Statement from Sage (Bad research) Frieda Rosenberg 30 Jul 2002 17:31 UTC
Albert Henderson wrote: > > snip... > The myth of 'excessive publication' has no > factual basis, of course. It is a canard spread by > unscrupulous managers seeking to undermine the > influence of scientists and scholars. Derek de Solla > Price and others investigating questions of > productivity in science established clearly that most > [between 53 to 61 percent of] authors contribute no > more than one paper in a lifetime while about 25 > percent can be called 'very prolific.' [LITTLE SCIENCE > BIG SCIENCE. rev. ed. Columbia University Press 1986] So the "myth" of "excessive" publication (undefined term) has "no factual basis, of course"? How could it, since it's a subjective judgment? Pace Mr Price, who died in 1983 (and whose book detailed the "exponential" --his term-- growth in scientific publication, despite what he may have said about individual productivity), more modern figures constantly repeat the average of between one or two peer-reviewed scientific papers per year per researcher across many scientific disciplines. There is also evidence of similar quotas--a couple of peer reviewed papers a year-- being promoted by academic departments and academic administrations. Incongruously, you accuse the latter in the above paragraph of *condemning* excess research in an attempt to undermine the influence of scholars (although they depend on them to bring in grants, as you say later--the usual theme of administration as all-around whipping boy, whatever the logic. It's also well established that senior researchers have smaller output than junior researchers, that junior researchers suffer from angst about the pressure to publish to even be admitted into the guild, and that quite often junior researchers do the major work on papers bearing a senior researcher's name (usually, along with their own). Check editorials and opinion pieces in The Scientist, e.g., S. Perkowitz, Jan. 1993. Pressure to publish leads to hasty, sloppy work. Hasty and sloppy published work may mislead later researchers, no matter how comprehensive the library collection. Peer review which must be carried out in a week or two can't catch all of that. I am encouraged by attempts of university administrations to look for qualitative measures, and hope they continue in that path despite the lures of grants and cash flow. What is the library's mission? For publishers and their advocates, including yourself, unfortunately, it boils down to one objective: "to get more money and to spend its money for as many of our products as possible;" the only qualitative measure you recognize is acquisitions spending, and any attempt of the library to get off that treadmill meets with your withering scorn. Frieda Rosenberg UNC-Chapel Hill Don't forget that peer review is first applied to > the grant proposals that release billions of dollars, > with an extra 50 cents for overhead for every dollar > actually spent by researchers, to higher education. > > Referees are not provided with libraries that are > comprehensive enough that they can actually check > unfamiliar sources and verify the claims on which > a particular piece of research is based. > > Yes, the reward system is at fault. But it is not > directly connected with tenure and authorship. Ask > why would university administrators support a highly > critical review process that would cost them grants > and cash flow???? >