Understanding the success motivators in scholarly publishing: A case of high ranked Malaysian scientists

Main Article Content

A. Abrizah


Research is the cornerstone of the development of a nation, and its researchers play pivotal roles for social and economic progress of the country. Among those researchers, there are groups of successful scientists with outstanding accomplishment in research; who are experts in their field, productive in delivering quality papers, highly cited by peer researchers and receive prestigious recognition locally and globally. This study aims to identify the motivation that influences top Malaysian scientists to be successful in scholarly publishing. The data presented comes from interviews with  nine high ranked Malaysian scientists with an attempt to demonstrate that scientists’ success in scholarly publishing is derived from four motivational needs, namely achievement, affiliation,  authority and avidity, represented by quotes or comments. The findings show that high ranked scientists were motivated mainly by inclination towards affiliation and achievement, as compared to authority and avidity. Overall, findings from this study have provided useful information on the characteristics and motivation of high ranked scientists that may be of value as reference indicators for future top scientists in the country.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mohd Napiah, M. K., Abdullah, A., & Gurmit Singh, K. K. (2022). Understanding the success motivators in scholarly publishing: A case of high ranked Malaysian scientists. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 27(2), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol27no2.5


Abramo, G., Aksnes, D. W. and D’Angelo, C. A. 2020. Comparison of research performance of Italian and Norwegian professors and universities. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 14, no. 2: 101023.

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A. and Di Costa, F. 2011. Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones?. Scientometrics, Vol. 88. no. 3: 915-928.

Ahmad, N. and Jilani, G. 2022. An analytical study of research performance of private universities of Uttar Pradesh, India: A bibliometric study. American Journal of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 6, no. 3: 42-51.

Avanesova, A. A. and Shamliyan, T. A. 2018. Comparative trends in research performance of the Russian universities. Scientometrics, Vol. 116, no. 3: 2019-2052.

Baccini, A., De Nicolao, G. and Petrovich, E. 2019. Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLoS One, Vol. 14, no. 9: e0221212.

Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J. and Adams, J. 2020. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, Vol. 1, no. 1: 363-376.

Bruton, S. V., Medlin, M., Brown, M. and Sacco, D. F. 2020. Personal motivations and systemic incentives: Scientists on questionable research practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 26, no. 3: 1531-1547.

Chang, Y. W., Chen, D. Z., and Huang, M. H. 2020. Discovering types of research performance of scientists with significant contributions. Scientometrics, Vol. 124, no. 2: 1529-1552.

D’Anniballe, V. M., Lee, C. I. and Grimm, L. J. 2022. Career research performance among radiology early career grant recipients compared with national institutes of Health K Award recipients. Journal of the American College of Radiology. Available at: doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.04.003

DeJonckheere, M and Vaughn, L. M. 2019. Semi structured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(e000057). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057.

Drennan, J., Clarke, M., Hyde, A. and Politis, Y. 2013. The research function of the academic profession in Europe. In U. Teichler & E. A. Höhle (Eds.), The work situation of the academic profession in Europe: Findings of a survey in twelve countries (pp. 109–136). Dordrecht: Springer.

Fox, M.F. and Nikivincze, I. 2021. Being highly prolific in academic science: characteristics of individuals and their departments. Higher Education, Vol. 81: 1237–1255. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00609-z

Gonzalez, L. R., Brambila, C. N. G. and Veloso, F. 2018. Birth of prominent scientists. PLoS ONE, Vol. 13, no. 3: 1–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193374.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. 2019. Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: report of the expert group to the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. p. 57 General for Research and Innovation. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/ doi/10.2777/836532.

Haynes, R.D. 2016. Whatever happened to the “mad, bad” scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science, Vol 25, no. 1: 31–44.

Heng, K., Hamid, M. and Khan, A. 2020. Factors influencing academics' research engagement and productivity: A developing countries perspective. Issues in Educational Research, Vol. 30, no. 3: 965-987.

Jaffe, K., Ter Horst, E., Gunn, L.H., Zambrano, J.D. and Molina, G. 2020. A network analysis of research productivity by country, discipline, and wealth. Plos One, Vol.15, no. 5: p.e0232458.

Johnson, B. B., and Dieckmann, N. F. 2020. Americans’ views of scientists’ motivations for scientific work. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 29, no. 1: 2–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519880319.

