çakır, T., Doğan, U., Gündüz, U. R., Aslaner, A., & Oruç, M. T. (2017). Analysis of the publishing rate and the number of citations of general surgery dissertations. Turkish Journal of Surgery, 33 (1), 33.

Maynard, B. R., Vaughn, M. G., Sarteschi, C. M., & Berglund, A. H. (2014). Social work dissertation research: Contributing to scholarly discourse or the file drawer? British Journal of Social Work, 44 (4), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs172

McLeod, B. D., & Weisz, J. R. (2004). Using dissertations to examine potential bias in child and adolescent clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (2), 235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.72.2.235

Menter, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Klarl, T. (2018). In search of excellence: A case study of the first excellence initiative of Germany. Journal of Business Economics, 88 , 1105–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0909-5

Möller, T., Schmidt, M., & Hornbostel, S. (2016). Assessing the effects of the German Excellence Initiative with bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 109 (3), 2217–2239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2090-3

Nieminen, P., Sipilä, K., Takkinen, H.M., Renko, M. and Risteli, L., 2007. Medical theses as part of the scientific training in basic medical and dental education: experiences from Finland. BMC medical education, 7 , 1–7.

Osborn, C. J., Storlie, C. A., & Ricciutti, N. (2023). Enhancing professional identity through scholarship: Examining the publication of dissertations in counselor education and supervision in peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy . https://doi.org/10.1080/2326716X.2023.2191254

Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47 , 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-9003-2

Rodríguez-Montoya, C., Zerpa-García, C., & Cherubin, M. (2023). Aspiring PhDs: The (un) surprising relation between doctoral students and research productivity. SN Social Sciences, 3 (2), 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00616-8

Rojko, K., Bratić, B., & Lužar, B. (2020). The Bologna reform’s impacts on the scientific publication performance of Ph. D. graduates—the case of Slovenia. Scientometrics, 124 , 329–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03482-w

Salmi, L., Gana, S., & Mouillet, E. (2001). Publication pattern of medical theses, France, 1993–98. Medical Education, 35 (1), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00768.x

Siegfried, J. J., & Stock, W. A. (2001). So you want to earn a Ph.D. in economics?: How long do you think it will take? Journal of Human Resources . https://doi.org/10.2307/3069663

Smaldone, A., Heitkemper, E., Jackman, K., Joanne Woo, K., & Kelson, J. (2019). Dissemination of PhD dissertation research by dissertation format: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 51 (5), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12504

Thomas, R. A., West, R. E., & Rich, P. (2016). Benefits, challenges, and perceptions of the multiple article dissertation format in instructional technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology . https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2573

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank for excellent research assistance Denise Bornewasser, Maria Paz Catalan Palma, Besmir Daci, Lea Hartwig, Alana Hindiyeh, Irila Kola, Christina Lerke, James Macumber, Dariia Melnyk, Veronica Vela, Jana Zaremba. Special thanks to Johannes Koenig for finding efficient ways to work with Scopus data and to Maria Mavlikeeva.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. All authors gratefully acknowledge funding by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant number 16PH20011 (PI: GB) and via the German Competence Network for Bibliometrics under Grant number 16WIK2101A. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

INCHER, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Anastasiya-Mariya Asanov, Igor Asanov, Guido Buenstorf, Valon Kadriu & Pia Schoch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: GB. Funding acquisition: GB. Investigation: A-MA, VK. Methodology: A-MA, IA, GB, VK, PS. Formal Analysis: Anastasiya-Mariya Asanov. Visualization: Anastasiya-Mariya Asanov. Supervision: IA, GB. Writing—Original Draft Preparation: A-MA. Writing—Review & Editing: A-MA, IA, GB, VK, PS.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasiya-Mariya Asanov .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 88 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Asanov, AM., Asanov, I., Buenstorf, G. et al. Patterns of dissertation dissemination: publication-based outcomes of doctoral theses in the social sciences. Scientometrics 129 , 2389–2405 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04952-1

