Productivity, impact, and collaboration differences between transdisciplinary and traditionally trained doctoral students: A comparison of publication patterns

Transdisciplinary (TD) approaches are increasingly used to address complex public<br>health problems such as childhood obesity. Compared to traditional grant-funded<br>scientific projects among established scientists, those designed around a TD, teambased<br>approach yielded greater publication output after three to five years. However,<br>little is known about how a TD focus throughout graduate school training may affect<br>students' publication-related productivity, impact, and collaboration. The objective of<br>this study was to compare the publication patterns of students in traditional versus TD<br>doctoral training programs. Productivity, impact, and collaboration of peer-reviewed<br>publications were compared between traditional (n = 25) and TD (n = 11) students<br>during the first five years of the TD program. Statistical differences were determined by<br>t-test or chi square test at p &lt; 0.05. The publication rate for TD students was 5.2 ± 10.1<br>(n = 56) compared to 3.6 ± 4.5 per traditional student (n = 82). Publication impact<br>indicators were significantly higher for TD students vs. traditional students: 5.7 times<br>more citations in Google Scholar, 6.1 times more citations in Scopus, 1.3 times higher<br>journal impact factors, and a 1.4 times higher journal h-index. Collaboration indicators<br>showed that publications by TD students had significantly more co-authors (1.3 times),<br>and significantly more disciplines represented among co-authors (1.3 times), but not<br>significantly more organizations represented per publication compared to traditional<br>students. In conclusion, compared to doctoral students in traditional programs, TD<br>students published works that were accepted into higher impact journals, were more<br>frequently cited, and had more cross-disciplinary collaborations.<br><br>