Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?

Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean, Sorana D. Bolboacă, Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu and Tudor Cătălin Drugan
Additional contact information
Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean: Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania
Sorana D. Bolboacă: Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania
Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu: Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania
Tudor Cătălin Drugan: Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca 400012, Romania

Publications, 2016, vol. 4, issue 2, 1-16

Abstract: Purpose : To assess the assumption that differences exist between the traditional and publication-based PhD routes in terms of the thesis’ length and the scientific publications originating from it. Method : A retrospective comparative study on medical PhD theses offered by an online repository was performed. All free full-text medical PhD theses defended at United Kingdom institutions between 2003 and 2015 were analyzed and assigned to the traditional (TT) or publication based thesis (PBT) group. Several characteristics of theses and thesis-related articles were collected and analyzed. The thesis-related articles were investigated regarding quantity and visibility (citations, impact factor, and journal rank). Results : The theses length proved similar in PBT and TT group. PBT group included significantly more studies than TT group (mean 4.44 vs. 2.67) also reflected in significantly more thesis-related articles. The percentage of articles listed in Web of Science and published in a journal with impact factor proved significantly lower in TT compared with PBT group. On the contrary, article citations were significantly higher for TT. Both groups published similarly in high-ranked journals (Q1 or Q2). Conclusion : The research productivity originating from the PBT group was, as expected, significantly larger but not significantly more visible than those from TT group.

Keywords: knowledge production; doctoral productivity; publication-based PhD; traditional PhD; thesis; medicine (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A2 D83 L82 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/14/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/14/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:4:y:2016:i:2:p:14-:d:71683

Access Statistics for this article

Publications is currently edited by Ms. Jennifer Zhang

More articles in Publications from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().