Download citation

Received : 28 August 2023

Accepted : 18 January 2024

Published : 29 February 2024

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04952-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Ph.D. thesis
• Doctoral students
• Citation analysis
• Research performance
• Knowledge dissemination
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

AI-assisted writing is quietly booming in academic journals. Here’s why that’s OK

Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Julian Koplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

If you search Google Scholar for the phrase “ as an AI language model ”, you’ll find plenty of AI research literature and also some rather suspicious results. For example, one paper on agricultural technology says:

As an AI language model, I don’t have direct access to current research articles or studies. However, I can provide you with an overview of some recent trends and advancements …

Obvious gaffes like this aren’t the only signs that researchers are increasingly turning to generative AI tools when writing up their research. A recent study examined the frequency of certain words in academic writing (such as “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”), and found they became far more common after the launch of ChatGPT – so much so that 1% of all journal articles published in 2023 may have contained AI-generated text.

(Why do AI models overuse these words? There is speculation it’s because they are more common in English as spoken in Nigeria, where key elements of model training often occur.)

The aforementioned study also looks at preliminary data from 2024, which indicates that AI writing assistance is only becoming more common. Is this a crisis for modern scholarship, or a boon for academic productivity?

Who should take credit for AI writing?

Many people are worried by the use of AI in academic papers. Indeed, the practice has been described as “ contaminating ” scholarly literature.

Some argue that using AI output amounts to plagiarism. If your ideas are copy-pasted from ChatGPT, it is questionable whether you really deserve credit for them.

But there are important differences between “plagiarising” text authored by humans and text authored by AI. Those who plagiarise humans’ work receive credit for ideas that ought to have gone to the original author.

By contrast, it is debatable whether AI systems like ChatGPT can have ideas, let alone deserve credit for them. An AI tool is more like your phone’s autocomplete function than a human researcher.

The question of bias

Another worry is that AI outputs might be biased in ways that could seep into the scholarly record. Infamously, older language models tended to portray people who are female, black and/or gay in distinctly unflattering ways, compared with people who are male, white and/or straight.

This kind of bias is less pronounced in the current version of ChatGPT.

However, other studies have found a different kind of bias in ChatGPT and other large language models : a tendency to reflect a left-liberal political ideology.

Any such bias could subtly distort scholarly writing produced using these tools.

The hallucination problem

The most serious worry relates to a well-known limitation of generative AI systems: that they often make serious mistakes.

For example, when I asked ChatGPT-4 to generate an ASCII image of a mushroom, it provided me with the following output.

It then confidently told me I could use this image of a “mushroom” for my own purposes.

These kinds of overconfident mistakes have been referred to as “ AI hallucinations ” and “ AI bullshit ”. While it is easy to spot that the above ASCII image looks nothing like a mushroom (and quite a bit like a snail), it may be much harder to identify any mistakes ChatGPT makes when surveying scientific literature or describing the state of a philosophical debate.

Unlike (most) humans, AI systems are fundamentally unconcerned with the truth of what they say. If used carelessly, their hallucinations could corrupt the scholarly record.

Should AI-produced text be banned?

One response to the rise of text generators has been to ban them outright. For example, Science – one of the world’s most influential academic journals – disallows any use of AI-generated text .

I see two problems with this approach.

The first problem is a practical one: current tools for detecting AI-generated text are highly unreliable. This includes the detector created by ChatGPT’s own developers, which was taken offline after it was found to have only a 26% accuracy rate (and a 9% false positive rate ). Humans also make mistakes when assessing whether something was written by AI.

It is also possible to circumvent AI text detectors. Online communities are actively exploring how to prompt ChatGPT in ways that allow the user to evade detection. Human users can also superficially rewrite AI outputs, effectively scrubbing away the traces of AI (like its overuse of the words “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”).

The second problem is that banning generative AI outright prevents us from realising these technologies’ benefits. Used well, generative AI can boost academic productivity by streamlining the writing process. In this way, it could help further human knowledge. Ideally, we should try to reap these benefits while avoiding the problems.

