7 ms·
> Even papers nobody but the author reads are useful. But to a very, very limited extent. Why do we publish papers? Because we want to share the knowledge we g
by veddox 10y ago
> Even papers nobody but the author reads are useful.
But to a very, very limited extent. Why do we publish papers? Because we want to share the knowledge we generate. Papers are the very essence of the ideal of open science - science that is accessible not just to the people who did the work, or those who paid for it, but (in theory) to everyone. Papers are there to communicate information, but communication always requires a recipient as well as a sender. Ergo, if our papers aren't being read, there is no recipient, there is no communication: our papers have failed their most basic raison d'etre. And because they are our most important method of communicating, you could say that open science itself has failed.
Yes, there is a value in writing up your thoughts and results just for yourself. But then why go through the hassle of publishing? Why waste paper and ink (in a printed journal); and more importantly, why waste the time of the reviewers, editors and typesetters involved in the process?
- kardos 10y agoLet's not forget that all of these papers passed review, meaning the reviewers/editor felt it made a contribution to the field. Also, just because it didn't get read right away doesn't mean it's a failure. Ask some gray haired academics how often they've seen (first hand or otherwise) an obscure paper from decades ago become key in solving a modern problem.
- veddox 10y ago> Also, just because it didn't get read right away doesn't mean it's a failure. Ask some gray haired academics how often they've seen (first hand or otherwise) an obscure paper from decades ago become key in solving a modern problem. True, but don't tell me that all of nearly a million unread papers published this year (accepting the Smithsonianmag's figures as true, for the moment) are going to solve a key problem of science in 50 years...
- grzm 10y agoVery likely not all :) How do you figure out which of the nearly a million are the useful ones?
- kardos 10y agoUnread and uncited are very different things. It appears that the 50% number is some sort of arbitrary (short?) time scale "has it been cited yet" metric. Citing something is much harder than reading; you need to do some research, write it up and go through the publishing process. If 200 people read a paper but not cite it, is it a failure?
- dragandj 10y agoI am pretty sure that the vast majority of cited papers have not been read by the people who cite them.
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoI've often tried to find the "canonical" paper to cite for a certain fact, and found that it barely even mentions the relevant fact at all. It just somehow became canonical because everyone needed a citation for the same thing later on.
- dragandj 10y agoWhy do we publish papers? Well, I guess for the vast majority of authors, THE reason is that the number of published papers is one of the key metrics at your job. From the lowest levels of PhD students to the PIs, the one things that you need to show is how many papers you have published and where. Even if the paper is crap (you often realise that years after you've published, of course) it increases the metrics by one point, so... And, even if your work is fantastic, small number of published papers will effectively put you behind and kill your career. Sad but true.
- veddox 10y agoUnfortunately, you are correct. And if you refer back to my first comment, you will see me saying something very much like that ;-) However, that is not the original intent of a paper, which is what my later argumentation referred to.