Researchers are often rated based on publications and grant funding. Book authors/editors often think they deserve much more credit for their endeavor than peer reviewes articles, even if the book is an anthology written by a large number of chapter authors and the book authors are actually editors. What is the norm at your institution?
Well, i think an author of a book chapter with a verified publisher can get close credit to that of a published review artcile (not the exact same due to lack of peer review). However, it should not be close at all to authoring original research papers.
Remember, books can be highlybeffort-intensive but are not peer reviewed.
Well, i think an author of a book chapter with a verified publisher can get close credit to that of a published review artcile (not the exact same due to lack of peer review). However, it should not be close at all to authoring original research papers.
Books go out of date quickly, but papers are always up to date but more specific in their focus. So, read lots of papers! :)
Abdelrahman Ibrahim Abushouk , I greatly appreciate your insightful answer.
Research papers are more reliable than books. The papers are checked by academics and experts whereas books not always the best sources for the current topics.
Maham Muzamil , I completely agree with you. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Books(text) in many cases are literature reviews while research is more original so me going for research publication.
Excellent Books take so much efforts to write and they are classical source of knowledge and they will always be remain one of the best source of knowledge.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications