Rick - it depends on many factors. I supervise many PhD students. The recommendation (without Salami-sclicing) is to maximise dissemination throughout the process. A good outcome is a few publications related to the same project i.e. an integrative review (potentially a methodology paper if the methodology is creative and unique) and a final outcome paper. I am also very into mixed methods research - which also potentially adds a few more papers i.e. a delineated qualitative and qualitative paper. As the PhD progresses - then post-doc considerations come in for further related studies and publications. Aligned to this - are the other potential dissemination outcomes i.e. conference proceedings etc.

Of course its thw beginning.

I am a consultant so I generally write 3 papers and/or presentations for each job. A kick off/scope of work presentation an interim review and a final report. The final report often leads to additional work but not always.

Rick - it depends on many factors. I supervise many PhD students. The recommendation (without Salami-sclicing) is to maximise dissemination throughout the process. A good outcome is a few publications related to the same project i.e. an integrative review (potentially a methodology paper if the methodology is creative and unique) and a final outcome paper. I am also very into mixed methods research - which also potentially adds a few more papers i.e. a delineated qualitative and qualitative paper. As the PhD progresses - then post-doc considerations come in for further related studies and publications. Aligned to this - are the other potential dissemination outcomes i.e. conference proceedings etc.

Hi,

Some trouble started with the entrenchment of the “publish or perish” mentality that is prevalent in research institutions, with universities being the chief offenders. The pressure on academics to produce outputs that are quantitative rather than qualitative drives many (I’d imagine younger ones particularly) to latch onto research that they see as justification for survival and eventual tenure rather than scientific merit or currency. Naturally, cutting edge research implies continuity to spawned researches through the associations with later students and other groups of interested researchers, with industry through relevance to the solution of real world problems, and so on. So, in a nutshell, good research should not terminate at one publication.

Good question Rick. For most academics/students the responsibility stops when the paper has been published-this is a key measure of success- a contribution to the ocean of published papers every year. For the very few, depending on what they do and the type of paper, it may then lead to further research, a project design or possibly influence policy. It is a cycle, self-generating and quite an industry!

Thank you for your replies Dean Whitehead R. O. Ocaya .

As an outsider from the oil refining industry looking in at the research community I see a lot of repetition of substantially similar studies. For example there are probably thousands of papers on Fischer-Tropsch and the Shulz-Flory distribution – primarily because it’s a fun subject with interesting mathematics that is unfortunately less economically attractive than methanol production most of the time.

Most of the research papers I see regarding oil refining are small scale and short duration catalyst studies that have extremely limited value for refiners who typically operate 50-100 Kb/D units for 4 to 5 year runs. There is also a tendency to use expensive/rare catalysts like platinum, palladium and rhenium that usually work well but are not usually practical for commercial sized units.

There are also some very good research papers in areas associated with synthetic fuel and renewable energy but they also tend to be highly focused on solutions that are not very practical or have undesirable consequences that are not properly considered.

Glenn Laverack, There is value in reproducing the work of others a few times to make sure it is in fact reproducible but there is also a danger because anytime you go into research with preconceived expectations you are likely to get the result that you expect and may even make you reject a new discovery if/when you stumble upon it.