I think it is important for scientists and researchers to carefully and diligently build their own personal reputation by (i) having more publications, (ii) if possible have some good single-authored papers, and (iii) get cited by top scholars.

From my experience, I understand that, at the end of one's research career, no one is gonna care about the research lab or faculty or University you worked at. The research community mostly care about how much research you did in your time and how many people found your work to be relevant for their own research and cited your research while doing theirs (talking about citations).

The "fast science" model can help a researcher to produce more publications and many citations within a short time.

But the focus should be on relevance of published research. Not just publishing for the sake of it.

It can also be argued that the fast science model can help a researcher become relevant in their field within a short term.

Old "post-communist" joke...

during socialism, it was recommended (read obligatory) to cite V.I. Lenin as the father of communism. After the arrival of computers, somebody made the task to check his citation and discovered that some of the most cited sentences Lenin never wrote. If everybody used it nobody controlled the value of a citation.

I am not a historian of science, but I think big scientist spend 40% of the time on preparation of their work and 60% on it justification in form of letters, discussion, comments and so on. How much it is now? 97/3?

The citation should be the expression of discussion and confrontation with the research. It is still filling that function or it is the simple instrument of "scientific marketing"?

Dear colleaguess,

Your ( Rastislav Strhan ) idea is interesting. It would certainly deserve more attention and reflection.

P.S. The joke conjured up a smile on my face.

Thank you.

Dear Rastislav Strhan,

Title of this discussion: Fast food, fast fashion, ..... fast science - intrigued me. I hope it doesn't. We are obliged to publish in relation to the affiliated institution. However, in my opinion, discussions on scientific topics are important, because in this way the exchange of experience from conducted research takes place. In addition, discussions can inspire a research team to work together on a specific topic and carry out a research project.

Best regards, Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Dariusz,

I participated at several seminars and webinars where the importance of discussion about article topic before and after printing was underlined.

For me is that theory. It would be great to read here that important part of published articles go through such pre- and post-publishing discussion process. In my experience it is close to zero.

It such discussion outside my environment exists, am I probably on wrong position ;o))) If other have similar experience, question if it is good and why that happens is reasonable.

We may not like the so-called fast industries, but they make our day to day easier and more comfortable. We no longer break our heads when we need a quick bite or new clothes for a teenager. We get what we need, and we get it fast. Fast industries guarantee us accessibility, quality and service standards. The digital revolution and affordable internet access arrived in the 1990s and made almost any B2C industry (always fragmented) fast. Grocery shopping became fast due to internet orders and delivery services, Amazon became the largest provider of daily purchases. Our way of buying almost everything from transportation services to flowers has changed. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2020/10/20/with-success-in-fast-food-and-fast-fashion-is-it-time-for-fast-education/amp/