There is a significant wave in publishing lots of papers on scientific journals. However, is that really relevant? What is better, publishing 10 papers in a year or 1 or 2 really good papers that makes significant contributions (practical and theoretical) ?
What is your view on that?
Quality is more important than quantity when it comes to publishing research. Thus two quality papers, albeit long, are better than multiple mediocre papers during a year's time period.
The response depends on who's answering. For a senior scientist, yet one more paper may mean almost nothing. For such a scholar it may be more important WHERE it is published, or with WHOM. For a junior ditto it probably is a lot different, as she/he needs to prove her/his worth to the community; for the latter category, the "where" may matter less.
Just remember this when you talk about quality: there is no such thing as "a quality paper". "Quality" is a rather fuzzy term whose scale along which may mean different things for different people. In any case, the term "quality paper" says NOTHING - except that something lies somewhere along a scale (from low to high quality). A "quality paper" hence is just a paper - it does NOT make a remark on its quality, however you define it. Learn English.
Guilherme - For any researcher (but most likely to be neophyte researchers as Michael hints at) quantity over quality is not a good idea. There is a mistaken belief that quantity impresses - but that is not always the case. If researchers are publishing 'anything, anywhere' - then it could actually be damaging to reputation. Better a single, quality article in an established, reputable journal than several in others. It is far more likely to be read, cited and impact practice. That is what employers are really looking for - rather than numbers of publications. In this scenario - best to accept the limitation that a quality focus on publication(i.e. high impact, high citation) usually equates to decreased number of outputs - especially as review processes, time-to-publication etc are longer in such journals - but, overall, is probably more desirable. Do heed Michael's warning as well that quality can be subjective - although established metrics i.e. IFs and Q-ratings (no matter how flawed) offer some form of established benchmark.
@ Guilherme Frederico No doubt quality wins over quantity. Conducting a good quality research and getting it published in a reputed journal or presenting it in a conference should be the aim of a researcher. Not only this, the research must add some thing new to the universe of knowledge.
Always publish a good article based on actual facts and figures that can benefit to society.
Hoarding of many articles is not a better way of research.....
Guilherme - A good quality paper published in a top ranking journal can fetch a person a job or a promotion and a reputation for carrying a good research. It is always better to publish papers in good quality journals than in low standard journals.
It is not necessary for a junior to publish in bulk to prove his/her worth to the community. My experience shows me that during interviews for jobs and promotions, quality has an edge over quantity.
There should always be quality and impact. With new authors there is also their professional and working context to consider. Academic REF is always a consideration, and discussions on what star a paper can contribute. I believe publication is like a journey, you start out to publish and get your first article, and all the family and friends you know get a copy! As you progress (with a good mentor in publication and research) you begin to look at the quality depth and significance of your outputs. I always ask what impact or difference will my article bring. I am not a prolific publisher and I am still learning the 'ropes', but as Dean notes considering what you publish is so important.
:-) The English teacher inside of me cringes. We do not have "a quality paper" but instead "a paper of high quality", or maybe "a paper A that is quite a lot better than another paper B" - so now I hope you see that there is NO information whatsoever in stating that you have written a "quality paper" - as it literally only means that it lies somewhere on a scale where at one end we have worthless junk, and in the other Nobel prize contenders. Ok? The word quality on its own means nothing. And if you still phrase your sentences using "quality paper" instead of something like "a very good paper in relation to that other one", or even "I have seen no better paper in the field than paper Q", I shall ask every editor I know to haunt you, and hunt you down. :-)
Nobel prize's winner Lev Landau had less than 30 papers in all his life (+ the famous course of theoretical physics too, of course).
Publishing in a high impact journal is undoubtedly the best way to go!
Researchers must follow the philosophy i.e. quality always wins over quantity. To add something new to the universe of knowledge should be the aim of researcher otherwise its better not to publish..
Quantity and quality are two separate things. I belives that quality is more important then quantity.
Writing THE great paper that everyone in a field will cite for many years, I should think, will trump quite many ordinary ones; I just can't provide a figure, as how hard it is to publish in very good journals are not uniform over all sciences. But I would rather have a few extremely good and influential ones than, say, 200 ordinary.
As difficult, as it is to publish in high impact journals, it is better one strive to publish in them no matter how few, hence, make a unique contribution to knowledge. For me, quality over quantity!.
Publish your research at the best level that you can make. Don't look on the number of papers per year.
Regards
GB
These are two extremes. The reality is in-between. In an ideal world, better less but of a high quality
The lab head or department boss would not be cut out for her/his job if her/his position would be that "the more papers the better" - as it would, most often, result in shallow papers, that no-one would read, because the contribution is too small. Since we would like to contribute to making an impact for yourself and your university, you should strive for a few excellent papers, published in journals with a conscience and a strive for knowledge and excellence - rather than money.
Those universities that implement systems in which you get a type of bonus for each paper published should be blacklisted. Why? Because it creates an incentive to write just rubbish.
I think the story is completely different from one country to another one and even university to university. In well known universities they encourage to publish in high ranked journals and other universities just look for the number and figure.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers