METHODS: An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs.
RESULTS: The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access.
CONCLUSION: Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.
METHODS: To this end, we evaluated the quantitative characteristics of top cited articles in the fields with a total citation (≥50) in the Web of Science (WoS) database. Using one-way independent ANOVA, data extracted spanning a period of 1980-2015 were analyzed, while the non-parametric data analysis uses Kruskal-Walis test.
RESULTS: Articles with 11 to 20 pages attract more citations followed by those within the range of zero to 10. Articles with upward 21 pages are the least cited. Surprisingly, articles with more than two authors are significantly (P<0.05) less cited and the citation decreases as the number of authors increased.
CONCLUSION: Collaborative studies enjoy wider utilization and more citation, yet discounted merit of additional pages and limited collaborative research in disability field is revealed in this study.