In recent years, there has been more publishing and less reading of scholarly works. This dedication not only advances knowledge but also enhances their professional reputations in their respective fields. Such dedication has advanced knowledge and enhanced their professional reputations in their respective fields. This dedication to publishing can lead to a cycle where researchers prioritize producing new work over engaging deeply with the existing literature. Moreover, while such an approach may contribute to a higher volume of research output, it may also result in a potential disconnect between new findings and established knowledge. All in all, the balance between publishing and thorough reading is crucial for maintaining the quality and relevance of academic contributions.
See my and others' replies to these related discussions:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_consequences_of_publish_or_perish_culture_in_academia/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Quantity_vs_Quality/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_quantity_of_research_scientific_output_associated_with_its_quality/1
Yes, I think we are. I am not sure this is a positive thing. It depends. It’s definitely true that the end goal of research is to discover something new and publish thus making said knowledge available to the world. However, I think that when we read and engage with the scientific literature (be it books, papers, conferences), we have a better chance of having new original ideas, since our heads integrate all knowledge into one big whole thing. I think this is where great ideas are born.
Academia pushes us to “publish so as to not perish”, so we have to publish, but we need to also prioritize learning and engaging with what other people have published and learnt.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology