Survey Methodology

The Scientist Readers' Survey Methodology Best Places to Work in Industry 2008Survey Form: A web-based survey was posted on The Scientist web site from January 15 to March 7, 2008. Results were collected and collated automatically.Click here for survey questionsInvitations: E-mail invitations were sent to readers of The Scientist and registrants on The Scientist web site who identified themselves as working in commercial or industrial companies. Responses: 1929 useable an

Written byThe Scientist
| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share

The Scientist Readers' Survey Methodology

Best Places to Work in Industry 2008



Survey Form: A web-based survey was posted on The Scientist web site from January 15 to March 7, 2008. Results were collected and collated automatically.
Click here for survey questions

Invitations: E-mail invitations were sent to readers of The Scientist and registrants on The Scientist web site who identified themselves as working in commercial or industrial companies.

Responses: 1929 useable and qualified responses were received. Responses were rejected if the respondent did not identify him or herself as working in a commercial company, if the respondent's company was not identified or identifiable, or if the response was a duplicate, based on e-mail address and other criteria.

Analysis: Respondents were asked to assess their working environment according to 45 criteria in 8 different areas by posing positive statements with which the respondent was asked to agree or disagree. Answers were scored on a 1 - 5 scale with 5 = "Strongly agree", 1 = "Strongly disagree" and 3 = "Neither agree nor disagree". Respondents were also asked to assess the importance to them of each factor on a 0 to 3 scale. Respondents could also mark a factor as "Not relevant" to them.

Identification of Institutions: As far as possible companies were identified and names were standardized. Companies with multiple locations were merged.

Scoring: Scores for each statement were averaged by company

Factor Analysis: Based on the importance scores given to each factor, we calculated an average importance score for each factor and for each group of factors.

Thresholds: We received responses from 207 companies, of which 33 companies received 5 or more responses. Responses from different locations within the same company were lumped together.

Company Ranking: In order to calculate the overall rankings of companies, we first weighted each factor based on the average importance score. The overall rankings were based on the average score per company on all factors, weighted as described.

Companies were also ranked based on all factors, unweighted.

In addition, we ranked companies based on unweighted average scores for the 8 major topics covered by the statements included in the survey. These categories are:

1. Research Environment
2. Management
3. Integrity
4. Communications
5. Job Satisfaction
6. Training and Development
7. Remuneration and Benefits
8. Policies and Practices

Results:

Results are published in The Scientist, June 2008 issue and are available on The Scientist web site.

Caveats:
? The sample of respondents was self selected, which may introduce some bias into the results.
? The scoring of results is not standardized and standards may fluctuate between individuals, companies and countries.
? In some cases, small sample responses may have led to bias in the results.
? No attempt has been made to measure the statistical significance of the results. The difference between, say a 5th ranked and 10th ranked company may be statistically insignificant.
The survey was developed and responses were analyzed by AMG Science Publishing (www.amgpublishing.com)
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here
February 2026

A Stubborn Gene, a Failed Experiment, and a New Path

When experiments refuse to cooperate, you try again and again. For Rafael Najmanovich, the setbacks ultimately pushed him in a new direction.

View this Issue
Human-Relevant In Vitro Models Enable Predictive Drug Discovery

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Stemcell Technologies
Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Beckman Coulter Logo
Conceptual multicolored vector image of cancer research, depicting various biomedical approaches to cancer therapy

Maximizing Cancer Research Model Systems

bioxcell

Products

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Pioneers Life Sciences Innovation with High-Quality Bioreagents on Inside Business Today with Bill and Guiliana Rancic

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Expands Research Reagent Portfolio to Support Global Nipah Virus Vaccine and Diagnostic Development

Beckman Coulter

Beckman Coulter Life Sciences Partners with Automata to Accelerate AI-Ready Laboratory Automation

Refeyn logo

Refeyn named in the Sunday Times 100 Tech list of the UK’s fastest-growing technology companies