are master thesis peer reviewed

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

• National University

Ask Us! National University Library

• NCU Office of the Registrar
• NU Library (formerly NCU)
• 2 Academic Success Center
• 44 Business Research
• 1 Database Help
• 39 Database Problems
• 64 Database Questions
• 7 Database Subscriptions
• 5 Dissertation Center Documents
• 67 Dissertation Research
• 13 Ebook Central Questions
• 30 Education Research
• 10 Evaluating Information
• 24 Interlibrary Loan
• 14 Legal Research
• 28 Library Access
• 1 Library Guides
• 2 Library Workshops
• 82 Locate items in the Library
• 42 Locate Items Outside the Library
• 1 Login Help
• 22 Marriage & Family Therapy Research
• 1 Off-Site Access
• 22 OpenAthens
• 16 Organizing Research and Citations
• 1 Psychology and Counseling Research
• 23 Psychology Research
• 1 Publications
• 44 Reference Management
• 33 RefWorks
• 2 Research Consultations
• 126 Research Techniques
• 7 Service Desk
• 3 Technical Assistance
• 19 Technical Issues
• 10 Tests & Measurements
• 10 Textbooks

NU LibChat Widget

Can't find what you need? Submit a ticket through email, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Are dissertations and theses considered scholarly or peer-reviewed resources?

Dissertations and theses may be considered scholarly sources since they are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, are directed at an academic audience, are extensively researched, follow research methodology, and are cited in other scholarly work.

However, dissertations are still considered student work and are  not  peer-reviewed. Always clarify with your instructor or chair as to whether you can include and cite dissertations and theses in your research.

Still need help?

Didn't get the answer you needed? Contact a librarian through email, phone, SMS, or chat for personalized assistance!

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

•   [email protected]
• Shapiro Library
• SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: Can I use a dissertation as a scholarly source for my research?

• 7 Academic Integrity & Plagiarism
• 64 Academic Support, Writing Help, & Presentation Help
• 29 Access/Remote Access
• 7 Accessibility
• 9 Building/Facilities
• 7 Career/Job Information
• 26 Catalog/Print Books
• 26 Circulation
• 129 Citing Sources
• 14 Copyright
• 311 Databases
• 24 Directions/Location
• 18 Faculty Resources/Needs
• 7 Hours/Contacts
• 2 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
• 25 Interlibrary Loan
• 43 IT/Computer/Printing Support
• 3 Library Instruction
• 39 Library Technology Help
• 6 Multimedia
• 17 Online Programs
• 19 Periodicals
• 25 Policies
• 8 RefWorks/Citation Managers
• 4 Research Guides (LibGuides)
• 216 Research Help
• 23 University Services

Last Updated: Oct 16, 2023 Views: 15877

When you use the Multi-Search, you may see dissertations and theses in your search results, even when you apply the “Peer Reviewed (Scholarly)” limiter to your search. This is because even though dissertations are not peer-reviewed (published in peer-reviewed journals), they are often considered scholarly because they were written for an academic audience. For more information on the difference between scholarly and peer-reviewed sources, see the FAQ: What’s the difference between a scholarly and peer reviewed journal?

Dissertations and theses have value as research material, and they are an important form of scholarly communication. Here are a few reasons why:

• They may reveal emerging trends and voices in a field of study.
• Because of their length, they frequently offer more substantial coverage of a topic than a traditional journal article can.
• They might be the only research or literature on an uncommon or niche topic.
• They often have up-to-date and thorough literature reviews.
• They almost always have extensive bibliographies of important sources in the field of study.
• In the sciences, they may have additional datasets, graphs, and field data that is sometimes excluded from future article publications by the author.

If your assignment requires you to use articles from peer-reviewed journals, then a dissertation is not a good fit as one of your sources. However, you can certainly comb through the References or Bibliography at the end of the dissertation to see if any of the sources they used might qualify for your research. You can then use the instructions in this FAQ to see if we have the full text for those articles in our library:  How do I find a specific article in the library?

If your assignment calls for scholarly sources, a dissertation may be a great contribution to your resources. Remember that all sources should be evaluated to determine not just if they are scholarly, but whether they are relevant and current enough to be used in your research. You should check with your professor if you have any questions or concerns about your ability to use dissertations as sources for your research assignment.

Content authored by: EF

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 23 No 1

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions. 

Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.

Tell Me More

Link to Question Form

More assistance.

Submit a Question

Related FAQs

• February 8, 2024
• Academic Advice , Education Advice

Dissertation vs Thesis: Understanding the Key Differences

UOTP Marketing

Embarking on an academic journey often involves deciphering the complexities of advanced research projects like dissertations and theses. While these terms might seem interchangeable, they possess distinctive changes in the world of higher education. A fundamental distinction between a thesis and a dissertation lies in their approach to research. A thesis typically involves synthesizing existing research and knowledge in your field, while a dissertation requires conducting original research, addressing research gaps, and making a substantive contribution to the academic domain. 

As you continue your higher education journey in academia, it’s critical to decipher the fundamental differences between dissertation and thesis that set them apart.

What Is a Thesis?

A thesis is a long-term academic research paper that presents an in-depth review of existing research on a specific subject. It requires extensive research, data collection, analysis, and critical interpretation of the findings. Although some undergraduate programs may mandate a thesis, it is more commonly expected in postgraduate studies, such as upon completing a master’s degree . 

What Is a Dissertation?

A dissertation is a longer and more comprehensive research project based on original research. It’s a substantial piece of academic writing required for the completion of a doctoral degree . The dissertation is the culmination of years of research, study, and expertise, contributing valuable insights in a particular field of study. 

Dissertation vs Thesis: Key Differences

Both theses and dissertations serve as culminating projects for program graduation, demanding a profound grasp of the research subject and analytical skills to substantiate findings. Despite these commonalities, significant differences set them apart. The key differences include: 

Academic and Research Requirements

The academic requirements for a doctoral dissertation are clearly defined hypotheses, a detailed methodology section, rigorous data analysis, and a critical discussion of the results in the context of existing literature.

In contrast, the requirements for a master’s thesis include a thorough literature review, methodology, data analysis, and a conclusion that summarizes the findings.

Research requirements are also more extensive for dissertations compared to theses, as they include conducting original experiments and studies.

Length and Complexity

The length of a dissertation or a thesis varies according to the topic and the method of analysis, or it can vary based on the departmental requirements. Usually, a master’s thesis is around 40-80 pages, sometimes up to 100 pages. A dissertation, however, is significantly longer, ranging from 100 to 300 pages and sometimes up to 400. 

Dissertations and theses also vary on the level of complexity. While the thesis requires a thorough literature review and analysis of existing research, it’s less complex than a dissertation. Moreover, the original research is limited, contrary to dissertations involving extensive original research (experiments and studies). 

Research Objectives

The research objectives are an essential component that can guide the research project and highlight the specific goals to achieve. Moreover, they outline the grounds for pursuing a particular topic.

However, they can vary depending on the academic level and the nature of the research. In a master’s thesis, the research objectives usually focus on addressing specific research questions related to the chosen topic, to deepen the understanding of existing theories within the field of study. Contrarily, in a doctoral dissertation, the research objectives are broader and are formulated to address complex research gaps, propose new theories, and contribute to the academic field. 

Timeframe and Milestones

The timeframe depends on internal factors like the student’s work pace and personal circumstances and external factors like the complexity of the subject, availability of resources, and academic level. While we can’t give a definitive answer, it usually takes a couple of semesters or 1-2 years to complete a master’s thesis. On the contrary, a doctoral dissertation is more time-consuming and can take 4-7 years to complete. 

Although there are many similarities between the milestones for completing a thesis and a dissertation, such as topic selection, literature review, and data collection, their differences lie in the higher complexity of doctoral dissertations, including original research, review by the advisory committee, and publication. 

Review and Approval Process

The review and approval process is vital to evaluate the quality of research, analysis, and presentation. Although the overall process is similar for both a master’s thesis and a doctoral dissertation, the scrutiny applied to dissertations is notably more rigorous. For a master’s thesis, a committee of professors or advisors within the university’s department evaluates the thesis for adherence to academic standards, clarity, and coherence. Following the review, approval is granted to the thesis if the evaluators are content with the student’s work. On the other hand, for a doctoral dissertation, the review process includes a committee of experts in the field, often external reviewers, to assess the dissertation’s quality, methodology, and contribution to the academic field. The approval process is more challenging as it may require defending the dissertation orally and answering questions from the committee members and to a broader audience than a master’s thesis presentation.

Potential for Publication

Lastly, one of the main differences between a dissertation and a thesis is the potential for publication. As the dissertation is more extensive and requires original research contributing to the academic field, theses are less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Although a master’s thesis is more narrowly focused, it can still be published as a single article. In contrast, a doctoral dissertation is generally equivalent to at least three articles. 

Interested in pursuing a degree?

Fill out the form and get all admission information you need regarding your chosen program.

This will only take a moment.

Message Received!

Thank you for reaching out to us. we will review your message and get right back to you within 24 hours. if there is an urgent matter and you need to speak to someone immediately you can call at the following phone number:.

By clicking the Send me more information button above, I represent that I am 18+ years of age, that I have read and agreed to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy , and agree to receive email marketing and phone calls from UOTP. I understand that my consent is not required to apply for online degree enrollment. To speak with a representative without providing consent, please call +1 (202) 274-2300

• We value your privacy.

The Scope of Dissertation vs Thesis

While both require extensive research and dedication, the thesis has a narrower scope on a specific topic within the field of study. It aims to illustrate the student’s mastery of the subject matter, ability to synthesize existing research, and ability to present coherent arguments. On the other hand, the dissertation has a broader scope , encompassing a comprehensive analysis of a complex research problem or exploring interconnected topics in the field. It aims to showcase the student’s expertise and ability to conduct original and independent research and contribute new knowledge in the field. 

As we draw the curtain in exploring the factors that differentiate a thesis and a dissertation, it becomes evident that both academic endeavors are crucial in unraveling discoveries. A master’s thesis showcases analytical finesse and a deep understanding of existing theories. And a doctoral dissertation displays new groundbreaking insights, original research, and innovative methodologies. Therefore, while they may have substantial differences, they remain a driving force in shaping the future of academia. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): What is the main difference between a dissertation and a thesis?

While many factors differentiate a dissertation and a thesis, the main difference is their academic level. A thesis is usually required at the end of a master’s degree program. In contrast, a dissertation is necessary to complete a doctoral degree.

How long does it take to complete a thesis or a dissertation?

The time it takes to complete a thesis or a dissertation depends on the complexity of the research, the availability of resources, and the student’s work pace. Usually, it takes a couple of semesters to complete a thesis at the end of a master’s program. In contrast, completing a doctoral dissertation can take four to seven years.

Is there a difference in the level of research expected in a dissertation vs a thesis?

Although a thesis requires a significant amount of research literature review and analysis of existing studies, a dissertation demands a higher level of original research through identifying research gaps, developing new hypotheses, conducting experiments, and collecting and analyzing data. 

Are there any specific publication or accessibility differences between dissertations and theses?

Yes, there are specific publication and accessibility differences between dissertations and theses. Doctoral dissertations are usually published and made public through university libraries or digital repositories. Whereas a master’s thesis is less frequently published in academic journals compared to doctoral dissertations. Theses are often made available within the university’s library or department.

Share it with your friends!

Explore more.

Accounting vs. Finance Degree: Which Major to Choose?

12 Important Bookkeeping Skills You Need for a Successful Career

Recent resources.

What Can You Do With a Hospitality Management Degree? Best Hospitality Careers

What Can You Do with an International Studies Degree [2024]

9 Benefits of Learning a Second Language

Associate’s vs. Bachelor’s: Which One To Choose?

INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE?

Chat with an Admissions Officer Now!

• Associates Degree
• Bachelors Degrees
• Masters Degrees
• Doctoral Degrees
• Faculty & Staff
• Accreditation
• Student Experience

QUICK LINKS

• Admission Requirements
• Military Students
• Financial Aid

Request More Information

Thesis and Dissertation Guide

• Starting your Dissertation/Thesis
• Dissertation/Thesis Resources
• Books That May Help
• Literature Reviews
• Annotated Bibliography
• We Don't Have It? / Interlibrary Loan
• Online Learning Study Tips
• Search Strategy
• Advanced Search Techniques
• Kemp Library Video Tutorials
• Find Articles / Journals / Databases
• What are...
• Database Video Tutorials
• Peer Reviewed
• How to confirm and cite peer review
• Primary/Secondary Sources
• Other Types of Sources (i.e. Newspapers)
• Legal Research Resources
• Evidence Based Practice/Appraisal Resources
• Google Scholar
• Website Evaluation
• Internet Searching
• Apps You Didn't Know You Needed
• Who is citing me?
• Questions After Hours
• ESU Thesis Submission
• ESU Dissertation Submission

Everything You Need To Know

• What is Peer Reviewed?
• Characteristics of Peer Review
• Finding Peer Review
• Making sure it's peer reviewed
• What is Popular?
• What are Trade Publications?

Very simply an article is peer reviewed if it has been read and scrutinized by scholars or other researchers in the field prior to publication. Think of it as quality control for research and publication.

The article and the journal where it is published also meet certain research and publishing standards for that particular discipline.

Other terms for  peer reviewed  are  refereed  or  juried .

Official Definitions:

The Oxford English Dictionary (2019) defines peer review as "To subject to, or evaluate by, peer review; to referee (a paper)" and peer reviewed as "That is, or has been, subject to peer review; (of a journal) that incorporates a system of peer review."

Bibliography

"peer review, v."  OED Online , Oxford University Press, September 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/237423. Accessed 29 October 2019.

"peer-reviewed, adj."  OED Online , Oxford University Press, September 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/263622. Accessed 29 October 2019.

Here are some general characteristics that usually apply to peer reviewed journals and their articles:

• Introduction & literature review
• Theory or background
• Methods (how I did my research)
• Conclusion and/or discussion
• Tone or language of the article will reflect the subject discipline for which it is written. It assumes some scholarly background on the part of the reader
• Most scholarly articles report on original research or experimentation
• May be accompanied by supporting charts and diagrams, but there may be few pictures
• Journal will have little or no advertisement

Is it peer reviewed? How do you know? We have a few ways to sort your results, or identify if your specific result is peer reviewed .

1. Sort your results: Most of our databases have a feature that allows you to limit or refine your search results to only those that are peer-reviewed. Look for that option on the search screen.  Pro tip: some database providers have a more lenient definition of peer reviewed , if you're not sure check with a librarian or your professor.

2. I'm not sure if this article or journal is peer reviewed :

You can look up the journal by title or ISSN number in Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory. Once you locate the journal, Ulrich's will tell you, by having an image of a referee shirt or not,  if a journal is peer reviewed or not.   Below, you can see that of the six results, the first and fifth result are not peer reviewed and the second, third, fourth, and sixth are peer reviewed.

• If you want to see if a particular journal is peer reviewed, go to  Ulrich's Periodical Directory  (you can get there from the Database A to Z list as well).  
• Do a search by Journal Title (here we used "Journal of Anthropology") to see if a journal is peer reviewed.  There will be an image of a referee jersey next to the title if it is peer reviewed. 
• In the below example, the search for "Journal of Anthropology"  UNLV  is not a peer reviewed journal, but  The Australian Journal of Anthropology  is (both electronic and print).

Popular magazines are those that are published with the general reader in mind. The articles generally assume no prior knowledge on the part of the reader and are written by journalists or editors. The goal may be to inform, entertain or persuade the reader.

Popular Magazines may have lots of pictures and they will have advertisements.

Some examples:

• Consumer Reports
• Mademoiselle
• Runners World
• Sports Illustrated

Trade publications are often written by and for professionals within a field or industry. The publication may cover emerging trends, current news and new products. The articles may be "how to" in nature or give practical advise for practitioners in a field. They are usually not academic in nature and are not peer reviewed . The publication will often contain advertisements and photos.   They can look academic, so be sure to review sources carefully.

What is Peer Review? Visual

The Process of Peer Review

Scholarly (and Peer Reviewed) VS Popular

• << Previous: Database Video Tutorials
• Next: How to confirm and cite peer review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 29, 2024 12:07 PM
• URL: https://esu.libguides.com/thesis

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Master’s Thesis: A Guide for Students 

A master’s thesis is an academic research output that is expected to showcase a student’s competence in a higher level of research as compared to an undergraduate one. The primary objective of a master’s thesis is to assess a student on the depth of their understanding, knowledge, and competence on the subject of their choice. It provides a scholarly and research foundation for students to build on if they are interested in pursuing higher academic degrees and professional work. 

Benefits of Writing a Master’s Thesis  

Undertaking a master’s thesis program enhances your career and academic prospects. In the academic sphere, those who have completed a master’s thesis program are in a more advantageous position when they seek admission to a PhD program. Research-focused disciplines, in particular, usually favour students who have completed their master’s thesis. Opting for a master’s thesis program also gives researchers the opportunity to pursue their interest area through study and research. Further, through the process of thesis writing, students also develop their skills in writing, putting forth an informed argument and developing research questions. A well-developed thesis can also be published as a research paper in peer-reviewed journals, thereby enhancing future academic and career prospects.  

Thesis Masters and Non-thesis Masters Program: Differences   

It is critical to note that all master’s programs do not have a thesis requirement. At the same time, some programs allow students to choose between a thesis and a non-thesis master’s program. In a thesis Master’s program, you are required to prepare a comprehensive scholarly paper under the advice of a faculty member that demonstrates the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking that you have developed during the program. Hence, it is a mandatory requirement for the completion of your degree. However, in a non-thesis master’s program, you are not expected to write a thesis. You are nevertheless required to take additional classes and, by the end of the program, complete a Capstone project, a comprehensive exam, or a summary project. 

Master’s thesis and PhD Dissertation: Differences  

A Master’s thesis is very different from a PhD dissertation, though often, the words thesis and dissertation are used interchangeably not only by students but also by the wider academic community and publishers.   

• A PhD dissertation is an original research by the doctoral candidate that contributes something new to the existing body of knowledge in the field, such as new theories and information. This should not have been published previously. In contrast, a master’s thesis is a scholarly paper that involves original testing of ideas and demonstrates the knowledge and skills the student has acquired and built during the master’s program.  
• A master’s thesis deals or engages more with existing research or secondary knowledge, though depending on the subject, there can be research of primary sources as well. Here, the student certainly has to bring in their critical and analytical skills. The sources of data will generally be research papers, scholarly books, journal articles, government reports, statistics, and so on. However, in a PhD dissertation, the focus is on generating new and novel data, resulting in an original piece of work that external subject experts will evaluate. Hence, apart from the sources of data mentioned for the Master’s thesis, the significant component of sources of data for PhD dissertation will be generated from interviews, focus groups, surveys, laboratory experiments and so on. 
• A master’s thesis is presented at the end of the master’s program, which is about one or two years. The thesis is a critical part of completing the degree. A PhD dissertation takes a considerable amount of time, ranging from 4 to 7 years. By this time, the candidate should have completed, apart from their dissertation, other requirements such as fulfilling a set of coursework, attending seminars/ conferences, presenting papers at seminars and publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. 
• The master’s thesis is completed and submitted at the end of the master’s program. The PhD dissertation is presented to earn the PhD degree. 
• Another major difference between the two is the length. While a master’s thesis may be between 50 and 100 pages, the Ph.D. dissertation is more detailed, in-depth, and comprehensive, with a length of up to 400 pages. 

While all Master’s programs do not have a thesis requirement, completing a thesis provides a scholarly and research foundation for students to pursue higher academic degrees and professional work. A master’s thesis program can be a valuable experience for students interested in pursuing higher academic degrees and professional work in research-focused disciplines.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.   

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed.  Try for free or  upgrade to Paperpal Prime   starting at US$19 a month  to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.   Experience the future of academic writing –  Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!    

Related Reads:

• How to Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You
• Research Outlines: How to Write An Introduction Section in Minutes with Paperpal Copilot
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively
• What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

Authorship in Academia: Ghost, Guest, and Gift Authorship

Quillbot review: features, pricing, and free alternatives, you may also like, how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , what is academic writing: tips for students, what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the....

• Library databases
• Library website

Evaluating Resources: Dissertations

Introduction.

Dissertations, doctoral studies, project studies, capstones, and theses are all student-produced works that present and discuss an individual's research.

Note: While dissertations are definitely scholarly and are reviewed and edited before publication, they do not go through a peer-review process, and thus, aren't considered peer-reviewed sources.

Identify dissertations

A distinguishing characteristic of dissertations is that they generally start with a cover page.

Dissertation reference citations are perhaps the easiest citations to recognize; they include the words doctoral dissertation right in the citation! They also contain:

• Database name: For dissertations that are downloaded from a database, the database name is included. This is generally the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.
• Publication number : In ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, this is the Dissertation/Thesis Number.

In APA 7th, dissertations retrieved from the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database generally follow this format:

Author. (Year). Title of dissertation (Publication No.) [Doctoral dissertation, University]. Database Name.

Here is an example:

Burley, M. A. (2009). Working for social change: Using student-centered instructional designs to improve achievement.  (Publication No. 3379796) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Note: Not all dissertation reference citations will follow this format exactly. If you have questions about citing a capstone using APA style, please contact the Writing Center .

The first page of a dissertation or doctoral study may contain:

• university name - for example, Walden University
• college name - for example, College of Nursing
• type of degree - dissertation or doctoral study
• committee member names
• year completed

More information

• Quick Answer: How do I find dissertations on a topic?
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden PhD dissertations?
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) studies?
• Quick Answer: How do I find completed Walden DNP (Doctor of Nursing Practice) projects?
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden EdD (Doctor of Education) studies?
• Quick Answer: How do I find dissertations or capstones by chair or committee member?
• Quick Answer: How do I find dissertations or capstones by author?
• Quick Answer: Where can I find Walden award-winning dissertations?
• Previous Page: Books
• Next Page: Encyclopedias
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• School Factsheet
• Faculty Honors
• Dean's Leadership Council
• Research Topics
• Academic Departments
• Initiatives and Units
• Facilities and Resources
• Undergraduate
• Student Success
• Contiguous BS/MS Program
• Concurrent Enrollment
• Co-Op Program
• Message from the Director
• Who are we?
• Faculty Expectations
• Get Involved
• Accountability
• Postdoctoral
• Instructional
• Professional Researcher
• Instructional Assistants
• Summer Session
• Alumni Spotlights
• Ways to Give
• Eureka! Scholars Program
• Units & Resources
• Directories

Current Masters Students

• Masters Thesis Standards

Successfully defending a thesis requires that the student has obtained sufficient data to make a significant contribution to a research paper that could be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Such contribution could consist of one or more of the following:

• The student produces at least one figure or a table that could be included in a peer-reviewed research paper.
• The student's work lays a significant foundation for further research (for example, the student conducted a genetic screen).
• The student develops a new technique or improves an existing method, producing a significant, applicable technical advance.

Thesis Assessment Criteria

The Master’s Thesis should contain the following components. Please be sure that the thesis addresses each of the bullet points within. The thesis may address more points than listed below. The following general criteria should be applied when assessing the overall quality of a Master’s thesis:

• Does the student briefly and clearly state the focus of the described research, experimental design and methods of data collection?
• Does the abstract provide a summary of the most important findings and conclusion?

Introduction

• Does the student provide the background information for understanding the problem, its significance, and how it fits in biology at large?
• Does the student support the background information, ideas, and hypotheses with citations of the appropriate scientific sources?
• Does the student identify the gap of knowledge and clearly state the questions being answered/hypotheses being tested?

Materials & Methods

• Are the experimental or analytical/modeling approaches appropriate to tackle the specific biological question?
• Are the methodologies described in sufficient detail for another researcher to be able to repeat the experiments?
• Are the experiments clearly described, and their results presented in the appropriate visual formats (graphs, tables)?
• Are the figures and tables of sufficiently high quality and well labeled? Are figure legends concise and informative? Are the figures and tables appropriately referred to and described in the text of the thesis?
• Were the appropriate control experiments carried out?
• Were the appropriate statistical analyses employed?
• Are the interpretations of the experiments supported by the data?
• Are the data collected adequate for the solution of the problem?
• Has the student obtained sufficient data to make a significant contribution to a research paper that could be published in a peer-reviewed journal?
• Does the discussion provide a thoughtful summary of the data and draw the appropriate conclusions?
• Does the student discuss whether the questions posed at the beginning of the study have been answered, and address the adequacy of the obtained data in answering these questions?
• Are there any discrepancies/unexpected results and, if such were encountered, addressed?
• Does the student discuss how her/his findings contribute to our understanding of the area of study?
• Does the student cite relevant literature sources?
• Does the student identify questions that remain unanswered and suggest possible follow-up directions?
• Does the student use a sufficient number of primary and secondary, peer-reviewed literature sources?
• Are all citations in a uniform, accepted reference format?

Updated Thesis and Graduation Requirements

The following includes updated requirements for Biology Master's students in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Changes to the original requirements are italicized.

The research requirements of the program can be accomplished either as bench- or field-based research, data analysis, a literature-based research, or co-writing a research proposal with the PI. Students must complete at least 24 units of research over a two years period that includes both the BS and the MS parts of the program (BISP193/196/199 and BGGN 271). This research needs to span six consecutive quarters, with at least three quarters at the graduate level. The student's faculty advisor will determine the need for modifications in the original research plan and the specific way in which a student will complete his or her research requirements (e.g., decrease in bench research and increase in data analysis or literature research).

The total number of units students must take in their graduate year is 36, including research (BGGN 271). The number of coursework units (not BGGN 271 course) should be no less than 12, but can be increased, as long as the total number of research units (BISP193/196/199 and BGGN 271) is no less than 24. The course of study must be approved by the faculty advisor.

Thesis preparation and defense

In addition to completing the required coursework, students will write and defend their thesis. In lieu of completing their experiments and obtaining sufficient data to make a significant contribution to a research paper, students can provide a more extensive literature review in the Introduction section of the thesis or a more extensive and detailed proposal of future experiments in the Discussion section of the thesis. The student's faculty advisor, in consultation with the student's thesis committee, will determine the appropriate way for the student to complete his or her thesis if the completion of experiments is not feasible.

Questions? Current UCSD students: Please submit your questions via the VAC . An advisor will respond in 1-3 business days. Drop-in Advising times are posted on the Advising Calendar .

• Requirements for the M.S. Degree
• Course Options
• Final Quarter Milestones
• Professional Development & Support Services

• Open access
• Published: 20 January 2024

From master’s thesis to research publication: a mixed-methods study of medical student publishing and experiences with the publishing process

• Maria Björklund   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8027-1297 1 ,
• Ramin Massoumi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8875-6440 2 &
• Bodil Ohlsson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9142-5244 3 , 4  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  75 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1136 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Medical student master’s theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master’s theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process.

A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 ( n  = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students ( n  = 121) and supervisors ( n  = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process.

We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019–2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students ( n  = 21) and supervisors ( n  = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus.

A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research.

Peer Review reports

In medical education, reading research papers, knowing research methods, and performing critical appraisals of research are important for following medical developments and understanding the rationale behind treatment strategies [ 1 , 2 ]. The approach to student involvement and its application in research-related learning activities seems to vary in form, content and level across medical degree programs. The development of research skills is encouraged for the benefits it brings to the medical profession; e.g., such research is encouraged by the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) [ 3 ]. The involvement of faculty as coauthors with students is one means of engaging students in authentic research projects and can be conceptualized as research-based learning. Given that this term has no uniform definition, it can include many activities at different levels, ranging from understanding research content and methods to applying these techniques in the production of research projects or publications [ 4 , 5 ]. Research skills or research activities are other commonly mentioned concepts. These concepts encompass the reviewing of research, methodological competencies, reflection, and communication skills along with content knowledge [ 4 , 6 ]. Research publishing in itself is aimed at reporting and communicating new research findings and the way that an original study was conducted [ 7 ]. In medical education, students are trained in reading, understanding, assessing and synthesizing original research papers. For students, writing and publishing a research paper adds an extra dimension to research engagement, implying an active role as an author in engaging in the process all the way to publication. In this scenario, the students not only act as readers or critics but also learn to conduct research projects. The roles and responsibilities of the authors are defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which states that authorship implies responsibility and accountability for published work. Authors make substantial contributions to the research, draft and approve the final version to be published, and agree to accountability for all aspects of the work [ 8 ]. Subsequently, student-active work is needed to fulfill the author criteria for students, which is addressed through collaboration with their supervisor and research team. Transforming a master’s thesis into a research paper can be an extracurricular activity in which students practice the writing workflow, prepare a manuscript to meet a journal’s format requirements, collect feedback from their coauthors for revision of the text, and finally submit the manuscript, all under supervision. This also includes revising the manuscript after comments from reviewers and editors have been collected, as well as preparing a response to reviewers [ 7 ].

The main objective of this study is the investigation of the number of 5th -year medical students in the Medical Degree (MD) program at Lund University that succeeded in publishing their master’s theses as research publications. In addition, we explore the experiences of both students and supervisors regarding the publication process and student learning experiences.

The Faculty of Medicine at Lund University has 2900 full-time students and more than 1000 PhD students [ 9 ]. The MD Program in Sweden recently changed from a 5.5 to a 6-year program, and at Lund University, new students are enrolled every semester. Together with medical and clinical knowledge and skills, a curriculum designed to facilitate progressive student learning of research methods and applications, including assessments, is integrated throughout the MD program [ 10 ].

Master’s thesis course, content and structure, learning objectives and assessment

The learning objectives of the master’s thesis course taken in the 5th year of the program are focused on students’ ability to evaluate research papers and understand ethical, juridical, and methodological aspects of the research. Students should be able to create a project plan, run a project under supervision, independently find relevant research and synthesize it into their project background. To help students fulfill these learning objectives, lectures and workshops on research methodology, information retrieval and academic writing are offered.

Prior to their 5th year, the students need to find a supervisor who is available for consultation throughout the course. Supervisors need to hold a PhD in any field applicable to the science and practice of medicine. The thesis is evaluated by an expert assessor with extensive experience in thesis assessment, who then provides feedback to the student’s written thesis and its oral presentation. The evaluation of the written thesis is similar to the research review process of a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

Data collection

Tracking of published student theses.

The records of 446 students who completed their master’s theses over the course of four semesters during the 2019–2020 timeframe were reviewed to determine whether their thesis projects had been published as a research paper. If so, the journal and its impact factor, together with the type of publication (original paper/systematic review or other), were documented. To track publications, the databases PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate) were used. The journal impact factor (of 2021) was retrieved from Journal Citation Reports (InCites). The databases were chosen because they were considered to cover the most relevant journals likely to publish these students’ work. The family names of students and supervisors were searched in combination since we considered it less likely that students would publish their work as single authors. Spelling variations were tested for names with special characters or double family names. Ambiguities, either where a student was likely to have made a change in project focus or title or unambiguously connecting authors with a publication or several possible publications was difficult, were followed up on by cross-checking theses records.

Surveys to students and supervisors

Surveys were sent to students in the fall 2022 cohort ( n  = 102) and to students in the 2019–2020 cohort, when publications were identified and students provided contact addresses ( n  = 19). The surveys were also sent to supervisors in the fall 2022 cohort ( n  = 77). The survey distributions for the student cohorts and supervisors are described in Table  1 .

The survey was designed to collect respondent experiences of the publishing process in regard to student learning, student use of previously acquired research skills, student knowledge of research methods and the level of independence exhibited in student work. The survey questions were answered anonymously and are available in Appendix 1 . For practical reasons, the surveys were not sent to the same cohorts as the publication tracking cohorts. Medical students in Sweden graduated after 5.5 years and were difficult to reach for follow-up questions. Nevertheless, we managed to trace certain students who had published their work and provided their personal email addresses for contact purposes. Supervisors are often engaged for many years, as some of them may have served as supervisors in the publication tracking cohort, thus making them easier to contact for follow-up questions.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis of the survey results was performed in SPSS (version 29, 2022). Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical data, and the Mann‒Whitney U test was used for ordinal data. A P value ≤ 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Ethical considerations and approval

Ethical approval.

by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority was waived since the surveys sent to respondents were answered anonymously and the answers could not be traced back to the responders. No sensitive personal data were available for identifying the responders. The responders were informed of the way that how the survey results would be processed and that by answering the survey they were will give informed consent to participate. [Swedish Ethical Review Authority on the Ethical Review act: https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se/en/what-the-act-says/ ]

Number and type of student publications

The results of our student publication tracking are summarized in Table  2 . In total, we tracked 446 student theses, 149 (33%) of which were published as a research paper. The students were the first authors of 50% of the publications, and the most common publication type was original research papers. We also found a few systematic reviews, one narrative review, conference abstracts, a poster and a preprint. The time span of the publication process and the range of impact factors of the journals are illustrated in Table  2 . Several students collaborated and published their work in conjunction with fellow students as part of a research group. We counted the individual student contributions to publication; if two students in the same cohort had a joint publication, we counted both students as publishers.

Most of the 149 published papers (85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus, for instance, diagnostics, screening, clinical management, therapy, follow-up and prognostics, complications, lifestyle, risk factors/risk management in health care, or mental health. Some of the study designs applied included randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, multicenter studies, and registry studies.

Survey results of student and supervisor experiences with publishing

Forty-four (57%) supervisors and 21 (17%) students responded to the survey, but not all respondents answered all questions. Of the total number of student respondents, 9 (43%) had published their theses as research publications, while 12 (57%) were in the process of publishing. All the responding supervisors reported that they had worked with students who had or were about to publish. In general, supervisors provided us with extended comments in their responses, which contributed to capturing more in-depth perspectives in regard to their experiences.

Learning from the publishing process

Sixteen (84%) of the 19 students responding on the question indicated that they applied their previous learning of research methodology to their publishing endeavors, whereas 3 (16%) reported that they did not utilize their previous learning in this regard. Two students expressed that their previous curricular activities in research methodology served as a suitable foundation for their thesis. 27 (64%) of the 42 supervisors responding on the question reported that students applied skills and knowledge from previous learning activities and that many took a scientific approach to the work. There were also individual variations in the levels of student preparedness. However, as 15 (36%) of the supervisors noted, the publishing process is new to students, and they often need considerable guidance. Moreover, publishing does not occur without any previous knowledge or experience with research methodology. Most of the students (79%) reported that the publishing process led to additional learning, in contrast to 21% who reported that they did not incur any extra learning. The time and effort required for publishing, including generating more advanced statistics, adapting the thesis to a journal paper format, and responding to peer review and communication skills, were mentioned as specific new learning experiences.

A majority of the supervisors (95%) reported that students who published also gained additional experience from the research methodology in the sense of deepening their knowledge of the medical topic. The difference between the peer-review process and the examination process for theses was reported as another aspect of learning. The supervisors acknowledged the positive learning effects for students who authored published research papers in various aspects of managing the project, preparing for submission, and adhering to deadlines. In contrast, a few supervisors noted that not all students were able to perform these tasks independently and that some required substantial assistance. Supervisors also expressed that some students lacked patience; e.g., some students expressed impatience in working with adaptations of the thesis and responding to reviewer comments.

Support needs in the publishing process

All the students emphasized the significant need for assistance throughout the publishing process, but they provided few detailed comments in their responses. Supervisors expressed a similar need to support the students; see the comparison in Fig.  1 .

Student support needs in the publishing process: Comparison of student (n = 19) and supervisor (n = 42) experiences. Fisher’s exact test was used. A P value ≤ 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance

Supervisors reported that they helped students connect with the other coauthors, which was beneficial for student learning. In the publishing process, students are required to adapt their theses to specific journal requirements and write more concise and clear texts, which, according to some supervisors, took more time than students thought it would. Proofreading and obtaining help in formatting figures and tables were also mentioned as very important factors. Some supervisors reported that additional material or statistical analysis as well as methodological considerations were sometimes needed to succeed in publishing.

The supervisors also commented that the quality levels of theses guided their decision to pursue publication and engage with students as coauthors. Some students also required help with communicating their publication at conferences or meetings, according to supervisors.

Level of student independence in the publishing process

Students generally reported having some or a low level of independence in the publishing process. A few reported higher levels of independence, either in writing the manuscript and/or in data analysis.

Supervisors reported slightly higher levels of independence on the part of students and commented that the level of independence varied across students. A comparison of perceived independence is presented in Fig.  2 .

Level of student independence in the publishing process: Comparison of student and supervisor experiences Students ( n  = 19) and supervisors ( n  = 42) rated the perceived levels of student independence on a five-point scale. Mann‒Whitney U test was used. A P value ≤ 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance

In this study, we investigated a cohort of medical degree students over four semesters ranging from 2019 to 2020 to assess whether their master’s theses had been published as research papers. We found that 33% of the articles had been published. Different methods have been applied in previous research on student submissions, publishing rates and student authorship; Skovgard et al. [ 11 ] and Griffin et al. [ 12 ] followed up on student cohorts, while Kan et al. [ 13 ] and Svider et al. [ 14 ] investigated specific journals for student publications. The extent to which and how research activities are integrated into the curriculum may also vary across educational and geographical contexts. Most of the studies were from the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Australia, as reported by Carberry et al. [ 15 ]. This makes comparisons difficult because of the differences in educational contexts and methods of publication tracking among these contexts. The share of student authorship varies: Skovgard et al. [ 11 ] studied a cohort of Danish students where 52% managed to publish at least one paper, and Griffin et al. [ 12 ] reported a UK student cohort where 14% (72 of 515) of the authors submitted research articles for publication. Kan et al. [ 13 ] and Svider et al. [ 14 ] tracked student publications in journals and revealed student authorship percentages of 12–19% and 19–37%, respectively. Amgad et al. [ 16 ] estimated student publishing rates to be 25–30% in their meta-analysis. Our results of 33%, show a higher rate of student publication than previous studies showed. In this group, 50% of the students were first authors, which is a high proportion in comparison to the findings of previous studies, including those of Amgad et al. [ 16 ], where 13% of the students were first authors, while Kan et al. [ 13 ] and Skovgard et al. [ 11 ] reported 17–25% and 43%, respectively.

The experiences reported by students and researchers showed that the publishing process can be beneficial for student learning. There were differences between student and supervisor experiences regarding student levels of independence, where some students reported their estimated level of independence to be lower than that reported by their supervisor. The reports of the students regarding support needs were similar to those of their supervisors. Supervisors emphasized that students required substantial assistance to a greater extent than the students themselves did, and such assistance seemed to be vital to a successful publication process. This result is also in line with the findings of previous studies in which students described having an engaged supervisor or mentor as the most helpful factor, followed by the support of the research team, course leaders and peers [ 12 , 17 , 18 ]. This heavy reliance of the student on the supervisor was also reported by Althubaiti et al. [ 19 ]. Our results reveal that students valued training in efficiently working with a team, which was also reported as a positive outcome in previous research [ 14 , 20 ]. Maher et al. [ 21 ] described a faculty culture in which the publishing process is regarded as a socialization process leading to academic authorship, team collaboration and competent writing as an important factor affecting student-faculty publishing.

Our results reveal that most of the publications of our student sample seems to be clinically or patient-oriented. In previous research, the focus (such as basic or clinical science) and form (reviews or original papers) of student publications seemed to vary depending on the educational context. Stockfelt et al. [ 6 ] reported that 45% of students perform basic science or laboratory projects, approximately one-third of the students engage in clinical research, and the remaining students pursue a combination of research activities. Wickramasinghe et al. [ 22 ] reported that reviews, followed by original studies, are the most common form of student publication. Amgad et al. [ 16 ] reported that most students publish original research papers, and whether these are in basic or clinical science varies, but the majority of them are on the clinical side, which is well aligned with our results.

Even though many of our students go on to publish, we do not believe that requiring such publication as part of the program would be feasible or result in positive outcomes. Voluntary publishing has also been discussed in previous studies, which have emphasized its importance for student motivation and for developing a sound future research culture [ 15 , 18 , 23 ]. Helping students become motivated to engage in research by progressively working with research competencies that have been integrated into a curriculum that culminates in a master’s thesis is likely a better strategy [ 10 ]. This longitudinal approach can have positive effects on student publishing, as suggested by Mullan et al. [ 24 ], even if such a curriculum has yet to be evaluated.

Limitations

In our data collection, we aimed for a rigorous approach in determining whether a student thesis had been published as a research paper. However, it is possible that some of the student theses were published in journals that were not indexed by the databases chosen for publication tracking. Another limitation is that students in the fall 2020 cohort may still be in the process of publishing and hence may not be captured in our data. With these limitations in mind, we believe our investigation has resulted in a general and fairly accurate overview of the number of theses that are published as research papers.

We sent the survey to a partly different cohort than the one used for publication tracking. As the survey responses were anonymous, it was not possible to distinguish the different cohorts within the survey results. It is possible that students who have already published have had different learning experiences than students who are still in the publishing process. However, the experiences expressed by students, the impact on learning, and the role of supervisors were found to be more closely associated with the publishing process itself than contingent on the specific cohort to which a student or supervisor belonged. The surveys allowed for detailed comments in the responses, and the supervisors used that option more than students. Due to the low response rate of students, the low rate of student comments, and the lack of representativeness of the results, further investigations into student learning experiences during the publishing process are needed.

In this study, we investigated the percentage of medical students in the 2019–2020 cohort who subsequently published their master’s theses as research publications. We found a 33% publication rate, and students were listed as the first author in 50% of the publications. The publishing process demands a significant amount of time, and students need to be aware of the additional time required in addition to their master’s thesis work.

Engaged supervisors were found to be essential for a successful publication process, as they provided students with the necessary support in preparing their manuscripts. Student publishing can constitute an additional learning activity in student research projects, provided that such publishing is voluntary and builds on students’ intrinsic motivation to perform research.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

The Association for Medical Education in Europe

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Medical Degree

Albarqouni L, Hoffmann T, Straus S, Olsen NR, Young T, Ilic D, Shaneyfelt T, Haynes RB, Guyatt G, Glasziou P. Core competencies in evidence-based practice for Health professionals: Consensus Statement based on a systematic review and Delphi Survey. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(2):e180281.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cuschieri A, Cuschieri S. Medical students’ perceptions on Research: results from a small European Island State. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(6):1991–9.

Laidlaw A, Aiton J, Struthers J, Guild S. Developing research skills in medical students: AMEE Guide No. 69. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):e754–771.

Thiem J, Preetz R, Haberstroh S. How research-based learning affects students’ self-rated research competences: evidence from a longitudinal study across disciplines. Stud High Educ 2023:1–13.

Wessels I, Rueß J, Gess C, Deicke W, Ziegler M. Is research-based learning effective? Evidence from a pre–post analysis in the social sciences. Stud High Educ. 2020;46(12):2595–609.

Stockfelt M, Karlsson L, Finizia C. Research interest and activity among medical students in Gothenburg, Sweden, a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):226.

Day RA, Gastel B. How to write and publish a scientific paper. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood; 2011.

Google Scholar  

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html . Accessed 2023 March 22.

Faculty of Medicine. Faculty of Medicine at Lund University https://www.medicine.lu.se/faculty-medicine-lund-university . Accessed 2023 May 5.

Björklund M, Perez MT, Regnér S, Garwicz M. Learning progression from basic scientific scholarship to evidence-based medicine: a multimodal approach [Working paper]. In. Lund: Lund University; 2020:22.

Skovgaard M, Okkels N, Christensen MK, Telinius N, Hauge EM. Publication rate and PhD enrolment following a medical pre-graduate research programme. Dan Med J 2015;62(9).

Griffin MF, Hindocha S. Publication practices of medical students at British medical schools: experience, attitudes and barriers to publish. Med Teach. 2011;33(1):e1–8.

Kan CK, Qureshi MM, Paracha M, Sachs TE, Sarfaty S, Hirsch AE. Effect of Medical Student contributions on Academic Productivity: analysis of Student Authorship over Time. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:481–9.

Svider PF, Husain Q, Mauro KM, Folbe AJ, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Impact of mentoring medical students on scholarly productivity. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2014;4(2):138–42.

Carberry C, McCombe G, Tobin H, Stokes D, Last J, Bury G, Cullen W. Curriculum initiatives to enhance research skills acquisition by medical students: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):312.

Amgad M, Man Kin Tsui M, Liptrott SJ, Shash E. Medical Student Research: an Integrated mixed-methods systematic review and Meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6):e0127470.

Syeda M, Woodend J, Liu J, Roy S. Ready to leave the Nest? Education Graduate Students’ voices on Publishing. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. 2020;32(1):107–16.

Weaver AN, McCaw TR, Fifolt M, Hites L, Lorenz RG. Impact of elective versus required medical school research experiences on career outcomes. J Investig Med. 2017;65(5):942–8.

Althubaiti A, Althubaiti SM. Medical research: what to expect in a student-supervisor relationship. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):774.

Rosenkranz SK, Wang S, Hu W. Motivating medical students to do research: a mixed methods study using self-determination theory. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:95.

Maher MA, Timmerman BC, Feldon DF, Strickland D. Factors affecting the occurrence of Faculty-Doctoral Student Coauthorship. J High Educ. 2016;84(1):121–43.

Wickramasinghe DP, Perera CS, Senarathna S, Samarasekera DN. Patterns and trends of medical student research. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:175.

Horta H, Li H. Nothing but publishing: the overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Stud High Educ. 2022;48(2):263–82.

Mullan JR, Weston KM, Rich WC, McLennan PL. Investigating the impact of a research-based integrated curriculum on self-perceived research experiences of medical students in community placements: a pre- and post-test analysis of three student cohorts. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:161.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to give special thanks to Kerstin Troein for administrative support with data collection. We also wish to give warm thanks to Håkan Andersson for statistical advice and support and to Martin Garwicz for reviewing and offering valuable feedback regarding the manuscript.

Open access funding provided by Lund University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Library & ICT, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Maria Björklund

Translational Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Medicon Village, Lund, Sweden

Ramin Massoumi

Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Lund, Sweden

Bodil Ohlsson

Department of Internal Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MB and BO initiated and designed the study. MB and BO collected the data. MB, BO and RM analyzed and interpreted the results. MB designed the tables and figures. MB wrote the original draft of the manuscript. MB, BO and RM contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Björklund .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority was waived since the surveys sent to respondents were answered anonymously and the answers could not be traced back to the responders. No sensitive personal data were available for identifying the responders. The responders were informed of the way that how the survey results would be processed and that by answering the survey they were will give informed consent to participate. [Swedish Ethical Review Authority on the Ethical Review act: https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se/en/what-the-act-says/ ]

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Björklund, M., Massoumi, R. & Ohlsson, B. From master’s thesis to research publication: a mixed-methods study of medical student publishing and experiences with the publishing process. BMC Med Educ 24 , 75 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05060-7

Download citation

Received : 26 September 2023

Accepted : 15 January 2024

Published : 20 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05060-7

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

• Student publishing
• Supervisors
• Master’s theses
• Research publications
• Publication process
• Student performance
• Learning experience

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Press ESC to close

A roadmap for writing a literature review in a master’s thesis: Examples and guidelines

• backlinkworks
• Writing Articles & Reviews
• December 27, 2023

writing a literature review is an essential part of any master’s thesis. IT involves critically evaluating and synthesizing existing research to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-written literature review demonstrates your understanding of the scholarly conversation surrounding your research topic and helps to contextualize your own work within the broader academic landscape.

1. Understand the purpose of a literature review

Before you begin writing your literature review, IT ‘s important to understand its purpose. A literature review serves several key functions, including:

• Providing a comprehensive overview of existing research in your field.
• Critically evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies.
• Identifying gaps in the literature and highlighting areas for future research.
• Contextualizing your own research within the broader academic discourse.

By clearly understanding the purpose of your literature review, you can ensure that your writing is focused and relevant to your thesis.

2. Conduct a comprehensive literature search

Once you have a clear understanding of the purpose of your literature review, the next step is to conduct a comprehensive search for relevant academic sources. This involves searching for peer-reviewed journal articles, books, conference proceedings, and other scholarly publications related to your research topic.

IT ‘s important to use a variety of search strategies, including keyword searches, citation tracking, and database searches, to ensure that you are capturing all relevant literature. Additionally, consider using citation management software to organize and manage your references.

For example, if your master’s thesis is about the impact of social media on mental health, you would want to search for literature that examines the relationship between social media use and psychological well-being. This might include studies on social media usage patterns, the prevalence of mental health issues among social media users, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of social media use.

3. Analyze and synthesize the literature

Once you have gathered a comprehensive collection of literature related to your research topic, the next step is to analyze and synthesize the information. This involves critically evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each study, identifying key themes and patterns across the literature, and synthesizing the findings into a coherent narrative.

When analyzing and synthesizing the literature, consider the following questions:

• What are the main findings and arguments of each source?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of each study?
• What key themes and patterns emerge across the literature?

Using the example of the impact of social media on mental health, you might identify several key themes that emerge across the literature, such as the relationship between social media use and depression, the role of cyberbullying in affecting mental well-being, and the potential benefits of online peer support networks.

4. Write the literature review

With a clear understanding of the purpose of your literature review, a comprehensive collection of relevant literature, and a synthesized analysis of the existing research, you are now ready to write your literature review. When writing your literature review, consider the following guidelines:

• Provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the existing literature in your field.
• Critically evaluate and synthesize the key findings and arguments of each source.
• Organize the literature thematically or chronologically to highlight key patterns and developments in the research.
• Keep the focus on how each source relates to your research topic and thesis.

Continuing with the example of the impact of social media on mental health, your literature review might be organized into sections that correspond to the key themes you identified during your analysis. Each section could summarize and evaluate the existing literature on a specific aspect of the relationship between social media use and mental well-being, providing a clear overview of the current state of knowledge in the field.

5. Conclusion

Overall, writing a literature review for your master’s thesis involves understanding the purpose of the literature review, conducting a comprehensive literature search, analyzing and synthesizing the literature, and writing a well-organized and critical review of the existing research. By following these guidelines and examples, you can ensure that your literature review effectively contextualizes your own research within the broader academic discourse.

Q: How long should a literature review be?

A: The length of a literature review can vary depending on the requirements of your master’s thesis and the depth and breadth of the existing literature. In general, a literature review for a master’s thesis is typically around 3000-5000 words, but this can vary based on the specific expectations of your program or advisor.

Q: How many sources should I include in my literature review?

A: The number of sources you include in your literature review will depend on the scope of your research topic and the expectations of your program or advisor. In general, a literature review for a master’s thesis should include a comprehensive collection of relevant sources, typically ranging from 20-50 academic articles, books, and other scholarly publications.

Top 10 Recording Software for Professional Sound Engineering

Designing a professional website with a web hosting wordpress theme.

Recent Posts

• Driving Organic Growth: How a Digital SEO Agency Can Drive Traffic to Your Website
• Mastering Local SEO for Web Agencies: Reaching Your Target Market
• The Ultimate Guide to Unlocking Powerful Backlinks for Your Website
• SEO vs. Paid Advertising: Finding the Right Balance for Your Web Marketing Strategy
• Discover the Secret Weapon for Local SEO Success: Local Link Building Services

Popular Posts

Shocking Secret Revealed: How Article PHP ID Can Transform Your Website!

Uncovering the Top Secret Tricks for Mastering SPIP PHP – You Won’t Believe What You’re Missing Out On!

Unlocking the Secrets to Boosting Your Alexa Rank, Google Pagerank, and Domain Age – See How You Can Dominate the Web!

The Ultimate Collection of Free Themes for Google Sites

Discover the Shocking Truth About Your Website’s Ranking – You Won’t Believe What This Checker Reveals!

Explore topics.

• Backlinks (2,425)
• Blog (2,744)
• Computers (5,318)
• Digital Marketing (7,741)
• Internet (6,340)
• Website (4,705)
• Wordpress (4,705)
• Writing Articles & Reviews (4,208)

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

"Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States of America, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States of America

Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States of America, Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States of America

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States of America, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision

• Spencer C. Evans, 
• Christina M. Amaro, 
• Robyn Herbert, 
• Jennifer B. Blossom, 
• Michael C. Roberts

• Published: February 14, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219
• Reader Comments

If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one’s field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0–7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2–3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and “publishability” of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts.

Citation: Evans SC, Amaro CM, Herbert R, Blossom JB, Roberts MC (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

Editor: Lutz Bornmann, Max Planck Society, GERMANY

Received: October 16, 2017; Accepted: January 19, 2018; Published: February 14, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Evans et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are publicly available from a variety of third party sources. A complete list of data sources has been included as a Supporting Information file, ' S1 File '.

Funding: The journal's publication fees were covered by an award from the One University Open Access Fund at the University of Kansas. The authors received no other specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The doctoral dissertation—a defining component of the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree—is an original research study that meets the scientific, professional, and ethical standards of its discipline and advances a body of knowledge [ 1 ]. From this definition it follows that most dissertations could, and arguably should, be published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature [ 1 – 2 ]. For example, research participants typically volunteer their time and effort for the purposes of generating new knowledge of potential benefit; therefore, to breach this contract by not attempting to disseminate one’s findings is to violate the ethical standards of psychology [ 3 ] and human subjects research [ 2 , 4 ]. The nonpublication of dissertation research can also be detrimental to the advancement of scientific knowledge in other ways. Researchers may unwittingly and unnecessarily duplicate efforts from doctoral research when conducting empirical studies, or draw biased conclusions in meta-analytic and systematic reviews that often deliberately exclude dissertations. Many dissertations go unpublished due to nonsignificant and complicated results, exacerbating the “file drawer” problem [ 5 – 6 ]. Indeed, unpublished dissertations are rarely if ever cited [ 7 – 8 ].

The problem of dissertation non-publication is of critical importance in psychology. Some evidence [ 9 ] suggests that unpublished dissertations can play a key role in alleviating file drawer bias and reproducibility concerns in psychological science [ 10 ]. More broadly, the field of psychology—given its unique strengths, breadth, and diversity—poses a useful case study for examining dissertation nonpublication in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Like other scientific disciplines, many Ph.D. graduates in psychology may be motivated to revise and submit their dissertations for publication for the usual reasons offered by academic and research careers. However, other new psychologists might not pursue this goal for a variety of reasons. Those in professional and applied subfields may commit most or all of their working time to non-research activities (e.g., professional practice, clinical training) and have little incentive to seek publication. Even those in more research-oriented subfields increasingly take non-research positions (e.g., industry, consultation, teaching, policy work) or other career paths which do not incentivize publications. Negative graduate school experiences, alternative career pursuits, and personal or family matters can all be additional factors that may decrease the likelihood of publication. Moreover, it is typically a challenging and time-consuming task to revise a lengthy document for submission as one or more journal articles. Still, all individuals holding a Ph.D. in psychology have (in theory) produced an original research study of scientific value, which should (again, in theory) be shared with the scientific community. Thus, for scientific, ethical, and training reasons, it is important to understand the frequency and quality of dissertation publication in psychology.

There is an abundance of literature relevant to this topic, including student or faculty perspectives (e.g., [ 11 – 13 ]) and studies of general research productivity during doctoral training and early career periods (e.g., [ 14 – 19 ]). However, evidence specifically regarding dissertation publication is remarkably sparse and inconsistent [ 8 , 20 – 24 ]. This literature is limited by non-representative samples, biased response patterns, and disciplinary scopes that are either too narrow or too broad to offer insights that are useful and generalizable for psychological science. For example, in the only psychology-specific study to our knowledge, Porter and Wolfle [ 23 ] mailed surveys to a random sample of individuals who earned their psychology doctorates. Of 128 respondents, 59% reported that their dissertation research had led to at least one published article. Unfortunately, this study [ 23 ] and others (e.g., [ 8 ]) are now over 40 years old, offering little relevance to the present state of training and research in psychology. A much more recent and rigorous example comes from the field of social work. Using a literature searching methodology and a random sample of 593 doctoral dissertations in social work, Maynard et al [ 22 ] found that 28.8% had led to peer-reviewed publications. However, this estimate likely does not generalize to psychology and its myriad subfields. Thus, there is a need for more comprehensive, rigorous, and recent data to better understand dissertation publication in psychology.

Accordingly, the present study investigated the extent and nature of dissertation publication in psychology, specifically examining the following questions: (a) How many dissertations in psychology are eventually published in peer-reviewed journals? (b) How long does it take from dissertation approval to article publication? (c) What is the scientific impact of published dissertations (PDs)? and (d) Are there differences across subfields of psychology? Based on the literature and our own observations, we hypothesized that (a) a majority of dissertations in psychology would go unpublished; (b) dissertation publication would occur primarily during the first few years after Ph.D. approval, diminishing thereafter; (c) PDs would show evidence of at least moderate scientific influence via citation rates and journal metrics; and (d) professional/applied subfields (clinical, counseling, school/educational, industrial-organizational, behavioral) would yield fewer PDs than research-oriented subfields (social/personality, experimental, cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, quantitative).

Materials and methods

The dataset of psychology dissertations was obtained directly from ProQuest UMI’s Dissertations and Theses Database (PQDT), which is characterized as “the world’s most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses. . . [including] full text for most of the dissertations added since 1997. . . . More than 70,000 new full text dissertations and theses are added to the database each year through dissertations publishing partnerships with 700 leading academic institutions worldwide” [ 25 ]. While international coverage varies across countries, PQDT’s repository is estimated to include approximately 97% of all U.S. doctoral dissertations [ 26 ], across all disciplines, institutions, and training models.

Upon request, PQDT provided a database of all dissertations indexed with the term “psychology” in the subject field during the year 2007. This resulted in a total population of 6,580 dissertations, which were then screened and sampled according to pre-defined criteria. The number of dissertations included at each stage in the sampling process is summarized in a PRISMA-style [ 27 ] flow diagram for the overall sample in Fig 1 , and broken down by subfield in Table 1 . Dissertations were excluded if written in a language other than English, for any degree other than Ph.D. (e.g., Psy.D., Ed.D.), or in any country other than U.S. The remaining dissertations were recoded for subfields based on the subject term classification in PQDT, with a few modifications (e.g., combining “neuroscience” and “biological psychology”). This left a remaining sample of 3,866 relevant dissertations, representing our population. This figure is approximately in line with the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Survey of Earned Doctorates [ 28 ] estimate that 3,276 research doctorates in psychology were granted during the year 2007, suggesting that PQDT could be slightly broader or more comprehensive in scope.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Note. PQDT = ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. a Categories of excluded dissertations are mutually exclusive, summing to 100%. b PQDT exclusion criteria were applied sequentially in the order presented; thus, the number associated with each exclusion criterion reflects how many were excluded from the sample that remained after the previous criterion was applied. Adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram [ 27 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.t001

From this relevant population of 3,866, we drew a stratified random sample of 1,000 dissertations. This number was selected because it represented over 25% of the population and offered sufficient power to obtain 95% CIs less than ±3% for the overall proportion estimates (i.e., the primary research question). As shown in Table 1 , the sampling procedure was stratified by subfield using a formula that sought to balance (a) power for between-group comparisons, aiming to include ≥50 dissertations from each subfield; and (b) representativeness to the population, aiming to include ≥10% of the dissertations from each subfield. This resulted in subfield sample sizes ranging from 59 for general/miscellaneous (75.6% of relevant subfield population) to 179 for clinical (12.5% of relevant subfield population). Ninety (9.0%) dissertations were later found to be ineligible during the full-text review because the approval date was before or after the year 2007. This incongruence was partly explained by copyright or graduation dates differing from the dissertation year, and was not significantly different across subfields. The resulting final sample consisted of 910 dissertations, with subfield samples ranging from 52 (general/miscellaneous) to 159 (clinical). Because this study did not meet the definition of human subjects research, institutional review board approval was not required.

Search timeframe

We aimed to conduct prospective follow-up searches for PDs within a timeframe that was both (a) long enough to capture nearly 100% of PDs and (b) short enough for results to retain their relevancy to the current state of psychological science. Because the literature does not offer dissertation-publication “lag time” statistics for reference, we used the “half-life” of knowledge—i.e., the average time it takes for half of a body of knowledge to become disproven or obsolete [ 29 – 30 ]. Across methodologies, the half-life of knowledge in psychology has been estimated at 7–9 years [ 31 – 33 ]. Accordingly, we selected a prospective search window allowing 0–7 years for dissertations to be published. Because the doctoral dissertations were sampled from the year 2007, follow-up searches were restricted to articles published between 2007 and 2014. We elected to exclude candidate publications from years prior to 2007 for several reasons. First, most U.S. psychology Ph.D. programs follow a more traditional dissertation model (and this would have been even more ubiquitous in 2007), where the dissertation would have to be completed before it could be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Second, even for the minority of programs that might follow less conventional models such as dissertation-by-publication [ 34 ], the lag-time to publication would likely still result in at least one PD appearing in print concurrently with or after the dissertation, and would therefore be captured by our search strategy. Finally, any potential benefits of searching retrospectively were outweighed by the potential risks of introducing unreliability into the data, such as identifying false positives from student publications, master’s theses, pilot studies, or other analyses from the same sample. On the other end of our search window, candidate publications that appeared in print during or after 2015 were also not considered. Post hoc analyses (see Results ) suggested that this 0–7 year timeframe was adequate.

Publication search and coding procedures

Searches for PDs were conducted in two rounds, utilizing scholarly databases in a manner consistent with the evidence regarding their specificity, sensitivity, and quality. Specifically, searches were conducted first in PsycINFO, which has high specificity for psychological, social, and health sciences [ 35 – 36 ]; and second, in Google Scholar, casting a much broader net but still searching for peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles [ 35 , 37 – 40 ]. The objective of these searches was to locate the PDs or to determine that the dissertation had not been published in the indexed peer-reviewed journals. Although it is never possible to definitively ascertain a thing’s non-existence, we added additional steps and redundancies to ensure that our searches were as exhaustive as possible. First, when no PD was found in either scholarly databases, as a final step we conducted Google searches for the dissertation author and title, then reviewed the search results (e.g., CVs posted online, faculty web pages) for possible PDs. Second, all searching/coding procedures were performed at least twice by trained research assistants. If two coders disagreed on whether a PD was found, which article it was, or if either coder was uncertain, these dissertations were then coded by consensus among three or more members of the research team, including master’s-level researchers (SCE and CMA).

In all literature searches, the following queries were entered for each dissertation: (a) title of dissertation, without punctuation or logical operand terms; (b) author/ student’s name; and (c) chair/ advisor’s name. Search results were assessed for characteristics of authorship (student and chair names), content (title, abstract, acknowledgments, methods), and publication type (specifically targeting peer-reviewed journal articles) by which a PD could be positively identified. Determination of PD status was made and later validated based on global judgments of these criteria. Identified PDs were then coded for their bibliographic characteristics. Results were excluded if published in a non-English journal, outside of the 0–7 year (2007–2014) window, or in a non-refereed or non-journal outlet (e.g., book chapters). Because dissertations can contain multiple studies and be published as multiple articles, searches aimed to identify a single article that was most representative of the dissertation, based on the criteria outlined above and by consensus agreement among coders. All searches were conducted and coding was completed between January 2015 and May 2017.

Dissertation, publication, and year.

Although the structure and content of doctoral dissertations varies across institutions, countries, and disciplines, the common unifying factor is that the dissertation represents an original research document produced by the student, approved by faculty, and for which a degree is conferred. Accordingly, in using PQDT as our population of U.S. Ph.D. psychology dissertations, we adhere to this broad but essential definition of a dissertation. This definition includes all different models of dissertations (e.g., ranging from traditional monographs to more recent models, such as briefer publication-ready dissertations and dissertation by publication [ 34 ]), but does not differentiate among them.

In this paper and in common scientific usage, “publication” refers to the dissemination of a written work to a broad audience, typically through a journal article. Accordingly, we do not consider indexing in digital databases for theses and dissertations as a publication such as in PQDT, even though it may be called “publishing” by the company. Rather, we define “dissertation publication” as the dissemination of at least part of one’s Ph.D. dissertation research in the form of an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. The peer-reviewed status of the journal was included among the variables that were coded twice with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Lastly, year of publication (2007, 2008, 2009 … 2014) and years since approval (0, 1, 2 … 7) were coded from when the print/final version of the article appeared, given that advance online access varies and is not available in all journals.

The PQDT subject terms were used as a proxy indicator of the subfield of psychology from which the dissertation was generated. As described above, twelve categories were derived ( Table 1 ). We considered five categories as professional/ applied subfields (clinical, counseling, educational/school, industrial-organizational, and behavioral), given that graduates in these fields are trained for careers that often include professional licensure or applied activities (e.g., consultation, program evaluation). In contrast, seven categories were considered research/ academic subfields (cognitive, developmental, experimental, neuroscience, quantitative, and social/personality), given that these subfields train primarily in a substantive or methodological research area. Note that Ph.D. programs in all of these subfields train their students to conduct research; when professional/ applied training components are present, they are there in addition to, not instead of, research training.

Article citations.

The influence of PDs was estimated using article- and journal-level variables. At the article level, we used Web of Science to code the number of citations to the PD occurring each year since publication, tracking from 2007 up through year 2016. Importantly, Web of Science has been found to exhibit the lowest citation counts, but the citations which are included are drawn from a more rigorously controlled and higher quality collection of scholarly publications compared to others like Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus [ 35 , 37 – 38 , 40 – 41 ]. Citations were coded and analyzed primarily as the mean number of citations per year in order to account for time since publication. Total citations and citations each year were also calculated.

Journal-level metrics.

The following journal impact metrics were recorded for the year in which the PD was published: (a) Impact Factor (IF) and (b) 5-Year IF [ 42 ]; (c) Article Influence Score (AIS) [ 43 ]; (d) Source Normalized Impact (SNIP) [ 44 ]; and (e) SCImago Journal Rank indicator (SJR) [ 45 ]. Each of these indices shares different similarities and distinctions from the others and provides different information about how researchers cite articles in a given journal. While each has its limitations, these five indicators together offer a broad overall characterization of a journal’s influence, without over-relying on any single metric. As a frame of reference, the population-level descriptive statistics for each of these journal metrics (2007–2014) are as follows: IF ( M = 1.8, SD = 2.9), 5-year IF ( M = 2.2, SD = 3.0), SNIP ( M = 0.9, SD = 1.0), SJR ( M = 0.6, SD = 1.1), and AIS ( M = 0.8, SD = 1.4).

As described above, all of the dissertation, literature searching, and outcome data used in the present study were obtained from a variety of online sources available freely or by institutional subscription. Links to these sources can be found in the supplementary materials ( S1 File ).

Analytic plan

Overall descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the univariate and bivariate characteristics of the data, including the frequency and temporal distribution of PDs in psychology. Similar descriptive statistics were provided to characterize the nature of and scholarly influence of the PD via article citations and journal impact metrics. Group-based analyses were conducted using chi-square and ANOVAs to assess whether dissertation publication rates and scientific influence differed across subfields of psychology. The 95% CIs surrounding the total weighted estimate were used as an index of whether subfield estimates were significantly above or below average.

Time-to-publication analyses were conducted in three different ways. First, we used weighted Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to model dissertation publication as a time-to-event outcome, both for the overall sample and separately by subfields. Second, because the large majority of dissertations “survived” the publication outcome past our observation window (i.e., most cases were right-censored), we also conducted between-group comparisons regarding subfield publication times for only those whose dissertations were published. Finally, in order to ensure the adequacy of our 0–7 year search window, we fit a distribution to our observed data and projected this trend several years into the future.

Full-sample analyses were conducted using the complex samples option in SPSS Version 24, which yields weighted estimates that are less biased by sample proportions and more generalizable to the population. Distribution model-fitting and projections were estimated in R. For analyses related to dissertation publication outcomes, there were no missing data because all values could be coded based on obtained dissertations. Data availability for journal- and article-level variables are reported in those results tables.

Frequency of and time to publication

The overall weighted estimate showed that 25.6% (95% CI: 23.0, 28.4) of psychology dissertations were published in peer-reviewed journals within the period of 0–7 years following their completion. The unweighted estimate was similar (27.5% [24.6, 30.4]), but reflected sampling bias due to differences between subfields. Thus, weighted estimates are used in all subsequent results. Significant variations were found across subfields (Rao-Scott adjusted χ 2 ( df = 9.65) = 65.28, F (9.65, 8869.62) = 8.28, p < .001). As shown in Table 2 , greater proportions of PDs were found in neuroscience (59.4% [47.8, 70.1]), experimental (50.0% [37.7, 62.3]), and cognitive (41.0% [31.1, 51.8]), whereas much lower rates were found for industrial-organizational (10.1% [5.0, 19.5]) and general/miscellaneous (13.5% [6.5, 25.7]). All other subfields fell between 19.0 and 29.0%. Quantitative and social/personality fell within the 95% CIs for the weighted total, suggesting no difference; however, most other subfields fell above or below this average. Of note, three core professional subfields (clinical, counseling, and school/educational) were all between 19.0 and 20.8%—below average and not different from one another.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.t002

The overall time-to-publication results are presented in Table 3 and the left panel of Fig 2 . As shown, over half (56.0% of those ultimately published; 14.3% of the total sample) of PDs appeared in print within 2 years following the year of completion, with the large majority (89.7% of ultimately published; 23.0% of total) being published within 5 years. Among those dissertations that were ultimately published, the time to publication averaged about 2–3 years ( M = 2.58 [2.34, 2.83]), with a median of 2 years and a mode of 1 year. Omnibus comparisons from the Kaplan-Meier survival model revealed significant variations across subfields, χ 2 ( df = 1) = 4.24, p = .039), as plotted in the right panel of Fig 2 . These results generally mirrored the same pattern found for overall binary publication outcomes across subfields. Among only those dissertations that were published, the subfield differences in time-to-publication were marginal overall, F (11, 238) = 5.99, p = .064, but still shed some additional light beyond the binary publication outcomes. Specifically, neuroscience ( M = 1.61, [1.09, 2.13]), counseling ( M = 1.92, [1.04, 2.79]), and experimental ( M = 1.93 [1.45, 2.41]) averaged less than two years to publication, shorter than the weighted average. In contrast, clinical ( M = 2.88, [2.20, 3.56]), social/personality ( M = 2.90, [1.92, 3.89]), school/educational ( M = 2.94, [1.78, 4.1]), industrial-organizational ( M = 3.00, [0.73, 5.27]), and quantitative ( M = 3.06, [2.35, 3.78]) all took longer, approximately three years.

Overall estimates and 95% confidence intervals (left panel) are derived from the weighted Cox regression model (see Table 3 ). Subfield estimates (right panel) are derived from the unweighted Kaplan-Meier regression model. In both plots, cumulative publication estimate = one minus survival function.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.t003

Lastly, as a methodological check, we modeled our time-to-publication data and projected this trend into the future to estimate what percentage of PDs we might have missed by stopping after 7 years. More specifically, these models used the weighted estimates of how many dissertations were published each year as the outcome and time (years 0 to 7) as the predictor. A Poisson model containing quadratic and linear effects for time fit the data best. When projected into the future, this model estimated that an additional 7 dissertations would be published at 8–10 years post-dissertation (4, 2, and 1 PDs, respectively). From 11 years onward, estimates asymptotically approached and rounded down to zero, even cumulatively. Thus, our sampling frame appears to have captured virtually all (97.3%) of the dissertations that ultimately would be published. In other words, had the study been implemented for as long as necessary to capture all PDs, the data suggest that our primary result, the estimated percentage of dissertations published, would increase only modestly from 25.6% to 26.4%.

Scientific impact

As shown in Table 4 , PDs were cited an average of 3.65 times per year since publication, totaling 15.95 citations on average during the years captured by the study. There were significant variations by subfield in terms of both total and per-year citations. Specifically, PDs in cognitive ( M = 5.08 [1.33, 8.83]) and industrial-organizational ( M = 5.18 [0.80, 9.56]) were more highly cited, with over 5 citations/year. On the other end, fields that exhibited relatively lower (but still nontrivial) rates of citations/year included quantitative ( M = 1.42, [0.87, 1.97]), general/miscellaneous ( M = 1.46 [0.15, 2.78]), counseling ( M = 1.64 [0.63, 2.64]), developmental ( M = 2.82 [1.31, 4.32]), and social/personality ( M = 2.86 [2.05, 3.67]).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.t004

The 250 PDs in our sample appeared in 186 different peer-reviewed outlets, including top-tier journals in general (e.g., Nature , Science ) and psychological (e.g., Psychological Science , Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ) science. Notably, several PDs appeared in journals predominately representing professions or disciplines outside psychology (e.g., Public Health Nursing , Endocrinology ). The most common journal titles were all in relatively specialized areas of psychology (e.g., Applied Psychological Measurement , Brain Research ), tending to draw from experimental, social/personality, neuroscience, behavioral, and cognitive. Overall, however, dissertations were disseminated broadly, with no single journal “catching” more than five (2.0%) dissertations from our overall sample, and most journals publishing only one (0.4%).

As shown in Table 5 , PDs appeared in journals of moderate-to-high influence according to all five metrics used. Subfield differences were found for the IF, SNIP, and SJR ( p s < .01, but not in the 5-year IF or the AIS ( p s > .09). Specifically, neuroscience and cognitive PDs appeared in higher-IF journals ( M s = 4.47 [3.17, 5.78] and 3.86 [1.87, 5.86], respectively), while most others fell in the below-average IF, including those still within the 2+ range (clinical, social/personality, general/miscellaneous, developmental, and behavioral; M s = 2.14 to 2.45) and those in the 1–2 range (quantitative, school/educational, counseling, and industrial-organizational; M s = 1.27 to 1.71). Similarly, neuroscience ( M = 2.17 [1.68, 2.66]), cognitive ( M = 1.97 [1.22, 2.72]), and social/personality ( M = 1.65 [1.09, 2.21]) PDs appeared in higher-SJR journals, whereas behavioral, clinical, general/miscellaneous, quantitative, school/educational, industrial-organizational, and counseling PDs had lower SJRs ( M s = 0.51–1.21). Lastly, cognitive ( M = 1.61 [1.17, 2.05]) and social/personality ( M = 1.55 [1.18, 1.92]) were published in higher-SNIP journals, while clinical ( M = 1.28 [1.08, 1.47]), general/miscellaneous ( M = 1.19 [0.23, 2.15]), and counseling ( M = 0.57 [0.26, 0.89]) PDs appeared in journals with lower SNIPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.t005

The primary finding of this study was that only about one in four psychology Ph.D. dissertations in the U.S. was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Typically this occurred within 2–3 years after completing the dissertation. Despite variations across subfields, dissertation publication appears to be the exception not the rule. When dissertations were published, however, they were often highly cited and appeared in influential journals. The relatively high impact of published dissertations may reflect a gatekeeping effect, whereby only the highest quality or most significant contributions get published; or a refining effect, whereby the dissertation development and committee review process helps strengthen the contribution [ 1 , 46 ], increasing the likelihood and impact of publication. In other words, the dissertation process may add some value to doctoral research, and some doctoral research appears to add value to psychological science. A larger and more important question is why the vast majority of psychology dissertation research does not contribute to the peer-reviewed literature.

Our estimated rate of dissertation publication in psychology (25.6%) is similar to or slightly below a corresponding estimate for social work (28.8%) [ 22 ], the only field in which a similarly rigorous and comparable design had been used. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to offer a reliable estimate of publication rates specific to the dissertation and specific to psychology. Further, the present study advances the literature by demonstrating the impact that these published dissertations have on the scientific literature. Although it was only minority of cases, published dissertations in psychology were disseminated in moderate- to high-impact journals across a wide spectrum of disciplines and specialty interests. Whereas published dissertation articles were cited several times per year, anecdotally we saw very few citations to the actual dissertation documents in PQDT. These observations are consistent with evidence showing that the impact of dissertations themselves has declined markedly [ 7 – 8 ] in recent decades. In contrast, peer-reviewed journal articles are much more likely to be read, cited, and included in systematic and meta-analytic reviews.

Subfield differences were broadly consistent with hypotheses. Dissertations from professional/applied fields were less often published, whereas the more research/academic-oriented subfields published at rates much higher than average. These findings likely reflect differences in the nature of training and motivation in professional and scientific subfields, and also align with evidence about student research productivity in professional/applied subfields. For example, annual results from the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers applicant survey indicate that only about 50% of advanced doctoral students in professional psychology have authored or co-authored any peer-reviewed publications, while only 10% have published 5 or more [ 18 ]. Given this relatively low baseline rate of productivity during graduate school for this population, the average likelihood of post-graduation publication seems low. On the other hand, individuals in more research-oriented subfields are often training specifically for an academic position which incentivizes publication. Further, lab-based dissertations often include multiple experiments, which may create more publishable units (this also may explain the relatively higher rate of publication in behavioral psychology). The low publication of dissertations in industrial-organizational (10%) is also interesting, and may reflect an applied focus, organizational propriety of data, greater non-academic incentives (e.g., higher salaries in industry), or limited generalizability as market or consultative research. When these and other types of applied/professional dissertations were published, however, they were often cited several times per year.

The time from dissertation completion to publication appears to be a critical consideration. From our main results and longitudinal projections, we can generalize that by two calendar-years post-dissertation, over 50% of ultimately-published dissertations will appear in print. After five years, this number increases to nearly 90% (10% probability of publication). After 7–10 years, the dissertation findings are likely to become outdated, irrelevant, or overturned [ 30 – 32 ], and the probability of publication approaches 0%. Thus, if students wish to publish their dissertation, it is recommended that they proactively develop a plan for adapting the full document into a manuscript (or multiple manuscripts) for publication [ 1 ]. As one example of this, we are aware of some universities that have begun requiring that approved dissertations be accompanied by a form that outlines an agreed-upon plan for publication and authorship.

The present findings raise questions about the reasons for nonpublication. Possible explanations include the burden of revising and submitting a lengthy document, or limited career incentives for pursuing publications in non-academic careers. Alternatively, unpublished dissertations may lack methodological rigor, including “fatal flaws,” or fail to make a novel and substantive contribution. Thus, unpublished dissertations might not pass the bar of peer review. The present results only illustrate how many dissertations were actually published, and cannot speak to how many students attempted to publish their dissertations, or how many dissertations might have been publishable quality. Similarly, these results do not provide direct evidence of the mechanisms underlying publication vs. nonpublication, but the apparently high quality of the published dissertation articles is consistent with the file drawer hypothesis. Interestingly, one recent study in management research found that in the path from dissertation to publication, studies appear to get “beautified,” for example, such that the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubles in at least one discipline [ 47 ]. Such questionable research practices may provide one explanation for how dissertations selectively get published, but this is clearly not an appropriate solution. Whatever the underlying explanations may be, the widespread non-publication of dissertation research is a problem in psychology. To the extent that this non-publication continues, it exacerbates the file drawer problem [ 5 – 6 , 9 ], biases systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and contributes to the replication problem in psychology [ 10 ]. It also amounts to inefficient use of time and resources, raising ethical questions about violating agreements with participants and funding agencies, and about the consequences of not disseminating research findings [ 2 , 4 ].

The present study was designed so that results could be generalized to the population of dissertations produced in U.S. psychology Ph.D. programs. However, some limitations should be noted. First, our stratified random sample was drawn from an archival data source (PQDT), which is an approximation of the population of dissertations in psychology (although a very comprehensive one) and a proxy of the boundaries delineating subfields in psychology. Our outcome variables were likewise drawn from various databases (e.g., PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Thomson Reuters) which are necessarily restricted in different ways. As noted in the Methods section, these databases were selected as the most comprehensive and appropriate sources available for the purposes for which they were used, and their strengths and weaknesses were considered in developing the study protocol.

A second constraint lies in the selection of a single cohort year (2007) and 7-year follow-up period, raising the possibilities of missed cases and of cohort/historical effects. The changing landscape of doctoral training in psychology (e.g., more competitive admissions, increasing emphasis on research productivity, nontraditional dissertation requirements) may limit generalizability to past and future populations. Of note, these results may not generalize broadly to other countries (e.g., Northern/Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand) and fields (e.g., biomedical, natural, and physical sciences) that are increasingly using a dissertation-by-publication model [ 34 ]. From our read of the literature and our assessment of the present sample, this model has not been widely adopted in U.S. psychology, where more traditional dissertation documents are still the norm. Accordingly, our sampling and search strategies were designed to work reasonably well for all U.S. psychology dissertations, including a suspected minority of nontraditional models; however, we could not differentiate types of dissertations. For all of these reasons, periodic replication of these results would be useful. Nonetheless, the large sample size, stratified sampling method, comprehensive dataset, and thorough multi-stage search protocol help mitigate bias. Narrow 95% confidence intervals support the precision of the overall estimate, and post hoc analyses suggested that the results are unlikely to change substantially given a longer sampling frame.

Finally, we note that this study should not be interpreted as any sort of evaluation of students, advisors, or programs for dissertations that were or were not published. Nor are we advocating that all dissertations be published, regardless of quality. Rather, these findings shed light on what appears to be a systemic problem affecting research and training in all areas of psychology. Efforts aimed at increasing the quality and “publishability” of doctoral dissertation research may have broad benefits for both training and research in psychology. On the training side, these efforts may benefit students and graduates in terms of providing a higher standard of scientific training, more research/publishing experience, and greater early-career productivity. On the research side, such efforts can help promote a higher level of rigor in doctoral research and increase the likelihood that the findings will be shared with the scientific community.

Supporting information

S1 file. links to data sources..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.s001

Acknowledgments

A portion of this research was presented at the 28th Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL, May 2016, where it received the APS Student Research Award. We thank Austin McLean and the staff of ProQuest Dissertations and Theses for providing the population dataset of dissertations, Patrick Edmonds for offering statistical consultation, Oliver Blossom for reviewing the manuscript, and the following members of our research team for their extensive coding efforts: Maggie Biberstein, Jamie Eschrich, Andrea Garcia, Mackenzie Klaver, Alexa Mallow, Alexandra Monzon, and Emma Rogers.

• 1. Cone JD, Foster SL. Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields. American Psychological Association; 1993.
• 2. Roberts MC, Beals-Erickson SE, Evans SC, Odar C, Canter KS. Resolving ethical lapses in the nonpublication of dissertations. In Sternberg RJ, Fiske ST, editors. Ethical challenges in the behavioral and brain sciences. Cambridge University Press; 2015: pp. 59–62.
• 3. American Psychological Association. Standard 8: Research and publication. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct including 2010 amendments. Washington, DC: Author; 2010.
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 25. ProQuest. Dissertation Abstracts International. 2017. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/products-services/dissertations/find-a-dissertation.html
• 26. McLean A. Making dissertations & thesis accessible and discoverable. Presentation given to the Summer Workshop of the Council of Graduate Schools, Quebec, Canada. 2015, July 13. Retrieved from: http://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/2015CGSSmrMtg_McLean.pdf
• 28. National Science Foundation. Survey of Earned Doctorates: Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities. 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/data/tab13.pdf
• 29. Arbesman S. The half-life of facts: Why everything we know has an expiration date. Penguin; 2013.
• 30. de Solla Price DJ. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963.
• 31. Davis PM, Cochran A. Cited half-life of the journal literature. arXiv:1504.07479. 2015 Apr 28.
• 42. Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports. 2017. Retrieved from: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/overviewGroup/overviewJCR.html
• 43. Eigenfactor. About the Eigenfactor Project. 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.eigenfactor.org/about.php

How a Master’s Thesis Becomes a Peer-reviewed Article: Episode 4 – Acceptance!

Readers, I have been negligent in my blogging this summer. The truth is that I’ve been struggling with a case of PhD angst and ennui.  The long list of tasks I hoped to accomplish, papers I hoped to read, and ideas I hoped to generate far outstrips the list of these things I’ve actually achieved, and it’s left me feeling a little bit adrift. But more on this in a future post; today I’m here to report some good news!

ACCEPTANCE!!!

of my manuscript, that is.

It’s taken about a year of post-Master’s-defense work on this paper to get it to become a publishable manuscript.  Following its initial rejection , I used guidance from helpful comments of peer reviewers and lab members to cut out some of the “thesis bloat.”  Because part of the purpose of a thesis is to demonstrate the depth and breadth of what you learned as a graduate student, preparing a thesis for journal publication involves removing a lot of introductory and explanatory material – streamlining it for an audience with a shared background knowledge. I also added data and material that helped to bolster some of my arguments and findings.

Preparing a thesis for journal publication means choosing from the many ideas the one that is most compelling, and letting it determine the shape of your story.  That doesn’t mean that the other cool ideas all have to go, but the ones that stay get de-emphasized and woven into the central story. I spent a lot of time removing ideas and phrases I was proud of, with the cold detachment of a seasoned hitman.

Before acceptance, I got a first decision letter from Ecosystems that included some really positive feedback about my question and how I addressed it, as well as asking for major revisions which involved clarifying some of my explanations and correcting some errors that made it through my proofreading. After satisfying the concerns of reviewers, I had another round of editorial corrections before I got a letter saying my manuscript was nearly acceptable, it just needed one small change to the numbering of the figures (now changed and re-submitted).

I’m happy to soon share with the world a story of how dissolved organic carbon affects how Florida rivers process nitrogen! Stay tuned for this story, as well as episode 5 of “How a Master’s Thesis Becomes a Peer-reviewed Article”: the Publication Process.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

3 thoughts on “ How a Master’s Thesis Becomes a Peer-reviewed Article: Episode 4 – Acceptance! ”

WOO! Congratulations!!!! I fully expect an accompanying link to your article when it’s published.

Congrats Megan! Great to hear the happy ending of your publication journey.

Congrats Megan!!! That is awesome, and I’m so glad your publication saga had a happy ending. Great work!!

Comments are closed.