From my personal point of view it is a dangerous developement just to ask for quantity. The quality of the contributions should be much more considered rather than to put pressure on scientists to publish low quality papers with high redundancy in its content. All discussions of auch numbers should be strongly related to a qualitative judgement which is not only a question of the impact factor of a journal alone but much more the relevance of the article for the scientific community to follow the ideas and results that are presented.
Only one research paper of good quality should be published in a year with an International journal which has more impact factor.
The more you publish, the more chances you will be able to go out there and compete for jobs as the market is very competitive. Now a days, employer look at publication as a good factor that you did well in your research area and you were able to cultivate some results.
It is highly dependent on the type of research you do. High energy groups who work on very large collaborative projects may only publish a few papers a year or every few years. However, I agree with Suneel that one high quality paper published in a high impact journal is both a good rule of thumb and very admirable.
From my personal point of view it is a dangerous developement just to ask for quantity. The quality of the contributions should be much more considered rather than to put pressure on scientists to publish low quality papers with high redundancy in its content. All discussions of auch numbers should be strongly related to a qualitative judgement which is not only a question of the impact factor of a journal alone but much more the relevance of the article for the scientific community to follow the ideas and results that are presented.
Really depends on your position and whether you work in an academic environment where number of publications is used as part of your performance measures or KPI. There is nothing wrong with this as long as the expectations are realistic and staff know what they are. Typical minimum expectations are: lecturer/research fellow 1-2 papers/yr; senior lecturer/senior research fellow 2 papers/yr; associate professor 3 papers/yr; and professor 4-6 papers/yr. These numbers are minimum and they take into account the different levels of opportunities available to staff at different levels. Even though these numbers are indicated as per year, they are better measured as an average over a three year period which recognizes variation in yearly staff performance. Also doing it this way, you are not putting undue pressure on staff to perform year -in-year out even if they have other challenging/demanding tasks at work. Regardless of the number of publications, staff should be encouraged always to publish in high impact journals within their respective fields/areas, recognizing that impact factors vary considerably for different disciplines.
May be 1 or 2 and depends on the quality of work carried out by you. If you are in a research time and carry out collaborative work then probably you may expect more publications. But the thing is not quantity of work rather look into quality with high impact publications.
The question is good and pertinent. The papers, their quality, their citations and their number per year are the fundamental elements in the academic career and determine its pogression. To write a good paper some conditions should be fulfilled, such as an interesting idea, capacity (human and technical) of a laboratory to realize it, good contacts with other labs if something should be made elswhere. I would say, that on the beginning of the career in an university, one to two papers a year is a correct average. Then, if the quality of the papers is good, it start to be easier to attract ambitious students,to find the financial support and, last but not least, to know, by participating in conferences, which problems are important to work on. Then the number of papers may start to increase. I would add that this number is not a real goal. Inversely, the high quality of papers is very important. Finally, after a few years, four to six papers a year can be achieved. If the field, is progressing rapidly, it is useful after having published a few papers to write a review. Such review help in transforming research into science.
Hard to say, different disciplines have different directions. In my field (production research) and at our department, the PhDs should have published approx. 5-6 papers (mostly conference papers) for their licentiate thesis (which is done after 2-3 years) which means 2-3 paper a year. It is the same for the doctoral thesis, but it is mostly journal papers in the doctoral thesis!
I agree with the others that you should look for quality instead of quantity. The impact factor for our journals are between 0.4-1.2 so it is a big difference due to other disciplines!
The No. of paper published for every year in the journal with impact factor is depend on the following:-
1- Your environment, is it scientific environment or not.
2- Depend on your affiliation, is it your affiliation from the first world country Such as USA , UK, Germany , ……etc or not.
3- Depend on the name of the Journal and its impact factor.
Actually any staff member for engineering (Assistant, Associate and Professor) can published every year Four papers maximum with high quality.
Unfortunately 'Science' has become all about publishing papers instead of getting a product out for the betterment of humanity or universe in a bigger sence. As a scientist or engineer or scholar of any subject, we should try to invest out time and intellect in studies which we believe can do good to our civilization. Publishing should be a means to convery the findings to others, but should never be our ultimate aim.
Sad question. Like medicine, it's working for HMO's not for medicine at least in the USA. If a quantity is necessary I would give 2 excellent ones and 2 additional sub papers on the two, for there maybe some reflections. If it requires considerable data collection then wavers to eliminate numbers. Otherwise, as many as is necessary to get an idea out for however long.
The number of papers is becoming a real worrying question now a days especially when many grants require a certain number of first author publications. It is demoralizing for scientists to be judged on the number of papers rather than the quality. A balance would be say aim at least one paper in a respectable journal (not sky high) per year and then maybe a good one every two to three years. Collaborate more.
Also remember the field you are in. If its a life sciences, biophysics and such areas, the turnover can be much lower compared to most other faculties. Most faculty in many sciences fields tend to overlook this fact (especially when u are a physicist applying techniques and solving life science problems).
Strongly depends on the field of research. For an algebraic geometer, one paper every 2 years is ok. For an experimentalist in spectroscopy, 5-6 per year is decent.
Once i publish 10 papers per year- i felt quality is coming down
better to restrict to five
one single author paper is enough to speak for you
It depends on many factors such as the research field, writing skills, contributors, facilities. However,being the first author with contribution of more than 50%, the number of papers decrease. Researchers as supervisors can involve in more papers.
As long as we do not differentiate properly the difference between academics and research,we can not have control either on the number of publications or on the quality of research work.
I think the question is not really serious, although I see many serious answers in this thread. One should publish what can be published, and should not published what shouldn't be published. As a few people have said here, the number depends on the field of activity, and on position.
If you are a professor supervising 10 graduate students, the expectation would be one paper per graduate student every two years. If a PhD student has more than one per year It is a very successful PhD; in addition, you may have personal collaborations with colleagues...But you can also happen to be in a university with high teaching loads and fewer graduate students, so the number of publications (peer-reviewed) really depends on opportunity...
In my personel point of view, quality is more important than quantity. If somebody has 100 nos. of 100 Dollar or Euro and another person has 1000 nos. of 1 dollar or 1 euro coin.Just like if somebody have 10 JACS article in his credit and somebody have 50 articles in some IF journal, then one can measure the research contribution between these two. Sometimes it depends on also area of research.
Dear Owen
Its a nice question although not serious. Its really depends upon the area of research work. Alexander is right. Secondly a supervisor could publish more papers if he/she has more students. But high IF papers is necessary for a student for higher studies. One could get a good postdoctoral jobs if he/she could have high IF papers. No. is really not the matter in research but the quality of research work is important.
Cheers...
Gobinda
Dear Owen
It is a nice question. One should honestly publish the papers containing the perfect, meaningful, exact especially socially oriented data. I do not think it depends position, pressure, money, self oriented, etc. but it should be dedicated to the science, arts, etc. community. For example, Einstein's some specific important work is more valuable than 1000 JACS papers. So, for personally, you have to chose which path you follow i.e. a lot of papers or the best one whatever you have done in your life time.
Best luck
Niranjan
I feel the question should be addressed as number of papers in indexed peer-reviewed journals, that are cited. So it should be number of citations, keeping in mind to avoid the citation cartels. I think three to four research papers is good enough.
I wish I could answer you but I think it depends on many factors: where you work, what you study, how much you work and how much it is relevant the IF and don't forget the % of lucky. I don't think you can anticipate how many papers you gonna publish per year.
IF has become questionable today, especially when many journals in the transitional mode towards IF in the humanities discipline. For example, the oldest journal in my discipline in India which even the Supreme Court of India referred to, does not even have the IF listed. So till the time we have moved away from this transition phase, IF may not be an objective formula for all disciplines of research
I have purposely kept the question very broad and therefore I hoped it would open up a larger discussion.
I agree it depends on the area - for example environmental studies involve quite a bit of field work over many seasons, some experiments must be a large scale. THis lends to fewer but higher impact journals. Other studies can be at laboratory scale and therefore be shorter in nature.
I like the quality over quantity idea. But I am also aware that for some people quantity is important for promotions and funding.
I encourage my students to delve into both controlled concise laboratory studies and also then a larger field component. This allows them to publish within their PhD but also to expect a bigger output towards the end of the work that will help them in their careers.
Keep the conversation going its all very interesting.
Quality is more important than quantity. In some fields like Maths the number of co-authors and citations compared with Biomedicine are fewer and this condition determines their impact factor. National and regional interests must be taken into account and in this case, impact factor can´t reach higher numbers, generally minor than 1.0, but they improve the knowledge of a given disease. Genetics need sometimes a huge number of authors, moreover if the study describes a rare disease.
I'm a bit sad to say that eventhough quality is much more important than quantity, it is obvious that too few excellent papers are not so well received. This was less the case several decades ago but the huge increase in opportunities also leads people to believe that few publications means not enough work/research/dedication (pick the one you prefer!).
This is unfortunate because PhD students tend to over publish in some labs and domains, with high redundancy with their own previously published work and peers previous work (incl. due to the impossibility to read and assimilate the amount of published work from so many sources).
Quality in publication can be retained if the metrics are not completely focused on the number, and there is diversity in the researcher's work. Then we could probably ask the question where do you publish, rather than how many papers to publish.
But we should not confuse quality with impact factor of the journals. A quality low IF journal paper still attracts good citations -- I have at least one 1.2 IF paper that has more citation than two IF 13+ paper together. Every paper written should pass our own judgement of quality and we are the best judges of our own work. If ever, such standards exceed our own benchmark -- go for high IF glossies. Remember though even if we have published one, two or few high IF glossy paper(s) quality and reputation of a researcher is a long term goal. Important is to achieve and constantly excel in your goal, quality and aim of research. This may sound like "sour grapes" but I do not necessarily need to publish in "glossy journals" to prove my scientific prowess. Having said that I will still continuously try to publish in high IF glossies -- no matter what. Every year I start with a goal of publishing 24 papers a year (yess!!) -- last year I did 10 peer reviewed articles, the year before 4 or 3, the year before 2,......., the year before last one 0. The question in hand is of course pertinent -- as we all need to come out of the coma of IFs; but ridiculous that we are even trying to look for a number (of papers) expected out of us per year.
How many articles should one publish per year? As many as he/she can. As many as the results permit.
I am talking about experimental papers, as I don't believe that theoretical papers can be generated at the same rate...
I also refer to good peer-reviewed articles. In the year you start a post-doc for example you have still-to-be published results from your PhD and you start having results from the new research...hurry up and produce the papers as long as the work is fresh in your mind, and the team of co-workers is still there...Trying to chase people who moved is a challenge...
I agree that it depends on whether you focus on the quality or the quantity. However, I think this topic is also related to which area you are in. In some areas, the experiment period is relatively short and it is easy to publish several papers within a year; on the other hand, in some areas, it takes more than 1 year to finish one project and hence it is possible to have nothing within one year.
Quantity is not a measure but quality is important. To reach enough depth of a topic depends upon individuals intellectual skill, resources available, environment and zeal. If one go on working continuously on various topics of individuals interest, than one may have multiple works in pipe line and this is the way one may optimise research work. But, still I feel personally, one should not go on quantity only should concentrate on quality
One or two, but in right way. For some researchs, the best work is done by the students in obtaining the results. You must be enouth "sure" that yours results are obtained in right way and they are giving right information. However, is many published works based on wrong understanding and takes long time to improoved it. So better is published only the ideas that will be developed by other researchs in the future. In the case it is possible to add new results to ideas that was published before, you are in the right direction.
in the absence of any parameter H index and if would continue, WE know what we are. but quantifying research is dangerous
In this case I mean peer reviewed journals with an IF.
My strategy has been to try and publish in a wide variety of journals within my research area. Initially I started with national journals, then a mix of national and international. Also initially I had more first author stuff. Whereas now I supervise. I work on at least 2 a year principle but quality and novelty is my main purpose.
All interesting points here.
Paper publication per year? As many as possible, so far they are educative, current and "not-watery" but having good Impact Points
I think the best answer is it depends about the topic, journal, impact factor of journal. But, it is better to keep working and working. logic it would be once a year.
I think one should make a consultation with the department/institution's publication policy before deciding on the numbers/journals. First address must be to value allotted to each author in a multi author paper. Since publication is directly linked with the career progression, address needs to be made to a valid publication policy, rather than a subjective opinion on numbers and IF
Without thinking about the quantity one should do quality work. That should be a novel work. It doesn't matter whether the paper will be published in high IF or low IF journal, but the number of citation matters. And this depends upon the quality of works.
Its around 5-10 a year. But if you have research group you will publish more
It's a pity that researcher/academician couldn't escape the realm of being evaluated based on the quantity and/or impact factor of their publication. I truly agree with Gobinda Behera that the actual performance assessment system should be based on the number of citation, which reflects the quality of your work. You might get various responses about the number of publication one has to publish in a year. But don't let those figures impede the creativity in you to pursue your interest in science. Let your passion be the guide to discovering and unveiling the magical world of science.
