Fig 1.
Concept hierarchy of research quality (from Mårtensson et al, 2016).
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of participants.
Fig 2.
Responses regarding the credible main concept, ranked from 1–5, where 5 is “of crucial importance”.
Fig 3.
Responses regarding the contributory main concept, ranked from 1–5, where 5 is “of crucial importance”.
Fig 4.
Responses regarding the communicable main concept, ranked from 1–5, where 5 is “of crucial importance”.
Fig 5.
Responses regarding the conforming main concept, ranked from 1–5, where 5 is “of crucial importance”.
Table 2.
Credible and contributory in a 2-way frequency table (percentages).
Fig 6.
Response rates for credible between universities, gender, and academic level.
Fig 7.
Response rates for contributory between universities, gender, and academic level.
Fig 8.
Response rates for communicable between universities, gender, and academic level.
Fig 9.
Response rates for conforming between universities, gender and academic level.