4 ms·

Im not saying 'why publishing?'. Im saying 'why publish if I barely know if what Im doing will have some positive result? Think of this example: we are resear

Im not saying 'why publishing?'. Im saying 'why publish if I barely know if what Im doing will have some positive result? Think of this example: we are researching for a few months whether an arbitrary compound X has relieffing effects on people with headache, but since we are still researching, there is no concrete result or any slight evidence yet. maybe the compound will relief the headache in 30min but maybe it will make your nose bleed. but there is this conference about headaches that is approaching and why not submit a paper about the work with some results? WHAT RESULTS? You will spend countless hours reading (more) about headaches and compound X to write the background of the manuscript while you still have to figure out the tests you will perform test your assumption. you will work for weeks (under more pressure) with the hope you could publish something that is very uncertain at the current state.

ylmm 8y ago
I'm not sure I see what your issue is. It seems the scenario you're describing is just a case of working harder to make a deadline, which there's nothing wrong with per se. If you're talking about fudging results or cutting corners to make a deadline, then that'd be a problem. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see your point.
- glitchc 8y ago
  The OP's point is, I'm afraid a valid one. Attempting to find a statisticallly significant to report on in time to meet a conference deadline means experiments are fudged, results are cherry picked and discrepancies are swept under the rug. Conference and funding deadlines coupled with the need to generate a publication record are almost entirely responsible for the dubious nature of the average scientific article. It's a classic case of Goodhart's Law.
anjc 8y ago
I don't know why the downvotes. Publishing something takes a lot of directed effort. It's so tough to stop doing (what feels like) the real work, and quickly squeeze out a submission for a conference that has a 10% acceptance rate. Of course publishing is extremely important, but too large a focus on publishing hampers results.
- Fomite 8y ago
  Results that aren't disseminated are functionally useless.
  - taejo 8y ago
    Sure, results need to be published. The problem is that the cart is put before the horse: we decide to publish the results, and where to publish, before we have an inkling of what the results will be.
    - Fomite 8y ago
      I'm not necessarily sure this is the cart before the horse. Deciding to publish the results can just as easily be restated as "Come up with an experiment with a clear and precise scope" Where to publish is often determining what audience and what questions to ask. For example, targeting a clinical journal means proofs and analytical results may be less compelling, while a simulation of a study might be of active interest. Both of those help narrow the scope of "All possible interesting questions" to something tractable.
tnecniv 8y ago
If you have no results, there's nothing you can do. However, unless you stumble upon something that works out very nicely right before a deadline, a publication requires planning many months in advance what you are going to do.

ylmm 8y ago

I'm not sure I see what your issue is. It seems the scenario you're describing is just a case of working harder to make a deadline, which there's nothing wrong with per se. If you're talking about fudging results or cutting corners to make a deadline, then that'd be a problem. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see your point.

glitchc 8y ago
The OP's point is, I'm afraid a valid one. Attempting to find a statisticallly significant to report on in time to meet a conference deadline means experiments are fudged, results are cherry picked and discrepancies are swept under the rug. Conference and funding deadlines coupled with the need to generate a publication record are almost entirely responsible for the dubious nature of the average scientific article. It's a classic case of Goodhart's Law.

anjc 8y ago

I don't know why the downvotes. Publishing something takes a lot of directed effort. It's so tough to stop doing (what feels like) the real work, and quickly squeeze out a submission for a conference that has a 10% acceptance rate. Of course publishing is extremely important, but too large a focus on publishing hampers results.

Fomite 8y ago
Results that aren't disseminated are functionally useless.
- taejo 8y ago
  Sure, results need to be published. The problem is that the cart is put before the horse: we decide to publish the results, and where to publish, before we have an inkling of what the results will be.
  - Fomite 8y ago
    I'm not necessarily sure this is the cart before the horse. Deciding to publish the results can just as easily be restated as "Come up with an experiment with a clear and precise scope" Where to publish is often determining what audience and what questions to ask. For example, targeting a clinical journal means proofs and analytical results may be less compelling, while a simulation of a study might be of active interest. Both of those help narrow the scope of "All possible interesting questions" to something tractable.

tnecniv 8y ago

If you have no results, there's nothing you can do. However, unless you stumble upon something that works out very nicely right before a deadline, a publication requires planning many months in advance what you are going to do.