Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2024.04.02.587840

Leading researchers in the leadership of leading research universities: meta-research analysis

Ioannidis, J.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

It is unknown to what extent leading researchers are currently involved in the leadership of leading research universities as presidents or as executive board members. The academic administrative leader (president or equivalent role) of each of the 146 Carnegie tier 1 USA universities and of any of the top-100 universities per Times Higher Education (THE) 2024 ranking and the members of the executive governing bodies (Board of Trustees, Council, Corporation or similar) for the each of the top-20 universities per THE 2024 ranking were examined for high citation impact in their scientific subfield. Highly-cited was defined as the top-2% of a composite citation indicator (that considers citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index and citations to papers as single, first, last authors) in their main scientific subfield based on career-long impact until end-2022 among all scholars focusing in the same subfield and having published [≥]5 full papers. Very highly-cited was similarly defined as the top-0.2%. Science was divided into 174 fields per Science-Metrix classification. 38/146 (26%) tier 1 USA university leaders as of end-2023 were highly-cited and 5/146 (3%) were very highly-cited. The respective figures for the top-100 THE 2024 universities globally were 43/100 and 12/100. For the 13 US universities among the top-20 of THE 2024, the probability of their leader being highly-cited was lower (6/13, 46%) than the probability of a randomly chosen active full tenured professor from their faculty being highly-cited (52-77%). Across 444 board members of 14 top-10 THE 2024 universities with data, only 65 (15%) were academics, and 19 (4%) were highly-cited; academics were rare in USA university boards. Board members had predominantly careers in for-profit companies. In conclusion, leading research universities have a dearth of leaders who are high-impact researchers.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ioannidis, J.. 2024-04-03. Leading researchers in the leadership of leading research universities: meta-research analysis. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.02.587840

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Internal Grant Review: A Pre-Submission Program for Early-Career Clinical and Translational Researchers

The iTHRIV Scholars Mentored Career Development Program initiated an Internal Grant Review (IGR) program in 2020 for current and recently graduated Scholars seeking funding through K and R awards from the NIH. The IGR program is designed to replicate the NIH review process and provide Scholars the opportunity to receive valuable feedback on their applications prior to NIH submission. A key characteristic of the program is the integration of REDCap, enabling automation and year-round offering while improving tracking and reporting efforts and capabilities. Results of the program have been overall positive, both in proposal development and participant feedback. IGR is a sustainable, valuable resource for early-career faculty competing for limited resources in the pursuit to become independently funded clinical translational scientists.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Multi-Lab Testing of Early Preclinical Discoveries Identifies Promising Treatments

A fundamental challenge in drug development is the frequent failure of early laboratory research to translate into clinical benefit. One promising solution is to confirm findings from exploratory single-laboratory studies across multiple laboratories before clinical testing. We investigated this approach following the conduct of preclinical multi-laboratory studies across different fields of medicine. For this, we evaluated effect sizes, experimental rigor, and a set of criteria to identify determinants of confirmation success. When tested under increased rigor, only a fraction of multi-laboratory studies confirmed the initial results. The underlying effect size reduction was associated with outcome-relevant experimental differences between exploratory and confirmatory stages. In summary, multi-laboratory studies proved highly informative and served as an effective filter for promising treatments.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Technology-enhanced learning in undergraduate neuroscience education: tractography-based virtual dissection in psychology

Background: Neuroanatomy poses a significant challenge for Psychology students due to its spatial and conceptual complexity. Educational approaches that enhance the relevance and visualization of neuroanatomical content may improve students learning experiences. This study implemented a tractography-based activity focused on the virtual dissection of the arcuate fasciculus, a major white matter pathway, in undergraduate Psychology students and examined the relationships between perceived learning and students perceptions of utility, difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects of the activity. Methods: First-year undergraduate Psychology students participated in a two-session tractography-based activity combining instruction on white matter anatomy and diffusion tractography with a hands-on virtual dissection of the arcuate fasciculus using research-grade software routinely employed in neuroscience research. Following the activity, students completed an anonymous questionnaire assessing perceived learning, utility, difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects of the activity. Pearson correlations, multiple regression analyses, and relative importance analyses were performed. Results: Sixty-eight students completed the questionnaire. Students reported generally positive perceptions of the activity across the evaluated dimensions, with perceived learning receiving the highest mean score (M = 3.44, SD = .85). Perceived utility showed the strongest association with perceived learning (r = .64, p < .001). The regression model explained 41% of the variance in perceived learning (R2 = .41, adjusted R2 = .38, p < .001). Perceived utility was the only significant predictor in the model ({beta} = .59, p = .001), accounting for 67.9% of the explained variance. Conclusions: The findings support the feasibility of integrating authentic neuroimaging tools into undergraduate neuroanatomy teaching. Students who perceived the activity as more useful also reported higher perceived learning outcomes, with perceived utility emerging as the strongest predictor of perceived learning. In contrast, perceived difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects did not make significant independent contributions. These results suggest that students perceptions of educational relevance may play an important role in technology-enhanced STEM learning experiences.

scientific communication and education↗