Reflecting on writing her own thesis by publication and her work in developing institutional thesis by publication policies Margaret K. Merga highlights how arbitrary article limits and rigid rules around publication can make this doctoral pathway less attractive to students.

Like this post? Get all LSE Impact blog posts straight to your inbox in one simple step and sign up to our mailing list.

It is increasingly a norm for students across a range of institutions and disciplines to publish during candidature, and to use these publications as part of their thesis, producing a Thesis by Publication. This benefits universities seeking to enhance their volume of high-quality scholarly publication. A study of 246 doctoral graduates found that students “developed over 1,200 research papers, and an average of five papers, which is a valuable contribution to university outputs”.

Completing a thesis in this way can offer a range of benefits for students’ career prospects, skill development, and ability to share their research findings. However, it also involves challenges for students. Success may be shaped by students’ skills and attributes as well as external factors, and institutional support for publication can widely vary.

Completing a thesis in this way can offer a range of benefits for students’ career prospects, skill development, and ability to share their research findings.

Since completing my own thesis by publication in 2014 I have collaborated with other researchers on  thesis by publication related research projects, supervised  and delivered training and seminars on  the subject across a range of institutions. I have also advised on policies exploring how theses by publication can encourage research excellence and ethics while being student supportive.

While there is a growing body of research on theses by publication, there is no universal model for best practice. In developing fit for purpose policies, universities may draw heavily from extant available policies and research. Institutions may seek to develop policies that support publication in doctoral candidates, while at the same time, ensuring the thesis reflects somewhat ambiguous notions of quality relating to PhD attainment. At university level, debates during policy development and revision processes may become complicated by a lack of shared vision around the purposes of the policy, and conflicting notions of what a thesis by publication is or should be, particularly in relation to how it can best serve societal, institutional, supervisory and student goals.

While there are many relevant considerations, two contentious areas recur specifically relating to publications (while theses by publication can include a wide range of scholarly outputs, I’ll often refer to these as articles, as they are the most common output included).

Should your thesis by publication policy specify required inclusion of a minimum number of accepted publications?

Some policies require that students include a minimum number of accepted publications in their thesis. However, including an arbitrary minimum number can result in serious issues. I’ll use the example of a four-publication minimum to illustrate my point.

A thesis is not just a pile of publications lumped together. It needs to detail a compelling and cohesive narrative of research. A single high-quality article situated in a thesis by publication with supporting and linking material may be better received by examiners than one with the required four articles presented in a disjointed manner, or where there is considerable duplication. The first thesis may make a more significant contribution to its research field; the single article may represent complete and in-depth reporting on findings relating to a key research question.

A thesis is not just a pile of publications lumped together. It needs to detail a compelling and cohesive narrative of research.

Having a requirement for four publications pressures students to publish early in candidature, perhaps before they have meaningfully progressed in their research project. Anyone who has completed a thesis by publication, or who has supervised one, understands that research design must consider the desired publication outputs. A thesis that forces four outputs as a minimum requires the student to have at least four related, but also stand-alone aspects to their research, artificially dictating the scope of the research.

The insistence on an arbitrary number of publications can also encourage unethical publication behaviours, such as self-plagiarism, salami-slicing and duplicative publications. Students who need to meet a minimum number of publications won’t be free to include work that is less likely to be accepted in peer-reviewed journals, such as experimental work where a null result is possible. While early planning at the outset of the research journey may attempt to ensure that there are four discrete but related areas worthy of individual publication, the results cannot be controlled, and the value of entirely predictable research must be questionable.

The insistence on an arbitrary number of publications can also encourage unethical publication behaviours

The supervisor and student have little control over the length of the peer review process, and it can be an unpredictable journey. While supervisors use experience to inform selection of journals with a speedy projected process, these journals may not necessarily be the best outlets for the research. Furthermore, while the supervisor can attempt to guide journal choice for balance of quality and speed, even usually reliable journals can have unexpected and dramatic peer-review lags. The smartest, most hardworking student may still fail to meet an arbitrary minimum of four accepted journal articles due to these lags, particularly as they typically need to complete their degree in a timely manner, which leads to the next question.

Should only published work be permitted for inclusion in a thesis by publication?

Some policies don’t allow for the inclusion of under review content, requiring that work be published or accepted to be incorporated in the final thesis.

This is unrealistic, particularly given the tight timeframes of a PhD, the novice status of the student, and the unpredictable and uncontrollable elements of peer review. It can inhibit students from being ambitious, and again, it may lead students to avoid including research questions in their projects that have the potential to yield null results. This limitation may lead to incomplete reporting of research findings, with only the most palatable and peer-reviewer friendly being incorporated within the thesis, and the rest concealed.

Furthermore, denying flexibility in publication status may significantly impede completion, which is certainly not in anyone’s best interests. For example, at the time of submission, my thesis included two articles under review, five formally accepted for publication, and three that had been published, and this was fine as the policy at my university was very flexible.

Furthermore, denying flexibility in publication status may significantly impede completion

To comply with a more a restrictive policy, I would have had to re-write the two under-review papers as chapters. Alternatively, I would have had to wait until acceptance of all of my articles to submit. Given that the last two articles were written near the end of my PhD, this would have dramatically slowed my completion time. The knowledge that unaccepted outputs could be incorporated in the thesis inspired me to write more than four articles without having to worry about how to deal with under review content.

Being risk averse, I would not have attempted a thesis by publication without a flexible policy to support me. Universities need policies that are responsive to the realities and challenges of both the PhD degree and the contemporary academic publication environment.

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: fizkes on Shutterstock.