Should people do research with the motive of publishing journals or innovating something new which can be industrialized?..... Because I came across a lot of publications that lack novelty.
"Because I came across a lot of publications that lack novelty". Too truthful, Tirthankar, but it is "publish or perish." I think that articles are written for the 2 or three reviewers in a narrow field. This causes so many citations that make the paper poorer, and a tendency to overuse or not explain the Jargon which limits the number of people who will read the work
That's why I asked Should All Researchers Present First Then Write the Article Based on the Presentation and Feedback received? see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_All_Researchers_Present_First_Then_Write_the_Article_Based_on_the_Presentation_and_Feedback_received?
I would be honored if you would share your thoughts
Chris
I definitely agree. Novelty sometimes is subtle and needs to be investigated.
There are two sides to this argument, I think.
I agree that the 'publish or perish' pressures may have led to a wave of mundane and mediocre (at best) contributions to the literature, and it may also have invited researchers to 'salami-slice' their work.
The other side is that, if accepting that there is some validity in the Popperian approach to science, there is always a need for published studies that provide results supporting a current way of thinking. Building an evidence base, even when results are not particularly 'novel', can be as useful as presenting truly novel material that could undermine whatever the theory may be at that moment. This, I think, could be particularly true for the natural sciences.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking