Some Universities only accept research articles for promotion and posts, not books. Is this correct?
From my experience in the UK, peer reviewed papers are the output by which academic performance is judged and this is always based upon the impact factor (IF) of the journals where they are published. This system is not without fault - in a specialist area (such as Addiction) the top journals have modest IF compared to generic publications. From the researchers perspective a book may represent a much wider academic endevour (and may even raise personal funds!), however in most (if not all) UK universities writing papers is cited as one of the key performance indicators upon which an individuals performance (and therefore job) may depend.
It can be anything, a potential paper or a potential book...content matters
Journal articles may be seen as "better" because they have been through peer review.
Information resources are including books as basic knowledge and papers as uptadeted knowledge. It's better not to compare these resources with each other. We share new findings through papers. However, the quality and validity of a paper or a book will determine the value of your work :)
There are no hard and fast rules. I think everyone is expected to have something published in peer reviewed literature and the "impact factor" of the journal, at least compared to others in the field may matter. Books and even book chapters usually have value, too, but they will usually solicit reviews of the scholarly quality of anything that hasn't gone through the peer review process. Not only does this vary by institution, but the disciplines are different, too.
Both are important. Books published by reputable academic publishers go through peer-review process.
Both are important and different things. When you publish you research is something new, a discover! on the other hand, when book is written is because all in it is already done or discovered. The book arranges or line up discovered ideas, nothing new. When a writer writes a book becomes an expert because so many references have been read to be accepted or discarded. That is why the Universities give more points if you wrote a book. They want expert in their staff. But be researcher with the ability to publish new discovering, newborn, likes the Universities too, because the University believes in learn more and more new things, new focus of the nature. The University has to be on advance of the knowledge especially on advance on sciences. The more creative and inventive you are the more points you score will be. Remember many people may have a PhD, but having a PhD does not mean that you have a fertile mind to develop new ideas. Not everyone can! That's why some people prefer to write books, but that do not means that if you wrote a book you are not a creative person able to make a newborn discover..
From my experience in the UK, peer reviewed papers are the output by which academic performance is judged and this is always based upon the impact factor (IF) of the journals where they are published. This system is not without fault - in a specialist area (such as Addiction) the top journals have modest IF compared to generic publications. From the researchers perspective a book may represent a much wider academic endevour (and may even raise personal funds!), however in most (if not all) UK universities writing papers is cited as one of the key performance indicators upon which an individuals performance (and therefore job) may depend.
I feel most of us do things for competition or for want of awards or rewards. I feel a journal article or a book doesn't matter which conveys things in a bit newer perspective and written with sheer interest
For a researcher, i think papers are lifeline. A book offers a much broader perspective and it needs a hell of a lot of contents. But a paper addressses a specific question. If an author wishes to write only a book, then he can do so only once in 3 or 4 years at best, plus the problem of negotiations with a publisher. I say papers at regular intervals and a couple of book chapters every 5 years is good.
For your CV, the article in a high-impact journal is best. In my opinion, the book is better if you want to cover a topic in detail, provide unique insights and pull together myriad resources to explain an important scientific area,. The book also can reach much wider audiences.
Boths are very important. A good journal (high impact factor) sometimes give more credits before publishing a book.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles