Publiphilia Impactfactorius: a new psychiatric syndrome among biomedical scientists?
Author and article information
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Personality traits differ significantly between professionals, and the biomedical field is no exception. However, whether specific clusters of personality traits are indeed typical for biomedical scientists is unknown. This can be of particular interest since personality traits impact on behavior, and sloppy science or even scientific misconduct may be linked to specific clusters of personality traits. To explore clusters of personality traits among biomedical scientists, and to associate the clusters with academic position and research misbehaviour we designed a cross-sectional study with cluster analysis of personality traits among a stratified sample of Dutch biomedical scientists working in academic medical centers.
Methods
We used the NEO-BIG5, Rosenberg Self-esteem, Achievement Motivation Inventory and the Dark Triad (narcissistic, Machiavellianistic and psychopathic personality traits) as validated questionnaires. Self-reported research misconduct was assessed via a separate questionnaire.
Results
We included 537 active biomedical scientists completed a web-based survey (response rate 65%). Cluster analysis revealed the existence of three personality clusters among biomedical scientists: the ‘perfectionist’, the ‘ideal son-in-law’ and the ‘sneaky grandiose’. The latter cluster showed a consistent set of (subclinical) personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism, that are indicative of the presence of a mental disorder, but could not be classified as such in terms of the DSM-IV TR or ICD-10. Male gender, higher academic hierarchical position, perceived publication pressure and, importantly, self-reported scientific misbehaviour were associated with the ‘sneaky grandiose’ personality cluster.
Discussion
These findings suggest that biomedical scientists in the ‘sneaky grandiose’ personality cluster have a relatively high propensity to engage in research misbehaviour. A small proportion of the ‘sneaky grandiose’ might suffer from a psychiatric condition characterized by pathological preoccupation with publishing and being cited. We therefore propose to name this syndrome ‘Publiphilia Impactfactorius’ (PI), and we suggest this affliction should be considered in revised versions of DSM5 and ICD-10. We provide tentative diagnostic criteria for PI. Early identification and intensive treatment or, alternatively, expulsion and annihilation of colleagues who suffer from PI may prevent further accumulation of research waste.
Cite this as
2017. Publiphilia Impactfactorius: a new psychiatric syndrome among biomedical scientists? PeerJ Preprints 5:e3347v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3347v1Author comment
Disclaimer: Attention! Please be aware that this manuscript is meant as a tongue-in-cheek article. All analyses are data-driven Although the statistics are sound, the results should be interpreted with caution. This article primarily serves to contemplate on current publication practices and may help to form new thoughts on current publication culture.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Joeri K Tijdink conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Yvo M Smulders conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Lex M Bouter conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
Medical ethics review committee of VU University Medical Center
Data Deposition
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
For ethical reasons to maintain confidentiality
Funding
The authors received no funding for this work
