This is a really important point - I find quality more important because bad research is actually counterproductive: if I publish something that I'm not sure is true, not only is it not helpful, I may actually waste other people's time if they try to replicate it. Unfortunately, many people's careers depend on the quantity of papers, some professors won't let their PhD students graduate without x papers, funding agencies look at the total number of publications and impact factors, etc.

I think deep down most people think quality is more important but because it's easier to count papers rather than read them and most people don't have much time a lot of "judging" is done on quantity. This can lead to the bizarre situation that you need quantity in order to obtain the funding that will let you do quality research...

Not at all irrelevant. It is something all of the researchers need to understand for themselves first and then tell others. I am sure this topic will lead to wonderful insight of the scientific community

I think quality is the main factor for a research paper. In my point of view,always we have to try for new research things.

This is a really important point - I find quality more important because bad research is actually counterproductive: if I publish something that I'm not sure is true, not only is it not helpful, I may actually waste other people's time if they try to replicate it. Unfortunately, many people's careers depend on the quantity of papers, some professors won't let their PhD students graduate without x papers, funding agencies look at the total number of publications and impact factors, etc.

I think deep down most people think quality is more important but because it's easier to count papers rather than read them and most people don't have much time a lot of "judging" is done on quantity. This can lead to the bizarre situation that you need quantity in order to obtain the funding that will let you do quality research...

Quality is the key point, but how may many people are focused on it?

Innovations doesn't come in a day....it develop when u made regular efforts, focused and play in specific area, identify problems and issues related.

I completely agree with you Manuel Schnabel!

Recently, one can hardly reproduce the results by following the protocol already mentioned even in some good journals! That is pathetic! But for a good carrier and/or to get funding, one needs to have only papers (whether genuine or below average)!

My point is, is there some solution to this in the near future or it has to go in this way for the coming few decades?

Let's hope for the best and play our part honestly with devotion!

Dear Ehsan

Quality is the Important that quality.

Both are important.

Of course it is the quality which matters, but the developing competition forces one's to go for quantity rather than quality. As the quantity is inversely proportional to quality, we ultimately compromise with the quality of work done.

Besides the necessity to publish papers at all (in order to get the next research project, a new job, ...), it should be mentioned that not publishing new results is at least as counterproductive as publishing results which may be not completely understood. I remember discussions for years about one experimental finding of mine, due to the co-authors' wish to add here a little bit and there a little bit, so that it might fit for one of the highest-ranked journals ... in the meantime, a lot of people doing research in the same area could have saved a lot of time if this article had been published anywhere. This way of publishing "only the best results in the best journals" is, in my opinion, a waste of time and not fair for all the colleagues for whom also "smaller" results may be helpful.

As for me, it is really difficult to judge, sometimes, you are thinking that you have a perfect paper with only new data and innovation, with a big team of expert in this field, but you are not able to publish it easier in high ranking with 3.0 or higher impact factor. But in other case you have a kind of simple paper with a short local database and with some masters or doctorants, but it is faster accepted in a goo review. I found that there is a big role of a fortune. But you should be fall in love with your paper :), when it will be a best paper!

"Falling in love with your paper" is a wonderful expression - yes, this describes how it should be also in my opinion. I think it's all about doing the best that you can, presenting your results honestly and in the best possible way - the rest is up to editors and reviewers.

Another factor is how to quantify the quality. Whether based on applications or just impact factors.Some times, time only reveals the importance of certain research. Some are waiting for the approvel. So to speak about quality, it is a big matter.

@Yuliya

"Falling in love with your paper"... what an expression! agree with with Andrea Ehrmann.

Quantity and quality, both are important. The researcher can spread their research only through high volume publication.