3 ms·
Not a physicist, but writing one good paper every four years sounds like a very good thing. Would you rather read 40 papers, each of which is a lowest-publishab
by kulkarnic 13y ago
Not a physicist, but writing one good paper every four years sounds like a very good thing. Would you rather read 40 papers, each of which is a lowest-publishable-unit, or 10 which noticeably move science ahead?
Because of his fame, Higgs had the luxury few do--- he could contemplate quietly, and people wouldn't dare say he was doing nothing. If you do that as a mere tenure-track professor, I'd figure the university would think you're too high risk and sack you.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago>Would you rather read 40 papers // That would depend on whether the atom of scientific knowledge in one of those many published papers was what was needed to progress another's/one's own work or not. I'm not suggesting quantity and regularity are better - I don't think you can force scientific progress to adopt a given release schedule - but neither am I happy to say that publicly funded results should be sat on pending a larger breakthrough.