3 ms·
>That said, if you want to anchor yourself as an expert in a space, I can't think of a better way to do it than to write a book. I think this depends on the fi
by grawprog 6y ago
>That said, if you want to anchor yourself as an expert in a space, I can't think of a better way to do it than to write a book.
I think this depends on the field and the audience. I'm not sure about other sciences but, when I was working in Biology and Ecology, there was much higher regard placed on people who'd been published in reputable peer reviewed journals than those that published books on topics.
It usually came down to the assumption that if someone published their research in a book rather than submitting it for peer review, it meant the quality of the research wasn't up to standards and likely would have been rejected and information from scientists published only in books is looked at as questionable and not really a good source to use as a primary reference.
That being said, the general public tends to place book published scientists in almost higher regard than many working scientists and will take information published in such form as undeniable fact.
- mooreds 6y ago> I think this depends on the field and the audience. Fair enough. I should have specified the "software engineering field" as the scope of my statement. I don't know enough about other fields (such as branches of science or history), and certainly writing a fiction book doesn't anchor you as an expert.
- breezest 6y agoIt seems like you are talking about publishing research work in book chapter rather than peer reviewed articles. A book usually covers a selected topic in depth and in a coherent manner. This is particular useful for graduate students. Besides, some book authors also invite their friends to give comments. The impact of a book can be as rigorous and significant as journal articles.