Abstract:Background: Although scientific innovation has been a long-standing topic of interest for historians, philosophers and cognitive scientists, few studies in biomedical research have examined from researchers' perspectives how high impact publications are developed and why they are consistently produced by a small group of researchers. Our objective was therefore to interview a group of researchers with a track record of high impact publications to explore what mechanism they believe contribute to the generation of high impact publications. Methodology/principal findings: Researchers were located in universities all over the globe and interviews were conducted by phone. All interviews were transcribed using standard qualitative methods. A Grounded Theory approach was used to code each transcript, later aggregating concept and categories into overarching explanation model. The model was then translated into a System Dynamics mathematical model to represent its structure and behavior. Five emerging themes were found in our study. First, researchers used heuristics or rules of thumb that came naturally to them. Second, these heuristics were reinforced by positive feedback from their peers and mentors. Third, good communication skills allowed researchers to provide feedback to their peers, thus closing a positive feedback loop. Fourth, researchers exhibited a number of psychological attributes such as curiosity or open-mindedness that constantly motivated them, even when faced with discouraging situations. Fifth, the system is dominated by randomness and serendipity and is far from a linear and predictable environment. Some researchers, however, took advantage of this randomness by incorporating mechanisms that would allow them to benefit from random findings. The aggregation of these themes into a policy model represented the overall expected behavior of publications and their impact achieved by high impact researchers. Conclusions: The proposed selection mechanism provides insights that can be translated into research coaching programs as well as research policy models to optimize the introduction of high impact research at a broad scale among institutional and governmental agencies.

Highlighting Impact and the Impact of Highlighting: PRB Editors' Suggestions

Does publicity in the science press drive citations? A vindication of peer review

Better Highlighting: Creating Sub-Sentence Summary Highlights

The impact of being selected as a cover paper: Evidence from high-impact materials science journals

The Citation-Based Indicator and Combined Impact Indicator-New Options for Measuring Impact

Beyond Query-Oriented Highlighting: Investigating the Effect of Snippet Text Highlighting in Search User Behavior

Ranking Papers by their Short-Term Scientific Impact

Highlight Results, Don't Hide Them: Enhance interpretation, reduce biases and improve reproducibility

Measuring prominence of scientific work in online news as a proxy for impact

An Evaluation of Percentile Measures of Citation Impact, and a Proposal for Making Them Better

Citing for High Impact

In science "there is no bad publicity": Papers criticized in comments have high scientific impact

The Impact of Featuring Comments in Online Discussions

A simulation-based analysis of the impact of rhetorical citations in science

Last but not least: Additional positional effects on citation and readership in arXiv

Mitigating Consequences of Prestige in Citations of Publications

The effect of publishing a highly cited paper on journal's impact factor: a case study of the Review of Particle Physics

In praise of the referee

Exploring the characteristics of special issues: distribution, topicality, and citation impact

Selection mechanisms underlying high impact biomedical research--a qualitative analysis and causal model

Effects of Learner-Generated Highlighting and Instructor-Provided Highlighting on Learning from Text: A Meta-Analysis