4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.