The problem is poor quality control, not AI

The most serious problem with AI is the risk of introducing unnoticed errors, leading to sloppy scholarship. Instead of banning AI, we should try to ensure that mistaken, implausible or biased claims cannot make it onto the academic record.

After all, humans can also produce writing with serious errors, and mechanisms such as peer review often fail to prevent its publication.

We need to get better at ensuring academic papers are free from serious mistakes, regardless of whether these mistakes are caused by careless use of AI or sloppy human scholarship. Not only is this more achievable than policing AI usage, it will improve the standards of academic research as a whole.

This would be (as ChatGPT might say) a commendable and meticulously intricate solution.

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Academic journals
• Academic publishing
• Hallucinations
• Scholarly publishing
• Academic writing
• Large language models
• Generative AI

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Senior Lecturer in Periodontics

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

May 15, 2024

Tips and Resources for a Successful Summer of Dissertation Writing

By Yana Zlochistaya

Summer can be a strange time for graduate students. Gone are the seminars and workshops, the student clubs, and the working group, that structured the semester and provided us with a sense of community. Instead, we’re faced with a three-month expanse of time that can feel equal parts liberating and intimidating. This double-edged freedom is only exacerbated for those of us in the writing stage of our dissertation, when isolation and a lack of discipline can have a particularly big impact. For those hoping not to enter another summer with lofty plans, only to blink and find ourselves in August disappointed with our progress, we’ve compiled some tips and resources that can help.

According to Graduate Writing Center Director Sabrina Soracco, the most important thing you can do to set yourself up for writing success is to clarify your goals. She recommends starting this process by looking at departmental requirements for a completed dissertation. Consider when you would like to file and work backwards from that point, determining what you have to get done in order to hit that target. Next, check in with your dissertation committee members to set up an accountability structure. Would they prefer an end-of-summer update to the whole committee? A monthly check-in with your chair or one of your readers? Setting up explicit expectations that work for you and your committee can cut through the aimlessness that comes with a major writing project.

For those early on in their dissertation-writing process, a committee meeting is also a valuable opportunity to set parameters. “One of the problems with the excitement for the discipline that happens post-quals is that it results in too many ideas,” says Director Soracco. Your committee members should give you input on productive research directions so that you can begin to hone in on your project. It is also important to remember that your dissertation does not have to be the end-all-and-be-all of your academic research. Ideas that do not fit into its scope can end up becoming conference papers or even book chapters.

Once you have a clear goal that you have discussed with your committee, the hard part begins: you have to actually write. The Graduate Writing Center offers several resources to make that process easier:

• The Graduate Writing Community. This is a totally remote, two-month program that is based on a model of “gentle accountability.” When you sign up, you are added to a bCourses site moderated by a Graduate Writing Consultant. At the beginning of the week, everyone sets their goals in a discussion post, and by the end of the week, everyone checks in with progress updates. During the week, the writing consultants offer nine hours of remote synchronous writing sessions. As a writing community member, you can attend whichever sessions work best for your schedule. All that’s required is that you show up, set a goal for that hour, and work towards that goal for the length of two 25-minute Pomodoro sessions . This year’s summer writing community will begin in June. Keep your eye on your email for the registration link!
• Writing Consultations : As a graduate student, you can sign up for an individual meeting with a Graduate Writing Consultant. They can give you feedback on your work, help you figure out the structure of a chapter, or just talk through how to get started on a writing project. 
• Independent Writing Groups: If you would prefer to write with specific friends or colleagues, you can contact Graduate Writing Center Director Sabrina Soracco at [email protected] so that she can help you set up your own writing group. The structure and length of these groups can differ; often, members will send each other one to five pages of writing weekly and meet the next day for two hours to provide feedback and get advice. Sometimes, groups will meet up not only to share writing, but to work in a common space before coming together to debrief. Regardless of what the groups look like, the important thing is to create a guilt-free space. Some weeks, you might submit an outline; other weeks, it might be the roughest of rough drafts; sometimes, you might come to a session without having submitted anything. As long as we continue to make progress (and show up even when we don’t), we’re doing what we need to. As Director Soracco puts it, “it often takes slogging through a lot of stuff to get to that great epiphany.”