Karno M.R., Omar S.S., Buntat Y. and Sharuddin N. 2016. A bibliometric analysis of scholarly publication in Malaysia Research Universities from 2006 – 2015. In Noorhidawati, et al. (Eds.): International Conference of Libraries, Information and Society ICOLIS 2016, Kuala Lumpur: LISU, FCSIT, 2016: pp 223-234.

Kazén, M. and Kuhl, J. 2011. Directional discrepancy between implicit and explicit power motives is related to well-being among managers. Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 35, no. 3: 317–327. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9219-8.

Kwiek, M. 2018. High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers? Scientometrics, Vol. 115, no. 1: 415–462. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2644-7.

Lai, K. A., Saxena, G. and Allen, P. J. 2022. Research performance of academic psychologists in the United Kingdom. Scientometrics, Vol. 127: 4139-4166. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04424-4.

Latimer, M. T. 2005.. Patenting inventions arising from biological research. Genome Biology, Vol. 6, no. 1. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-6-1-203.

Lee, V.H., Hew, J.J. and Loke, S.P. 2018. Evaluating and comparing ten-year (2006-2015) research performance between Malaysian public and private higher learning institutions: a bibliometric approach. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol.23, no. 2: 145 - 165. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2018.089618.

Li, J., Yin, Y., Fortunato, S. and Wang, D. 2020. Scientific elite revisited: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, Vol. 17, no. 165. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0135

Lundberg, J. 2006. Bibliometrics as a research assessment tool - impact beyond the impact factor. (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden).

McClelland, D. C. 1961. The Achieving Society. D. Van Nostrand Company.

McClelland, D. 1975. Power: The inner experience. Irvington Publishers.

Mcclelland, D. C. 1985. How Motives, Skills, and Values Determine What People Do. American Psychologist, Vol. 40, no. 7: 812–825.

McKerlich, R., Ives, C. and McGreal, R. 2013. Measuring use and creation of open educational resources in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 14, no. 4: 90–103. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2015. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education). Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation 2010. Malaysia’s science and technology policy for the 21st century. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412979276.n353.

Ofori-Adjei, D., Antes. G., Tharyan, P., Slade, E. and Tamber, P.S. 2006. Have online international medical journals made local journals obsolete? PLoS Med. Vol. 3, no.8:e359. Available at: doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030359.

Paiva, C. E., Araujo, R. L. C., Paiva, B. S. R., De Pádua Souza, C., Cárcano, F. M., Costa, M. M., Serrano, S. V., and Lima, J. P. N. 2017. What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey. Ecancermedicalscience, Vol. 11: 1–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2017.718.

Perkmann, M., Salandra, R., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M. and Hughes, A. 2021. Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019, Research Policy, Vol. 50, no. 1: 104-114. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104114.

QS (Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd.) World University Rankings. 2022. Available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2022

Salisu, S. A. and Salami, M. O. 2020. A bibliometric analysis of Nigeria's research performance, 1901-2016. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, Vol. 30, no. 1: 23-36.

Smith, R. L. 2015. A contextual measure of achievement motivation: Significance for research in counseling. Available at: http://counseling.org/knowledge-center/ vistas,/Article 14.

Spangler, W. D., Tikhomirov, A., Sotak, K. L. and Palrecha, R. 2014. Leader motive profiles in eight types of organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25, no. 6: 1080–1094. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.10.001.

Steele, C. 2014. Scholarly communication, scholarly publishing and university libraries. Plus Ça Change?. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, Vol. 45, no. 4: 241-261. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.950042.

Teodorescu, D. 2000. Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, Vol. 32, no. 2: 201-222.

Vallerand, R. J., and Houlfort, N. 2003. Passion at work: Toward a new conceptualization. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on values in organizations, 175-204. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

van Emmerik, H., Gardner, W. L., Wendt, H. and Fischer, D. 2010. Associations of culture and personality with McClelland’s motives: A cross-cultural study of managers in 24 countries. Group and Organization Management, Vol. 35, no. 3: 329–367. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110370782.

Wahid, N., Warraich, N. and Tahira, M. 2021, Factors influencing scholarly publication productivity: a systematic review. Information Discovery and Delivery, Vol. 50, no. 1: 22-33. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-04-2020-0036.