As researchers or academicians, do you agreed on the idea “Publish or Perish”?
Researchers/Academicians have to stay abreast with their field. They are, therefore, required to share or participate in the evolution of their field. The time-honored way to achieve that is through publications. Although top journals will publish papers only in their cherished paradigm, researchers will have to stick with their paradigm until they can do better. It seems to me that such a rule is in the Cartesian spirit, for Rene Descartes did advocate that one should follow the rules until one can do better.
I am fully cognizant that researchers and academicians can do other things beside publishing and still hold on to their high rank. But that appears as a second second best alternative.
Yes, with slight modification- publish BIG (I do mean, N/S/Cell/PNAS) and not just numbers - or else there are hardly any takers for academia, faculty positions and industry.
To publish is essential for a researcher's work. Publishing constitutes the community of science, it is the base of the public debate. Nevertheless there are famous counterexamples from scholars who published less, concentrated on their teaching and had tremendous importance for the history of their disciplines : Ferdinand de Saussure or George Herbert Mead. Publish or perish sums up an illegitimate pressure on researchers which is not always helpful and leads up to publishing with pseudo-stakes. Publishing is not the whole story on constructing a consistent scientific biography. Analyzing a researcher's bibliography shows that the number of publications will not be the decisive criterion. It is more important to look at evolving and recurring thematic orientations in a work. So publish or perish is a slogan and it very often occurs that such slogans are half true and half false. My advice would be: publish, but do not lose your critical mind and do it in a sensible way.
Hi Lall, Biswapriya & Charles,
Thanks for the comments to emphasize the importance of publishing after a research work. Nowadays was informed some universities offer another route to researchers / academicians that don't like / too tired to conduct research / publish in which they are allowed to provide paid consulting works to some commercial companies / non-profit organizations. Do you think this is a good alternative for researchers / academicians? Do you think they should also through this consulting experience to write & publish some articles?
Regards,
Fung
Paid consulting work is not an alternative per se. You can even lose your time and your profile as a researcher in it. But it can also be an important source of insights in a particular field. The condition is that you do not become instrumentalized by your patron and that you do not lose your integrity as a researcher. In a positive case your research will gain in pragmatism and become more field related. This is very important in a number of disciplines. Publishing work such contexts means also to reflect on your relationship to the other actors and make it part of your research topic.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher