4 ms·

I agree with the discussion that rejection is normal and researchers should discuss it more often. That said, I do think that "publish or perish" plays an unsp

I agree with the discussion that rejection is normal and researchers should discuss it more often. That said, I do think that "publish or perish" plays an unspoken role here. I see a lot of colleagues trying to push out "least publishable units" that might barely pass review (by definition). If you need to juice your metrics, it's a common strategy that people employ. Still, I think a lot of papers would pass peer review more easily if researchers just combined multiple results into a single longer paper. I find those papers to be easier to read since they require less boilerplate, and I imagine they would be easier to pass peer review by the virtue that they simply contain more significant results.

nextn 2y ago
Longer papers with more claims have more to prove, not less. I imagine they would be harder to pass peer review.
- tredre3 2y ago
  > Longer papers with more claims have more to prove, not less. I imagine they would be harder to pass peer review. Yes, a longer paper puts more work on the peer reviewers (handful of people). But splitting one project in multiple papers puts more work on the reader (thousands of people). There is a balance to strike.
- atrettel 2y ago
  I agree with your first part but not your second. Most authors do not make outrageous claims, and I surely would reject their manuscript if they did. I've done it before and will do it again without any issue. To me, the point of peer review is to both evaluate the science/correctness of the work, but also to ensure that this is something novel that is worth telling others about. Does the manuscript introduce something novel into the literature? That is my standard (and the standard that I was taught). I typically look for at least one of three things: new theory, new data/experiments, or an extensive review and summation of existing work. The more results the manuscript has, the more likely it is to meet this novelty requirement.
  - nextn 2y ago
    The more results a manuscript must have, the more work it is to develop the manuscript. Peer review misses 100% of long papers that don't get submitted, where multiple non-outrageous claims were too much work to develop.
paulpauper 2y ago
Lots of co-authors. That is one surefire way to inflate it.
matthewdgreen 2y ago
One of the issues is that we have grad students, and they need to publish in order to travel through the same cycle that we went through. As a more senior scientist I would be thrilled to publish one beautiful paper every two years, but then none of my students would ever learn anything or get a job.

nextn 2y ago

Longer papers with more claims have more to prove, not less. I imagine they would be harder to pass peer review.

tredre3 2y ago
> Longer papers with more claims have more to prove, not less. I imagine they would be harder to pass peer review. Yes, a longer paper puts more work on the peer reviewers (handful of people). But splitting one project in multiple papers puts more work on the reader (thousands of people). There is a balance to strike.
atrettel 2y ago
I agree with your first part but not your second. Most authors do not make outrageous claims, and I surely would reject their manuscript if they did. I've done it before and will do it again without any issue. To me, the point of peer review is to both evaluate the science/correctness of the work, but also to ensure that this is something novel that is worth telling others about. Does the manuscript introduce something novel into the literature? That is my standard (and the standard that I was taught). I typically look for at least one of three things: new theory, new data/experiments, or an extensive review and summation of existing work. The more results the manuscript has, the more likely it is to meet this novelty requirement.
- nextn 2y ago
  The more results a manuscript must have, the more work it is to develop the manuscript. Peer review misses 100% of long papers that don't get submitted, where multiple non-outrageous claims were too much work to develop.

paulpauper 2y ago

Lots of co-authors. That is one surefire way to inflate it.

matthewdgreen 2y ago

One of the issues is that we have grad students, and they need to publish in order to travel through the same cycle that we went through. As a more senior scientist I would be thrilled to publish one beautiful paper every two years, but then none of my students would ever learn anything or get a job.