It is very difficult to publish paper on sponsored project.Scientist can publish paper in the area of fundamental aspects . I agree with Gobind Behera and Samit Gupta answer. Researchers should be encouraged to publish quality paper in high impact factor journals.
It depends on your research field and topic. But just think more about the quality of work. It also depends on whom you are. If you have a big group, you might publish 20 or more. If you work alone, one or two is enough. It is not good in case you just expect the quantity as much as possible.
High impact factor journal encourage researchers to do quality research. Its difficult to publish one full length research paper in high impact journal every year. Once in 2 years it is possible to publish one paper in the field of plant science/life science/agriculture sciences. However, one short communication can be published per year. I expect only one research paper in impact factor journal per year if u r purely in research field.
As my experience says publishing applied research is difficult, whereas, basic research are more easily accepted by the IF journals. Agriculture field researchers work for the solutions which have application in the field and practice by farmers. these types of research works are preferred to publish as popular articles rather than research papers in scientific journals.
For research careers need to work on basic concepts, for serving society work on applied aspects. these are confusing many researchers to choose the research to work. where in which publication comes in between.
Many thanks to Dr. Sukla and Wee for supporting my answers. There are so many factors for publishing papers. Anyway one should do quality work. Furthermore one should concentrate in his/her research work without thinking about the paper. If one could get good results then it will be better for him/her to write good paper. And once you represent your work in well manner then you could publish in a good journal. This could indirectly connect to the citation factor.
In my opinion, a number of articles that have been directly involved should be considered for above question. In which case, they are usually 2-3.
Dear Owen,
I think it is not the quantity what matters, but the quality.
Cheers Oznur
I agree; it is not the quantity, but the drift in knowledge which matters. Thus, the emphasis must be on quality. In any case, the research
outcomes must be published before it it is too late -- because "the work not published is the work not done".
it depends on the field you work. For science and engineering, it is easier to publish some papers after experimental and theoretical investigation, and hence more papers will be published in this kind of research groups. In my opinion, paper's quality not only depends on the impact factor of the journals, but also rely on the recognition (citation) of this paper in corresponding science community. It is not reasonable that universities and institutions only evaluate the scientific staffs by simply counting the quantity of the paper.
Citation factor along with I.F.needs to be taken into account for judging the researcher.
Dear Arzoo,
According to the previous comments, the scientific positions require higher IF. While in general cases it is somewhat different. Although high IF is a measure of creativity, but more publication can be a sign of activity and a variety of interests. The main matter depends on the perspective of the evaluator.
While a reasonable balance is needed between quantity and quality, but i think that behind the high IF, the main assessment criterion should be the level of effective participation in the research process and preparation of the publications.
Well Folks,
In my opinion, IF should not be the parameter as IF is calculated on the basis of number of citations of a particular research work. Even some journals of repute have quite low IF but they publish some quality work only.
As far as job is concerned, the quality of research and the knowledge of the candidate should be considered rather than mere figures of number of publications and/or IF
How IF of the journal can be decided?
Some journals have good IF but accepting the worth of the work is very low, Is it depeneds on the Scientist name in the Society?
@gul e Arzoo
Dear Arzoo
No. of publication doesn't matter if they are not of good quality works. So many RG contributors have already told about the quality of work( citation). Hope you could have got your answer which one will get the job. Obviously the one having high IF journal.
@Nalajala Nageswara Rao
Dear Rao
You may be right as it happens sometimes. Besides the work there are also some other factors which could help the author to publish in a high IF journal. But its very rare. Anyway without worrying about this go ahead with your research work.
All the best........
There are vast differences in IF across disciplines. In agricultural sciences the best journals are approximately< IF 5. This is quite different for example in plant science or medical journals.
I also think where you come on the publication is important.
Also people work at different scales and durations of studies differ. This may lead to more or less papers.
Guntram! "judging the researcher" would most likely mean that if two researchers of the same qualifications apply for a job with you, you would have to judge each candidate's merit based on several factors/criteria that you would create. One of these criteria could be "publication-oriented madness".
The expectation of quality seems universal. The quantity seems to the issue. We are just looking for the commonly expected norms for publications in various walks of science, I suppose.
It is only a suggestion to allow the flexibility for individuals (employers). To make conclusion based on their total perception from their own experiences. Not mandating it. I'm actually agreeing with you in principle that decisions should be made based on total scientific value not just publication. But if an experienced individual is making a decision ("judgment") based on his or her prior knowledge and feels that publications may be the "tie breaker" or more, then they should have such options available. There is always the ultimate lever of subjectivity that each of us exercises anyway.
Guntram! It was not long ago that both Copernicus & Galileo were attributed with the same ailment as you have ascribed many here, "mad", by the "earth is flat" and/or the "earth is center of universe" crowd. Such ailment was even attributed to folks like Moses, Jesus, The Wright Brothers, Einstein, Gandhi, by some of their contemporaries. I'm sure you mean it in jest. So do I.
research publication has become a highly subjective activity, especially with the increasing presence of publishing business houses.. Measuring it by either IF or the number of citations is not fool-proof method, what with the increased role of chain publishing and citation cartels.
Addressing this situation requires serious debate on the publication processes. For example one should publish in different journals, and publishing in the same journal repeatedly should affect the IF and citation value of that researcher; another issue to be addressed is the number of authors to a paper, huge numbers should be discouraged, as most of this is only to increase the IF of the author in the metrics systems of various institutions;
While it is highly subjective to decide a person's research by the number, I suggest that the number remain only a factor of motivation and publishing in a variety of journals in a domain area.
Well another question could be: how many papers should a researcher review for a journal each year? I review a range and it typically takes me half a day to a day to complete my review. Sometimes the quality of reviews I get from my own submitted papers is good but sometimes very poor.
some academic institutions do not attach value to being a reviewer for journals, only editorial board membership counts.
but for me, the fundamental question remains, except for situations where number matters in career progression issues, why are we discussing this question of quantity of work. All of us here are agreed that despite being through situations where number of papers and such other arbitrary factors have been imposed upon researchers, quality is the only determining factor. Every contributor here has in his/her own language discouraged number as the determining factor, so I suggest we forget the NUMBER(S) as an issue requiring so much of discussion, and discuss other issues in research publication - improving quality of research publications, diversity in research journal presence, taking research work through academic discussion before journal publication etc.
Sai! The original question: "How many papers are people expected to publish a year? What impact factor must these journals be?"
Owen's original intent was perhaps to get an idea of what each of us thought about the reasonable expected number of publications per researcher per year. We have quite a few opinions and I'm beginning to get the idea without actually participating in the "rat race" for the past three and half decades. I realize now that it is obviously a lot more involved than just the "numbers". All your comments are certainly enlightening! Thanks to each of you.
Ananth, publishing is lot more than mere numbers. Review reports are sometimes insinuating.
I have seen easy acceptance if I add more authors to the work,, orthe supervisor,'s name.
again research from certain geographic regions is watched with suspicion.
Again some journals with few business houses have exorbitant fees. Anyone willing to pay the fees stands a better publication chance. How can IF work in such a scenario.
Sai! I wouldn't know and refused to participate in paying to publish my discoveries. I'll do so only to market a potential idea or discovery. Then it becomes a marketing decision. I'll pay what it is worth to me based on the mileage I could get. In my case, I refused to publish since the publishers had no way of depicting pseudo colors 3 decades ago. Then I moved on to other industries with no such requirements. Now I'm ready to go. I see RG as a viable tool for promoting good scientific ideas. The feed-back seems to be a lot more erudite than many other networks. The technical expertise of contributors is exceptional as well. I'm impressed in the short time I've been involved with RG. Seems like a free flow of ideas. Exciting!
RG seems to be an exciting place.
I wish they address the issue of negative score. If a researcher doesn't participate in any discussion for a week, his score is down--sized. Now RG cannot be treated like a vocation. To overcome this problem we find researchers uploading their work and not participate in the q&a.
I hopethe career metrics take price of RG score!!!
Don't let those things bother you Sai. Just be genuine and post your mind. There are sufficient pontificators here to review and critique your opinion. I like that. You really can't get away with BS. Someone is sure to call you out on it. True in the LinkedIn network as well. I post to sharpen my acumen.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=63121884&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
In response to Sai And we are scored for what reason on this researchgate? This is a rhetorical question. It's like asking how many publications? If you are doing excellent work then publish that excellence, if it's for a buck or for some other reason that is not for excellence or quality would you want to publish it. I have read papers that give a slight twist on the same theme. It's boring, nothing new. It would certainly save money, paper and refocus on what's really important. And make research fun rather than having to reach some quota. It would also put the decisions on the researchers. If one is teaching then teaching would substitute for not publishing. What could be more beneficial. If having fun publishing because one has something worthwhile to communicate that's beneficial. But, to simply do it to meet a quota is poor understanding of what research is.
My opinion is exactly the same as the two previous comments. Quality should definitely be higher valued than quantity. Science and being a scientist has unfortunately become a matter of being measured in numbers. It is much more fun to do science just for the fun of doing science. If there is something worth to be published one should of course publish it in a journal where it fits best. If one has a own group, thus PhD students and postdocs, or good collaborations the number of papers will automatically increase. While looking for a job or funding the recent years I realized, that the h-index has become more and more important than actually the number of papers. So, a long publication list with a low h-index is less worth than a shorter publication list with a high h-index. That the h-index is a rather arbitrary measure with a lot of flaws is of course not considered. In my opinion there is a difference in what one has published, if e.g. one was the main author or not and what the contribution in a co-authored papers was. This makes a huge difference and is not considered in the h-index.
I repeat, the more publications the merrier on condition s that they are not wortless and directed to some egocentric uplifment. Write to the benefit of everybody.
My personal rule of thumb is about one first-authored paper per year. That´s what I´ve managed easily over the last decade, and it hasn´t done me any harm so far!
"Less is more" - the quality of what you write should guide you!
Absolute quality is yet to be defined
We live in the world of competition - certainly numbers matter - if you take science as a carrier take via media route
One shouldn't worry about the no. of papers to be published in every year rather to concentrate in his/her work. One should do novel and quality work. Hard work, dedication, sincerity in your research will give you a good results and that will help you to publish your work in a good journal.
All the best to all researchers who have been contributing their efforts in this scientific world.
I agree with all the views that the focus towards quality and dedicated work is important rather than the quantity. In addition, it will be interesting if a new factor could be introduced inclusive of the present impact factor, RG score and other ratings which can project the complete potential of a researcher..
At least one paper a year on a peer-reviewed international journal, possibly with a high impact factor.
Definitely, I prefer improved quality over quantity. Also, the quantity of papers you published depends on the experiment and on the field of science you are researching.
I believe no numbers must be given to the two questions above. It should not be a criteria at all. But of course, our research are sponsored by funding agencies. These funding agencies (bosses!) need to see results. We should concentrate on doing good quality science and publish as many as possible. We should of course seek to publish in reputed journals. However, if we set some numbers as our target, we may end up publishing low quality work just to achieve the target.
On the other hand, having a target (let it be reasonable) can be a valuable driving force.
For example, in my University, Professors are set a target to publish at least three papers a year. An Associate professor has a target of two papers a year and a lecturer has to publish at least one paper a year. Many do meet this target and some far exceed them. There are also others who don't meet the target for a given year.
The answer may alternatively generate from knowing- Why I am writing a paper?
1. It can be a requirement in job performance.
2. You think something you have worked or you know is important and that should be published to benefit the discipline.
3. Both the above 1 and 2 can determine the number of paper someone published in a year.
Always quality goes down with quantity. Hence at least one paper a year in a peer-reviewed international journal, possibly with a high impact factor.
Does responding to this question help my RG score? Less time cruising social networks + more time on the bench = better scientist.
Dr Bates: Yes, responding does raise your RG score if it is voted up, but from the numbers I see I don't think you have to worry about that...:-)
Regarding the question itself, I am repeating myself here, there is no correct answer. It depends on the field. Some journals are very selective, which means that the time to get a paper published can be very long, but once the research is established more papers can be generated...
Dr. Bates: Sorry, I had to rate down your answer since you did not answer to the question of Owen. Just answering to influence the RG score and philosophising about it is pointless. I agree with the previous comments that quality is better than quantity. Stop thinking about rating scientists by numbers! This is just stupid. Due to this thinking of making the number of publications so important, scientists nowadays publish a lot of stupid things. On the other hand, the Hirsch-Index (a measure for the number of citations the publications have got) has become more important than actually the total number of publications and In Research Gate we are measured bby the RG score. One can waste a lot of time by thinking about and checking these numbers. In my opinion this just destroys the fun of doing science. Anyway, as stated in the previous comments 1-2 papers a year is a good rate for an active scientist.
If any of you are involved with materials or X-ray Diffraction, then here are some tools to help improve both the quality and quantity of your publications & stop complaining of either (lol):
Come join us and share in the wealth of knowledge. Free Webinar, July 12 at 11am EST on X-ray Diffraction Techniques in Transmission Geometry
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2683600&type=member&item=252069645&commentID=149420591&goback=%2Egmr_2683600&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_149420591
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture
- Soil Science
- Soil