« Get Yer Rhodanines Here |
| China's Home-Grown Insanity? »
September 8, 2011
Publishing, Perishing, Buying and Selling
Here's another article in the Guardian that makes some very good points about the way we judge scientific productivity by published papers. My favorite line of all: "To have "written" 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being rather shameful." I couldn't have put it better, and I couldn't agree more. And this part is just as good:
Not long ago, Imperial College's medicine department were told that their "productivity" target for publications was to "publish three papers per annum including one in a prestigious journal with an impact factor of at least five.″ The effect of instructions like that is to reduce the quality of science and to demoralise the victims of this sort of mismanagement.
The only people who benefit from the intense pressure to publish are those in the publishing industry.
Working in industry feels like more of a luxury than ever when I hear about such things. We have our own idiotic targets, to be sure - but the ones that really count are hard to argue with: drugs that people will pay us money for. Our customers (patients, insurance companies, what have you) don't care a bit about our welfare, and they have no interest in keeping our good will. But they pay us money anyway, if we have something to offer that's worthwhile. There's nothing like a market to really get you down to reality.
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Academia (vs. Industry) | The Scientific Literature
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- We Can't Calculate Our Way Out of This One
- No More Prearranged Editors at PNAS
- No, They Really Aren't Reproducible
- A New Reductive Amination
- Real-World Ebola
- The Case of Northwest Biotherapeutics
- 2014 Chemistry Nobel Predictions
- The Deadly Stupidities Around Ebola