Yana Zlochistaya is a fifth-year graduate student in the Department of Comparative Literature and a Professional Development Liaison with the Graduate Division. She previously served as a co-director for Beyond Academia.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Business and industry
• Business regulation
• Intellectual property

Patent Journal special notices: 7044

Publication date 22 May 2024.

Patent Journal special notices: 7044, 22 May 2024

RTF , 117 KB

These are notices which appear for a limited number of weeks.

They include Intellectual Property policy announcements and recent additions to the British Library.

Related content

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Braunwald's Corner
• ESC Guidelines
• EHJ Dialogues
• Issue @ a Glance Podcasts
• CardioPulse
• Weekly Journal Scan
• European Heart Journal Supplements
• Year in Cardiovascular Medicine
• Asia in EHJ
• Most Cited Articles
• ESC Content Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Why publish with EHJ?
• Open Access Options
• Submit from medRxiv or bioRxiv
• Author Resources
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Read & Publish
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Advertising
• Reprints and ePrints
• Sponsored Supplements
• Journals Career Network
• About European Heart Journal
• Editorial Board
• About the European Society of Cardiology
• ESC Publications
• War in Ukraine
• ESC Membership
• ESC Journals App
• Developing Countries Initiative
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Risk of heart failure in inflammatory bowel disease: a swedish population-based study.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jiangwei Sun, Jialu Yao, Ola Olén, Jonas Halfvarson, David Bergman, Fahim Ebrahimi, Annika Rosengren, Johan Sundström, Jonas F Ludvigsson, Risk of heart failure in inflammatory bowel disease: a Swedish population-based study, European Heart Journal , 2024;, ehae338, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae338

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Dysregulation of inflammatory and immune responses has been implicated in the pathogenesis of heart failure (HF). But even if inflammation is a prerequisite for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), little is known about HF risk in IBD.

In this Swedish nationwide cohort, patients with biopsy-confirmed IBD were identified between 1969 and 2017 [n = 81,749, Crohn’s disease (CD, n = 24,303), ulcerative colitis (UC, n = 45,709), and IBD-unclassified (IBD-U, n = 11,737)]. Each patient was matched with up to five general population reference individuals (n = 382,190) and IBD-free full siblings (n = 95,239) and followed until 31 December 2019. Flexible parametric survival models estimated the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and standardized cumulative incidence for HF, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

There were 5,582 incident HF identified in IBD patients (incidence rate [IR]: 50.3/10,000 person-years) and 20,343 in reference individuals (IR: 37.9) during a median follow-up of 12.4 years. IBD patients had a higher risk of HF than reference individuals (aHR 1.19, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.23). This increased risk remained significant ≥20 years after IBD diagnosis, leading to one extra HF case per 130 IBD patients until then. The increased risk was also observed across IBD subtypes: CD (IR: 46.9 vs. 34.4; aHR 1.28 [1.20 to 1.36]), UC (IR: 50.1 vs. 39.7; aHR 1.14 [1.09 to 1.19]), and IBD-U (IR: 60.9 vs. 39.0; aHR 1.28 [1.16 to 1.42]). Sibling-controlled analyses showed slightly attenuated association (IBD: aHR 1.10 [1.03 to 1.19]).

Patients with IBD had a moderately higher risk of developing HF for ≥20 years after IBD diagnosis than the general population.

• heart failure
• inflammatory bowel disease

Supplementary data

Email alerts, companion article.

• Human Immunology of Heart Failure: Deconstructing Inflammatory Risk

Related articles in PubMed

Citing articles via, looking for your next opportunity, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 1522-9645
• Print ISSN 0195-668X
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.