3 ms·

"Scientists, for whom published articles are the route to promotion or tenure or support via grants" This is the problem. It's not about the quality of the sci

"Scientists, for whom published articles are the route to promotion or tenure or support via grants" This is the problem. It's not about the quality of the science being produced, it's about how many times your name shows up. I'll tell you how one of my former bosses did it. He would do his work at a discounted rate in exchange for them adding him onto their paper. He did good work, but many of the papers he was added on were of a questionable scientific nature. He didn't care though, because he could claim to be published in over 1,000 papers! The other issue besides quality of science, is the blocking of information. I hate hearing about new research paper on X, only to find it hidden behind a paywall. For the journals it has become very much about the almighty dollar and restricting access is part of that. Papers should be free to read in my opinion.

rflrob 12y ago
The idea that quantity strictly beats quality is not uncontroversial, however. There is plenty of evidence of people doing great work (usually also coming from a small-ish set of "superstar" labs), and still doing just fine. See, for instance, this list: http://www.thespectroscope.com/read/its-not-publish-or-perish-but-rather-do-great-science-by-lenny-teytelman-258 http://www.thespectroscope.com/read/its-not-publish-or-peris... I think the fact that all the paper mill instances cited in the OP are from Chinese groups suggests that this is a problem driven by a few broken systems (primarily in the developing world), and not the modern scientific enterprise as a whole.
- kghose 12y ago
  I am sympathetic to your argument, but I would say that the quality dimension is also heavily corrupted, especially in basic science where people rarely retrace experiments, and there is no requirement for a "working product". The word "superstar" labs is itself loaded. Scientific discovery has always been heavily influenced by chance, and the fact that certain labs regularly publish in high profile journals has more to do with political connections rather than the intrinsic quality or impact of their work.

rflrob 12y ago

The idea that quantity strictly beats quality is not uncontroversial, however. There is plenty of evidence of people doing great work (usually also coming from a small-ish set of "superstar" labs), and still doing just fine. See, for instance, this list: http://www.thespectroscope.com/read/its-not-publish-or-perish-but-rather-do-great-science-by-lenny-teytelman-258 http://www.thespectroscope.com/read/its-not-publish-or-peris... I think the fact that all the paper mill instances cited in the OP are from Chinese groups suggests that this is a problem driven by a few broken systems (primarily in the developing world), and not the modern scientific enterprise as a whole.

kghose 12y ago
I am sympathetic to your argument, but I would say that the quality dimension is also heavily corrupted, especially in basic science where people rarely retrace experiments, and there is no requirement for a "working product". The word "superstar" labs is itself loaded. Scientific discovery has always been heavily influenced by chance, and the fact that certain labs regularly publish in high profile journals has more to do with political connections rather than the intrinsic quality or impact of their work.