Across world, we are generating billions of technical papers or new ideas every year, but converting them into a reality is less than a percentage, then what else motto we have to generate such a massive content?
Most of those papers are not at all meant to be more than that! Reality??? (And Billions? I think the amount is rather a lot less.)
In my field of math we are often done when the theorem is proven - there is not necessarily a "reality" to connect with, except to tie that theorem with other theorems in order to create a beautiful framework of new knowledge.
Mathematicians are a bunch of clever people who are inquisitive - and quite often, sometimes several years later, someone will notice that some of that math can actually be utilised in the real world also - and in fact I see that more often than I had expected.
My position - some days, anyway - is that among the standard useless drivel that is published in every field, in fact, are a very few diamonds. And they are soooo good that it is worth all that useless drivel. Because, you see, even an idiot can - by mistake even - state something that doesn't make sense to more than one individual, but that individual can transform that drivel into something really good. Can you see what I mean?
The population of human beings on our planet is roughly 7.6 Billion. So, on average, according to your analysis - there are at least a few Billion papers written per year. Excuse me, but i think you have misjudged the size of the World's academic system's population somewhat. :-)
Publications vary in their qualities and usage. Some may provide or target applications; others may cover basic elements in the field. I think the scope of journals and the type of papers each publishes will make the balance. However, I agree with your point; maybe we need to look into the big picture and see if the outcomes are balanced or not.
Dear Dr.Chandrakant Naikodi, I am convinced that a large basis of fundamental research is necessary so that practical uses will eventually evolve. Quite often you cannot immediately plan for practical uses, but you never know if and when someone else finds out that your basic research can be utilized in reality.
Frank T. Edelmann And that is a very strong argument to allow many scholars to do what the heck they want - since there will be (among the usual drivel) several extremely good and useful article for mankind!
Chandrakant, this is a stark revelation. It would be interesting to find out how many papers are actually rejected by top journals (i.e. CABS 3* or 4*) as well as what the reasons for the rejections are. It would also be interesting to find whether, over a period of time, there appears to be a pattern in the reasons fro the rejections.
One sorry trend, that I have already mentioned, is that the survey part tend to shrink, partly I think (until being contradicted from a trusted source) because the editors want more news, and less history.
Dear Michael Patriksson, I fully agree with you in this point. Fortunately, in our field of research (chemistry), several renowned journals (ZAAC, Organometallics) occasionally publish Historical Reviews such as the one attached.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers