The problem is not publication per se, but bibliometrics applied to scientists. Things could be even worse if we were evaluated by the number of grants we obtain. We are bound to publish, because this is the way to communicate our findings, IF we judge them important. However, quality or creativity has nothing to do with quantity. Moreover, people can adapt to bibliometrics evaluation in order to survive. Therefore, it is the combination of intense competition and bibliometrics that kills science. We can imagine the same in literature, if writers could only survive if they publish best sellers. They would all end up in writing biographies of celebrities or recipe books.

I hope that this answer will increase my RG score ;-).

Yes, Naveen you are right. Actually, in most of our institues outcome is judged by numer of paper published, not from the quality of work you are doing.

Yes in general you are both absolutely right. Especially in basic science the system has become almost purely publication based. The more and the better ranked papers you make the higher and better your reputation and the more likely it becomes that you gain access to public funding, the system has become a bit perverted. Seeing publications with lots of contributors where the front page can hardly hold the names of the authors and the abstract is a good indication that the reason is not the cooperation (which is something very valuable) but just to get the credits. In extreme cases the pressure to publish has led to fraud and public scandals but the moral codex which has been taught to us scientists has up to now prevented the worst.

In engineering the situation is still a bit different even if we can observe the same increasing tendencies. Still to find a technical solution to a problem and develop something useful which can be implemented (for the benefit of mankind) and possibly sold (for the benefit of the company) is the main driving force.

Yes and no. Clearly there is more pressure around to make your valuable research results available to the public: Institutes, funding agencies, the society as a whole all want that you to 'do excellent research and speak about it'.

(If results are not good, you should not publish it.:-))

In engineering sciences the culture may differ a bit because sometimes economical pressure (patents etc.) may prevent researchers to publish their results quickly.

Although a lot of criticism is sometimes in the chats about recent developments, scientific publications are an important part of our discussion culture in science.

So, if you have excellent new results you should present it to the community to allow a discussion and the use for further research.

Good luck with your research! Michael

For the publications, since reviewers approve your work, it demonstrates that you are contributing to science. However, this should not be the only metric for measuring a scientist's worth. Citations of original papers should be a better standard than the mere publications

Yes sir the young researchers mind set became like that with good journal publication only they will get some identity as researcher but unfortunately the surrounded situations also making them think like that.some times its making them to make false research also with modified results.

Yes, Research is becoming too publication/grant oriented.

Until researchers get tenured, many of them are forced to go after projects that are easily fundable and publishable.

Many of the standards set by journals are arbitrary and can get in the way of science; think of how many famous scientist have had publications rejected for lack of "novelty."

Yes and no, as was said before, but more "yes" than "no". In Europe, where "tenure" provides much less independence than in US the research is very much publication-oriented if you get your funding from public sector (in any shape or form) - get a few publication in good journals and you can steamroll your way into EU grant applications, especially if you are from a small EU country like Baltic States, or new EU member states - where competition is fierce, but overall level of competition is low when it comes to high-impact publications.

In a way the journals are as much to blame as the funding agencies, because if you choose to pursue a relatively unknown topic without a "specific journal" that publishes research on it, you might face significant dificulties getting your results published no matter how good they are - the huge amount of publications for peer-review makes reviewers reject papers out of hand if the title does not sound exciting - have not had it happen to me outright, but I've seen colleagues struggling to publish perfectly acceptable results simply because they were not "exciting enough".

You can find exceptions to every rule of course, if you look, and there are good number of established research groups that made their bones in obscure topics, but if you are not young researcher with a great post-doc position behind you and some great publications out of it, you have to do both "research to publish" and "publish to research" at the same time and that is not a good situation to be in.

The days of the likes of Henry Cavendish are over, for better or worse.

Naveen, you have raised a very significant question which most people try to avoid. We should not conduct research just to get publications. Instead, publications should be a by-product of a research designed to solve a problem or create a new idea. Solving the problem or creating a new idea is an achievement that can provide much needed solution and can, in some cases lead to patents or new products. It is interesting here to think what happens if you have a patentable idea from a research, the general advise is usually not to publish until the patent application has been lodge. This is completely opposite to the publication driven research strategy which is now widely common. Yet, it is equally as important and, perhaps, more rewarding and more satisfying. My advise is to avoid the number game approach to research and focus on real problem-solving research. This way you can still have opportunity to publish high quality papers, even if it is of lesser quantity.

There has been on-going discussion about how the impact of research can be measured. This is not easy, but it is not simply based on the number of publications. Rather it is based on the true practical benefit(s) of the research outcomes. The only problem with this measure is that those benefits may take a long time to be realised.

There are ultimately positive and negative draw backs to our current publication system: more checks and balances on scientist's work, but it can restrain creativity. Which is better depends on the scientist.

Agree to Dr. Michael Mannen's statement.

All the journals has to think aloud in this regard.

To discourage this futile publications all the journal has to revamp their standards set for their publications . Before publishing any research papers they have to ascertain the importance/usefulness of the research work with respect to the needs of the Society/ Nations. If it doesn't have the significance, then it should not be published in any journals. This will help to change the attitude of those researchers who always generates the junk publications by the misusing the public funds.

Vladimir, With respect to tenure in the US vs. Europe, I'm afraid that difference may not survive long. Many universities/colleges are adopting "post-tenure review" procedures that essentially require continuted "productivity," I.e. all tenure gets one is a few years certain employment and the protection of academic freedom. Of course according to our handbook, all faculty tenured or not are protected by academic freedom, so it's not clear what tenure really gets you. All of which means the problem of research being publication driven is probably going to get worse since even faculty at "teaching" colleges are being driven to publish in "high impact" journals.

The problem is that the Universities are no longer run by their faculty but rather by administrators who see the University as a corporate business. Hence evaluations are done by numbers of publications rather than quality of the body of knowledge produced (how would they know quality if not productive scientists themselves?). The system is killing the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. Academic freedom is easier to protect with tenure since contracts can be non-renewed without any reason.

I agree with Christopher, management control of universities around the world has gone totally out of control. We need to revert back to the strong academic-led administration of the past to remove the focus from publication number driven research to research that is focus on quality and impact. Quality can apply to both basic (pure) and applied research, but quantity is not a measure of quality.

I know from my brief experience at Palacky Univeristy in Olomouc that Czech scientists are getting increasingly frustrated at having to put publishing ahead of teaching. It is financially driven - university managers want more money coming in and publishing is seen as a way of raising their profile to attract more funding.

Yes, specially in India. As a young researcher I feel so because of the system make us feel so. Simple example: For a Inspired Faculty position you have to have sum of 10 impact factor journal publication. Now in my area (mine water treatment), the community is small so the impact factor of the journals like Mine water and The Environment (One of the most followed journal of this community) . To achieve the IF set for inspired faculty I have to publish at least 13 to 14 papers in this journal in my Ph.D tenure. In a reactor treatment system for at least 100 days it is theoretically impossible (excluding other practical factors)

Publication shouldn't be the ultimate aim of research. If any scientist is doing the research only to publish in good journals, I don't find any great scientific attitude in him/her. He/she may fall under ordinary category of researchers. Great scientists are changing the society and mankind with their great discoveries and inventions. Now-a-days researchers are too many and resource are available in plenty to fund their routine works. That's why there are too many publications. Even publications in so called impact factor journals have little impacts in the society as a whole. Thus, whatever you publish, whichever may be the journal, it has no meaning in the society, if your research does not produce any viable technology (>90% patents are also didn't convert to a fruitful technology). All your publications will help you to progress in life from one junior post (designation) to another higher post but not to the society and mankind. My suggestion to senior colleagues, if you failed to engage yourself in a technology oriented research work, instead of writing bogus paper (with manipulative & misleading research data) for your promotion and to get awards & prizes, write articles to popularize science. It will help young minds to drag towards science.

Reading answers above I saw a suggestion that journals need to step in and regulate what is being published in them by taking into account factors as "importance" and "usefulness" of the research. I hate to say that this is what is happening now and this is what the problem is partially about - the journals selectively publish anything on a topic deemed interesting and current. My opinion on the matter is completely opposite - it should be possible to publish any research results that were produced with due diligence, are novel, scientifically sound and well-documented. The importance of the experimental result done today sometimes will not be appreciated until next year - and possibly even by someone other than yourself. Certainly even Dr. Einstein could not appreciate all applications his theories are being used for!

And with respect to Prof. Coolbaugh comment. It a something that one might expect to happen in a results/profit-oriented environment academia is rapidly becoming. I'm not saying academicians should be God-like beings unconcerned with the realities of the world around them, but putting up rigid frameworks of productivity can hamper research is well, not very "productive" areas. Of course, the caveat is that we assume all academicians are ethically upstanding and will not engage in useless data generation for funding purposes only. But when I hear from my Russian colleagues that they need to write into their grant applications number of articles and approximate publication timelines I can't help feeling that approach is not encouraging academic freedom.

Dear,

It is sure that quality research findings and reviews should be get published. The only benefit of our current publication system is that most of our national and international publishers provide web versions of their print journals so that the researchers can search and find the new findings and suggestions in their area of interests. Nowadays many e-journals have been started only because of this publication oriented research. Do you think they are really interested in scientific research or interested in knowledge sharing or to help researchers from far away lands to provide current status of science and scientific achievements? I know that the review process, printing and publishing requires time, effort and dedication. All these are accountable and should get paid. Prominent publishing companies acquire this sum by selling of their books or through the advertisements in their journals and from contributions. However, there are many journal publishers demand payment for possible publication of articles. It is only because of their economical interest. Is a researcher truly get payment for his/her effort (specifically in countries like India, most of the true researchers are trying to go abroad for better facilities and remuneration)? We know that during research, the researcher will be monitored by the guide, subject expert, doctoral and research committees and especially by the scientific community in the respective fields. Apart from these assessments, the new regulation by the University Grant Commission demands at least one publication for the thesis submission. Will it be helpful in true research?

The problem is not publication per se, but bibliometrics applied to scientists. Things could be even worse if we were evaluated by the number of grants we obtain. We are bound to publish, because this is the way to communicate our findings, IF we judge them important. However, quality or creativity has nothing to do with quantity. Moreover, people can adapt to bibliometrics evaluation in order to survive. Therefore, it is the combination of intense competition and bibliometrics that kills science. We can imagine the same in literature, if writers could only survive if they publish best sellers. They would all end up in writing biographies of celebrities or recipe books.

I hope that this answer will increase my RG score ;-).

I agree with Daniel Corcos that bioliometrics is a significant part of the problem. It becomes a situation where the counters know the price of everything and the value of nothing. With less quantitation, in the same spirit, CVs were evaluated by throwing a stack of them down the stairs and the one that went farthest was adjudged the best (thickest).

Totally agree with Daniel and Franck. I think that "great silence" of many investigators on RG is result of their competitive disposition. Commercialisation in current science hardly contradicts to getting new knowledge as primary goal. Bibliometrics applied now to scientists result in very strange situations, when the highest scientific impact belongs to persons engaged by mostly editorial activity or I see scientists having several thousands of citations and from one to three hundreds of downloads.

Yes, publishing should be given less waitage.

Yes, it certainly is. But that trend is not really new: it already dates from the 1980's when publications became a necessare condition to obtain funds. Too severe admistrative red tape was already introduced in the Netherlands in 1983 ('Voorwaardelijke financiering' = funding under conditions). In the US the trend was already seen before that; 'publish or perish' was the term my american colleagues used by then. Not much has improved since then! The discussion recently became actual in the Netherlands with the discovery of science fraude in social sciences at several Universities. What should be done to improve? Perhaps a different system of judging professors and their staff not by number of published articles alone! Quality instead of Quantity but still it is difficult to measure.

This brainwave only deals with research funded by public funds (governments, research funds by non-commercial trusts as we have in NL). Contract research for third parties like large commercial companies is more logically very output oriented.

In a field as competitive as scientific research, how else would the success of a researcher be measured, objectively, if not by our current system?

Research success lies in finding answers than publishing artsy thesis.. I personaly find pubs extremely formal and away from its actual function of updating others. Researchers tend to take nore time in their publication than in working on their research.. infact they orient theur research to satisfy the thesis requirement sonetimes.. these are just what I feel could happen and I have no observed data to justify these hypotheses. .. dont kill me for this :)

Michael,

I have for you two questions: why should science be "competitive"? why should the success of a scientist be measured?

And a third: in a field competitive as justice, how else would the success of a judge be measured, objectively, if not by the number of defendants he convicts?

Thank you Daniel.

I'am sure research should be original, honest and convincing, but not "competitive", “publication oriented” or anything else.

Hope you get a lot of RG scores Daniel.. amazing answer

We live and work in the publish or perish world and yet the emphasis these days is on grant funding. One doesn't get promoted or their salary increased by publishing a paper at most universities. My own for instance states that our faculty should be able to teach medical students with much vigor, they must be collaborative in their nature and the nature of their work, they must support the mission of the institution, and they must be funded or fundable. It is this last requirement that seems to shout the loudest in crowded faculty meetings or silent lonely labs in the dead of night. Without this grant, this right of passage, your rank and tenure and employment are not secure. However in this time of low funding and high competition, I would argue that if you are unfortunate in the grant writing arena then you are obligated to offset this with significant effort to improve your bibliography as this is the pay it forward you need to have a chance when the funding in research becomes more attainable.

Dear Nathan, thank you for the lesson! We are getting this every day, again and again, but something forces us to be anxious.

Hi,

Is modern research becoming more and more “publication oriented”? Unfortunately Yes and its pressure to publish that distract from the research objectives.

Hey, interesting discussion. So many papers have even published about this field. In fact, the importance of publications and bibliometrics is strongly overestimated. Most funds are given regionally and most jobs are given to the "boy next door". So, if you can stay relaxed and work with friends on topics you find fascinating or really needed. But without publishing, the results and the money are lost and it was a wasted effort. There is no need to design science for a targeted journal but there is a need to publish your results in a good journal to let as many as possible colleagues find your results and to benefit from high quality standards of good journals for your research. Basically publishing is a great fun – sadly too many other things disturb.

Jorg, what you are saying reminds us that there are many different situations for science workers, the more problematic being the biomedical field.

My initial response was not an imperative, it was a question; i was merely stating that it is competitive.

The success rate in obtaining funding for NIH grants range from 11-18 % in the United States with over 63000 grant applications last year; so getting research funding IS competitive.

With over 63000 grant applications, how else do we determine what can be funded?

My personal opinion is that scientific research ought be competitive and the success of a scientist should be measured for 3 simple reason.

1.) Not all research projects can be funded. More applicants then money exist.

2.) Research grants come from public monies and, therefore, it should be heavily regulated who and what is funded. If you are using other people's money, then you are accountable, and not just anything should be funded.

3) Additionally, getting a faculty spot at a university comes with a salary and benefits; which at a public institution, means it comes from public monies as well. Simply put, we cannot just pay anybody to do research.

There are excellent reasons why science is publication-oriented.

1. A scientific project isn't finished until it is properly published.

2. Scientific claims must be open to scrutiny. In fact, scientific work isn't credible until after it is properly assessed (before and/or after publication). Full assessment of scientific hypotheses, i.e. verification and falsification, and their implications, may take decades (think plate tectonics, punctuated equilibrium, Higgs' Boson). Without publication, scientific assessment is hardly possible and work will be wasted and forgotten.

3. If a scientific project is funded by outside money (e.g. tax payer's money), scientists have a responsibility to make their work available to those that have funded them. That is, to publish it.

But:

4. What is problematic about the current situation is that too much emphasis has been given to the *number* of publications. This has led to an explosion of scientific papers during the 1990s and 2000s. I am sure I am not the only one who has trouble keeping up with the literature. One might argue that shorter papers are published more quickly, so publication of scientific results is no longer delayed until someone has finished his/her 300-page monograph. But it has also led to salami-publishing: cutting up a project into the smallest publishable units.

5. A worrisome consequence of the explosion of scientific papers is that it puts a severe strain on the review process. Many journals now have trouble finding referees. Each paper needs at least 2 referees, and this will be double if a paper is rejected and submitted somewhere else. Still, scientists are not properly rewarded for their painstaking, time-consuming referee work. If this doesn't change, the peer-review system may collapse soon.

http://www.diogoverissimo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1-s2.0-S0169534713001985-main.pdf

6. To stand out among the crowd, or even to have their work be noted at all, scientists must publish in a high-profile journal, i.e. one with a high impact factor. I agree with others who have criticised the overuse of impact factors by administrators and funding agencies, but the flood of papers screams for a measure of 'quality'.

It would be nice if the two main drivers of publication trends (number of papers and impact) would lead to a situation where papers become somewhat fewer but are of better quality and have higher information content, and where scientists no longer aim for the smallest publishable units. It would result in greater efficiency: saving lots of paper, and time from authors, editors, referees and readers.

Dear Michael,

I agree that scientists must be accountable for what they do. But I am a taxpayer too. And I would n't give a dime for this mountain of publications that does not bring me anything, with most of them being not reliable. It would be more sensible to select bright young people who could earn much more money in doing another job, but still accept to be ill paid for doing science. As I said above, do we want to select judges on the number of defendants they convict?

Judge and scientist are not comparable professions; because judges have already obtained a judgeship. However, lawyers when trying to become a judge should be judged based on the number of court cases they have won; same argument as above: limited judge spots, more lawyers.

Hi Daniel,

There are lots of bright young scientists but not nearly enough money for them to live up to their promise. The problem starts early in their career. For instance, the USA currently produces twice as many PhD graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as are needed for relevant positions in industry.

http://elife.elifesciences.org/content/2/e01139

Most of these will remain post-docs for a long time, and much talent is wasted when they are unable to obtain research money or faculty positions.

PhD students and post-docs are cheap labor, and in a perverse way might be considered 'efficient' for society, but it comes at a high price to those that are unable to land sufficient research money or a permanent position. A partial solution was described here:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065263

The competition that Michael Mannen described is very real, and is a major driver of current publication trends: more papers and publication in higher impact journals.

In both professions, judge and scientist, you have to establish the truth, which is not necessary for a lawyer. So if judges have to obtain a judgeship, let's say that scientists should get a scientistship. It would not please big lab bosses who just want to use post-docs as obedient workers, but it would be better for science.

Hi George,

There are lots of young scientists in France too, and some of them are bright, and some of them not. And when I talk with them, I can tell who is bright and who is not, but not by counting their publications. And I am unable to predict who will survive in this damned system. But I can imagine who gets benefit from this situation.

Excellent answer, Daniel!!!

Thank you Dmitry!

I would like to go further and have a global view of what research means and what a researcher profile should be. Take for instance Latin America research on biodiversity, ecology biogeography and so on ...Nowadays our national systems are ONLY publication oriented, BUT this is NOT only number of articles/papers, but also if the journals belong to the first, second or third segments of Impact factors...Not only that, but other professional activitie and part of our role as scientists, like teaching of graduate and undergraduate courses, seminars, or even writing text books, they have NO POINTS or consideration when rating the researcher´s performance...In my opinion we need to integrate good quality research, with teaching at different levels, with writing textbooks field guides monographs etc and so have an impact on potential science students etc ...TODAY as it is, we are only NUMBERS, call it research gate score, H whatever... Finally I want to point out a recent interview to Nobel Prize Peter Higgs (Boson Higgs) in The Guardian when he says that "It's difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964."...('Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple as that'.)

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system

Hi Daniel,

I admire your confidence in judging people's scientific qualities based on the impression they make on you verbally. Talking with students may help to separate promising from less-promising students (e.g. by hearing about their motivation and research interests), but I am sure you also want to look at their grades, and other accomplishments.

I guess (and surely hope) that later on in their careers when you have to decide whether or not give them a substantial amount of research money, you do not base your opinion just on how bright they may seem, or how well they can explain their ideas. Many good scientists are not excellent speakers, and excellent speakers are not necessarily good scientists. You simply cannot rely solely on perception. In addition, funding agencies cannot interview each and every applicant.

Furthermore, you can bet that if funding or tenure depends only on one's impression during an interview, scientists will find ways to influence the process to their advantage. To me, this doesn't strike me as a particularly promising method.

I would say that we are not just more publication oriented but also the number of false results that is being published in scientific journals is also increasing. This is partly due to the increasing competition in science labs to produce positive results only. Negative results are also important but maybe not as exciting to read.

George,

Could not agree with you more.

The scientific community is infamous for the bias against certain groups: women, Jews, African Americans.

Allowing for a subjective system of advancement or funding would be even more problematic compared to a "merit" based system.

It is more accurate for a scientist to be judged based on publication numbers, grants, ect, as opposed to what people "think."

Sure, there are exceptions, Professor Higgs/Einstein, but for most scientist this is simply not the case. Einstein could not find an academic job as well as a young scientist.

But these are outliers. Einstein used to write rec letters for young Jewish scientist, who could not get jobs regardless of what they published, b/c of discrimination.

He would agree that a scientist has to publish.

Judge do not look for truth; it is about what can be proven in a court of law. A judge has a secure position, and any verdict; guilty or innocent, the judge has upheld the law.

Judges are typically lawyers that have already proven themselves to the point that there is no need for more judgement; A judge would be a kin to a tenured faculty member of a director of a lab. A scientist would be a kin to a lawyer trying to get a judgeship. In which case; more victories, better lawyer.

With science, it is about what you think, but what you can "prove" or publish.

Hi George

I judge people based on what I can. I mean: do they know enough in the domain as to make it evolve? are they able to formulate an interesting hypothesis? and are they able to accept results that contradict their hypothesis? all things that are for me relevant to science. People don't need to be good speakers.

On the contrary, I don't see in a publication list where people have done work under direction other information that the ability to obey, and in a long publication list of a big lab boss other information that power and opportunism. If I want to evaluate a scientist, I read his/her papers, otherwise I do not. Why should I evaluate them? The argument of the objectivity of bibliometrics is tricky. It is clearly objective when it's done properly (that is, very rarely), but what does bibliometrics measure except itself?

I am doing research for 46+ years - Either you have to publish or take a patent - Your life is valuable - Do not blame your birth like Brahmin, Jew and African American-I worked with Ladies as coworkers- Many of them lack innovation - They do not take this as carrier as men-You can talk to a person and evaluate-I judge person by talking- i do not care his publications as there are many authors- You can hide talents

for some time -you cannot hide talents for ever - Scientific research is very difficult to pursue as a carrier difficult

Although I work at a university, I am not a professor so I have no pressure to publish.

After reading the comments it appears that we all agree that publication is useful and important, it is just the degree to which bibliometrics should be applied. Perhaps part of the problem is the reliance on grant funding at the college / university level if someone does not publish, they cannot get grants. In an era of declining government support for education, grant funding takes on a disproportionate influence.

Suppose an academic provides some assistance to a local small business, a community organization, or the local government, would these activities "count" toward promotion or tenure?

Kevin- the activities you describe would be considered as community service and are ALSO expected but are usually considered as part of an annual evaluation. So the answer is an emphatic NO!

Although publication is not the final or sole objective for scientific researches, it is still very important and needed in scientific community. Moreover, it's hard to estimate pepoles' research ability without takeing into account publication. And it has led to a vicious circle to some extent. For example, in China, if you have not published many high-quality articles, you are hardly to get grants, which will hinder your future researches and publication and so on.

Of course, but not only "publication oriented", but "media orientated", which is worse.

Hi David,

I think that when you are in science for some time, you know that what is published in Science, Nature or Cell is not necessarily the best, but journals are not to blame. What is wrong is the wish to evaluate scientists without reading their papers.

Hi David Patsouris,

While I am sympathetic to most of what Nobel Prize winner Prof Randy Shekman has said in The Guardian, it is not a realistic option for most of us to avoid high-profile journals. It is easier for those that have a safe job and steady research money to say "I'm going to boycott the major scientific journals" but younger scientists have to play along in the rat race for high-impact publications to secure their future. And even if they would want to boycott these journals, their co-authors will prevent that.

Modern research lagging the quality. Researchers concentrating only on publications because for their promotions. Today institutions need more Phd s ,post docs for their accreditation.This is effecting the research field in different angles. Fake publications has come to existence.

Dear George, these reasons have not relation to a doing good science. Are you agree? Again, we see hard contradiction to primary objective.

Hi George,

The true questions are:

should science be a rat race? and:

is faith in bibliometrics science or religion?

As for the second question, we can easily prove that measuring the scientific impact of a journal by its 2-year impact factor is misleading, since CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians dwarfs Nature, Science or Cell with an impact factor of 153 and this is not just an exception. We have numerous examples of papers that were largely cited for years before the results were shown to be false. And I still don't understand why, if you really want to measure the productivity of a scientist, you do not divide by the number of the authors. All this indicates that this management of research has nothing to do with science but with preservation of power.

@Daniel . Certainly in current times, dividing by the number of authors will be worse for those that really performed the research, and are forced to include the managers of the finances for their lab. There is people with the conexions or with an administrative position that manage to get into the authors of the papers they have done anything in contribution. As you said hey hold power positions. How do young researchers would avoid this? Someone above said, they just have to play along. Too bad but abusive headlabs should be prevented.

Hi Daniel,

I fully agree with you on the issues you raised in your latest message. Indeed, I know a few recent citation classics in good journals are actually very poor papers. Some of these probably got published and cited just because their bold claims *seemed* plausible, or were made by well-known scientists. The silver lining here is that papers in high-profile journal also attract the most intense scrutiny afterwards. I consider it my duty as a scientist to identify and expose published studies that I know are seriously flawed.

Naveen,

The impact factor of a journal is not a great predictor of the quality of an accepted paper nor its citation future. This is because there is a huge variance between accepted papers. The metrics used in evaluation are similarly flawed reducing humans to a set of numbers (as with RG). They are easy to use for administrators and scientists from other fields that cannot evaluate the quality of the work.

Reviewers in specialized journals are often more knowledgable and hence can help authors get a much better product published.

Many (me included) weigh letters from peers much more than metrics numbers when deciding on recruitment and promotion (though a minimum of productivity is expected). We should continue and insist for peer evaluation to insure we are not reduced to numbers.

@George Sangster: Unfortunately it is true what you say.

We must, finally again, learn to evaluate scientific merits by reading and understanding publications, theses, seminars, talks, etc., and not by staring at secondary criteria (journal impact factors, personalized impact factors, Hirsch-values, other ways of counting citations, Dollar acquisitions, and so on and so forth.

Reading and understanding scientific contributions is, according to my opinion, the only way of getting an idea about novelty, conceptual intelligence, stringency, accuracy of experiments, stringency of Interpretation about the qualities of a colleague.

PS: Right George: There are papers with high citation numbers that are actually scientifically wrong, poor or uninspired. There are, on the other hand, many publications that are highly intelligent and really important that needed ages to be recognized.

Ya..it is a reality though as explained judiciously by George.

Whatever be the situation, at the end of it, I believe that it rests

entirely on us to do genuine research work that we all want to do, and

that's why we are here. Let's hope that mere planned research,

fake mentalities do not spoil the true mindset, with which we entered into the

field of research.

When Lavoisier was guilotined on May 8, 1794, he was unhappy because he had so many unfinished works, and he demanded some time for that...such was his dedication and genuine mindset. Why not at least do some genuine works with genuine interests.

Thanks to all.

Dear George:

"I consider it my duty as a scientist to identify and expose published studies that I know are seriously flawed." Good luck.

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/06/19/why-i-retracted-my-nature-paper-a-guest-post-from-david-vaux-about-correcting-the-scientific-record/

My own experience is that I am not as famous as David Vaux, and when I found a result in disagreement with the conclusion of a Nature paper, I lost my time trying to get my paper accepted in this journal.

Regarding the rat race: Unfortunately current funding pressures lead scientists to work on "fundable" topics, which usually means more of what everyone else is doing (but only 1 step ahead, not 10). In the 1960s, (post sputnik) era when science was considered equivalent to national defense) it was easy to get funding for almost any interesting project and one could work on something that no one else yet realized could lead to major gains in understanding. There was little pressure to join the rat race, and one could do one's work and discuss one's results openly without fear of being scooped. We need to change current practice to the older system that was run by practicing scientists, not administrators. Administrators were hired to get resources for us but the scientists were in control. If you look at the multi-part papers of that period, you will see how working on one's own path led to much deeper understandings of basic as well as practical problems.

Will modern research's publication oriented nature remain? When funded, one is obligated to publish the findings paid for by the grant or fellowship or donation regardless of whether the hypothesis is supported or not. With funding decreasing the obligation to publish may also diminish which would be a travesty. However, no funding...No fun!

Certainly, in top journals we can see blissful papers and fraudulent works. I would like to look on the problem from another side. High ranking journals tend to publish papers in hot and very compeptitive scientific fields. I noted for myself that many of these fields started from primary works published 5-10 years earlier in journals with average IF. Frequently, in my area of research, these works were performed by authors from Basel institute of Immunoogy. Really, subsequent publications in high ranking journals represented secondary research capable to enrich original ideas not so much. Therefore, I would suggest idea that rediscoverers were not so bright scientists. Performing secondary research, they were forced further to compete each with other. So, I would repeat that research papers should be original, honest and convincing irrespective of publishing journal. A rush for high impact publications is a game for dull scientists. As a rule, reviewers.of research grants are advanced scientists and well understand this.

Definitely yes, but think about the "publish or perish" wave that we (more or less all and any of us) suffer. But being a prolific author means nothing on its own.

When i started my carrier before 46 years to get information via chemical abstracts is difficult - now every thing is googled+cut+paste . Now there is no original thinking and research .Just because a paper appeared in NATURE or CELL it is not good. Many a good paper appear in ordinary journals.Publication is a business and we have fallen in that as a commodity

Naveen, you are right. Research is becoming more publication oriented than field applicability. Some researchers are more interested in mere increase in their publication kitty than fruitful utility of their research.

Scientist can argue for anything mainly by own works. So I would rephrase this sentence as "If you publish, you are still alive". It make no newermind if the study will be published in ordinary journal. Our main aim is to make really relevant and original works.

Yes, I agree. The problem is that publications have become an unit to measure output of the scientist. Therefore, it has become a rat race.

I agree with you; it seems as if research is for publication and gaining recognition. It seems to have moved wide off the mark for the increase of knowledge for the good of mankind. Publication and recognition are not wrong in itself, but the rat-race; this publish or perish syndrome is certainly not good. Publishing SEEMS to have become the way to decide if a thesis has merit; are the supervisors not able to decide if their student has the intellectual ability and character to merit a PhD?

For some of us who live in South East Asia and Third World countries, it is not easy to publish in a journal with impact factor. So my friends and I have decided to present our research at national and international conferences. Do we have other options?

Dear Prabodh, not between true scientists, who can thoroughly evaluate this output.

I might be the totally wrong person to answer the question, since I really have shifted my conception on publishing application and presently do not “give a damn” on impact factors (the key made of glass by laser ablation in my pic symbolizes the more practical attitude).

My question in publishing is “whom do I want to impress and whom do I have to impress”?

My fellow scientist and colleagues, my professor, the board of directors, my industrial partners, my neighbors, my wife?

If you are able to impress your spouse and family with your academic work, you are on the right track.

It is directly related to whole process (promotion, funding, appointment..etc) so it has become mandatory for everyone to get their work published in good journals.

It is funny seeing this interesting discussion with, for each of us, one or two numbers reflecting the RG bibliometrics!

Concerning the subject, as already written, the result of a research must be disseminated (if not this is only a hobby) implying proper publication. I know several (retired now, another epoch) excellent researchers but having published only a small part of their research. This is a pity.

So, we must accept evaluation and this implies evaluation of the publications. But the number of publications is certainly not a sufficient parameter. This is why the number of citations (has the publication been useful to others?) and the h-index (is the number of citations due to a few highly cited papers or to a large part of the publications?) have been introduced.

This means that, knowing the age of the researcher, number of publications, numbers of citations and h-index, you can do an evaluation in 30 seconds.

This is not enough but this a good first filter. The next step will take much more time (looking at the CV, the publications themselves,...) and this can be done only for a short list.

So, for me, bibliometrics is not enough but is useful.

Dear Jean-Paul, I shoud repeat here that as a rule the highest citation rates belong to a scientists engaged by mostly editorial activity. Then, here, on RG I see scientists having several thousands of citations and from one to three hundreds of downloads (direct approach to estimate, is the publication useful to others). My conclusion is that the system is failing. To see your paper published in high impact journal, you have to belong to community near this journal, you have to cite works of members of editorial board or probable reviewers of your paper (or to be reviewer of their grant proposals), and you have cite works published in this journal. You should take into account many other considerations, which have no relation to scientific research. These are consequences of unlimited use of bibliometrics.

Dear Dmitry, I agree that the use of bibliometrics have pervert consequences.

On the other hand, as Editor and regular reviewer of international journals, I do not agree with your statement "To see your paper published in high impact journal, you have to belong to community near this journal, you have to cite works of members of editorial board or probable reviewers of your paper, and you have cite works published in this journal".

The only point ok is that reviewers can have their paper cited in the submitted paper, which is normal, reviewers being chosen by the editor for their knowledge of the subject. But this is not necessary, by far.

And a clue for a good dissemination of the research done is to publish in a large number of journals and in that case friend-assisted publications are not possible.

So, I am not as pessimistic as you are!

Dear Jean-Paul! You well know that this is common (at least, very frequently used) practice and this practice is widening now. We both have forgotten many cases of delays in peer review process, when reviewer is seeking the possibility to publish his article before. Bibliometrics and abnormal competition turn scientific community into a bunch of snakes.

"Is modern research becoming more and more “publication oriented”? "

The research? May be the researchers...

When I retired, the publish or perish problem ended at the University level. I still publish, but in a manner that is more convenient and relatively free of hassles such as pesky associate and managing editors. I feel sorry for junior colleagues who are trapped in the library-science metrics grind that emphasizes journal impact factor and numbers of citations that are based on non-standardized data. There are metrics that attempt to factor in the N, the number of individuals working in a field, and even weight contributions to multi-author publications. I have yet to see a weighting that "punishes" an author for publishing a little cited paper in an "important" journals, thereby "wasting" highly valued space. I still apply for grants in order to complete research begun many years ago. Thus, I am still being evaluated by peers. Like many other aspects of academia, life was more pleasant decades ago before all the library science was added into the evaluation process by the corporate mind set now ruling and ruining the occupation.

Dear All,

I think there must be a considerable variety of journals depending on their subjects. I do not know journals with which Dmitry has had his experiences. However, I think he must be somehow right. I used to read old articles and books written 50, 60, 80, 100 or 120 years ago. Their style, structure and even argumentation were very different those of journals of our age. When talking with colleagues on demands of so called peer-reviewed journals we have found that not the essence of a manuscript is the most important but its style, structure and whether the purport of the message can be put into the framework of a not explicitly demanded scientific as well as socio-economic order. Besides, there can be a network of workers of this order and they may have their advantage. Certainly, I do not think these fellows are aware of existence of the network itself because they have been manipulated (if you want you can find a softer expression) like members of the scientific community and they think they are independent in this negligible question.

Thus, one can find a considerable number of articles where it is difficult to find correlation between scientific merit and impact points (citations). This difference can be recognised involuntarily by “ordinary” scientist and researchers when downloading papers in RG. I stress this is not a rule only a tendency which may find its peak when not the discovery but the publication itself becomes the aim.

Of course, this is not a wholly general phenomenon, I have seen many brilliant articles in journals with high impact points.

It is interesting to see the cautiousness of the majority of participants in this issue.

...No not exactly. In fact it is becoming more aware of the depth of research in the subject field.

Dear Dmitry and all,

Probably there are differences from one discipline to another, disciplines with high financial potential outputs are probably more sensitive to such deviance, unfortunately.

I agree that the current system is far from perfect. But the question is: what can we do for getting a better system of scientific life? Till now, my only answer was acting properly (I hope so at least) as reviewer and as scientific editor. Two time-consuming activities not contributing to a better bibliometrics, or marginally.

Other actions could be to re-promote scientists-driven society journals with strong ethical rules. But this requires also much time from some scientists not having permanently an eye on bibliometrics. Maybe a job for active retired (as John) or nearly retired (as I am) scientists?

No not exactly. In fact it is becoming more aware of the depth of research in the subject field.

"Publish or Perish" has been practiced for centuries. Not sure anything has changed, regardless of the institution of geography. The quality of the publication may vary, all depending on the resources available.

Grants have nothing to do with publications. It is not what you know, but who you know. In my GaAs days, the best grants were awarded to people that have no clue what crystal growth was all about. Not much has changed since.

Kiril,

Which centuries?

Dear Jean-Paul, "strong ethical rules" exist now and existed long time ago. Unfortunately, they can not prevent scientists from manipulations, when they are interested to get money for their research. I think, we can not change anything in policy of scientific journals, but it would be possible to make investigators independent from this policy. Scientific relevance of publications should be evaluated by great number of scientists, similar to this on RG (taking into account, who are contacting persons). Global or national foundations will make decisions based on these estimates. Certainly, this is raw idea, and I have no doubts that frauds will be quickly adapted to this system too.

Recently, I read a journal article that I would like to share because it deals with some aspects commented in some answers here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Dear Agustin , it is really good

Agustin put a good link that partially addresses the issues in discussion here. It is worth to notice who run publications, create sorts of terms and pseudo parameters of discrimination, such as impact factors to journals to create sleepless competitions among scholars without focus in addressing real problems that ills society.

Consider the recent backlash by mathematicians who refused to submit papers and work as editors to a journal publication company, because of the complete dismissal of the contributions, free time to work as editors and knowledge they put, and the unreasonable price of journals, libraries are required to pay, just for the mere reason of getting profit for the company, not for the scholar who produce the publications for free.

In fact it is surprising how learnt people of that caliber being exploited by business savvy companies and corporations to make a huge and luxurious profits -- it is an enslavement of scholars ( free labor, free time and free knowledge for publications ) so that corporations , companies and businesses profit.

Why do we see a huge problem in learning mathematics in schools across America, while the largest mathematical publications in the world are done and archived in America - the reason is clear and plain simple. Similarly almost all diseases that challenged humanity and existed long time ago still exist with no cure, but the health publications produced and in production, in scientific and health related journals is sky rocketing and that again is for the very trivial reason.

Modern research became publication oriented decades ago. The question is how to get out of there.

Dear Oscar, I think the only proper way is that this orientation will be regulated by itself scientific community. New electronic world allows to provide unrestricted access to our scientific output. Then, community itself will provide comprehensive peer review to evaluate relevance of concrete research and its global impact. Certainly, scientific output should be properly designed and presented in form of scientific articles, presentations, discussions, data sets, etc.

Dear Dr. Dmitry Kazansky,

The new electronic world also restricts access to a set of Scientific communities who are unable to pay them for subscription!! So not every data is easy access!! Their are many students like me who have zeal to work but it gets delayed due to restricted access to certain important data and methods.

Besides I am too young to to suggest a solution for this problem.