This issue has arisen in my department several times, particularly during discussions about merit increases. One perspective is that the length of an article or book is an index of the amount of work put into the publication. Another perspective is that we should focus on the quality of the work, rather than its length. Also, different fields have different types of expectations and limitations about length, particularly when it comes to articles. I work in an interdisciplinary department, so this issue arises on occasion. I'm interested to know what others think about this.
Hi John - a good question. For me, there are a number of factors at play. Most journals and book publishing houses impose word limits for different reasons - often to do with copy-costs and competitiveness. In one of my fields i.e. clinical settings - nursing journals tend to be quite generous with word counts. Medical journals often impose much stricter word counts - yet impact factors are often higher than nursing journals. Some journal articles i.e. editorials tend to be 'short and sweet' and might be considered as having less impact than primary journal articles. However, on the other hand, invited editorials are usually based on the premise that the invited author is a recognised expert in their field.
There are examples where 'publications' are generally viewed as more limited i.e. letters to editors, commentaries on existing articles, book reviews etc - but I would argue that they still count as long as they are not the main focus of publication activity.
Nowadays, and certainly in my institution, the focus is not so much on article or book (book chapter) length - but impact i.e. IF, citation rates, journal quality rankings, academic social media impact (including ResearchGate) etc.
Dean, thanks for the interesting comments and for raising the issue of impact factors. In general, I find scholars in the humanities are not comfortable with impact factors, perhaps with good reason. Even very good journals in the humanities often don't get a large number of citations, not because of problems with the journal, but because there are only a few people working in that field. So how do we reconcile the fact that impact factors are not comparable because the nature of "impact" is field specific? I do think we can look at comparative impact factors within a specific field as a way of getting a sense of the quality of the journal. I would also argue that impact factor is a more useful measure than page length or word count.
Dear John,
No, should not be considered the length as a category, separately from the quality of reports. However in the social sciences, not all studies are overworked numerically, therefore the descriptions and verbatim data increase the volume of the monograph.
It seems to me that substantial and interesting content ought to be the thing, rather than number of pages. The problem with evaluating quality qualitatively is, of course, that it tends to take more time compared to just looking at some simple measurements.
Gert, yes one of the interesting things in my department, at least, is that people argue exactly what you wrote about quantitative measures and then argue that an 8,000 word article shows more work than a 5,000 word article and, therefore, should be counted as more when it comes time to things like merit reviews.
John, I guess it would be great in a sense if you knew that if you could only add another two pages to your paper, you would for sure have made it better (i.e., produced something of greater value). Of course, it doesn't work like that.
A similar case concerns the evaluation of laboratory work and hours spent getting it done. It is obvious to me that if the work done is of similar extension and quality, then the 20 hours spent by the novice should not count for more than the 10 hours spent by someone more experienced. The value of the contribution concerns the outcome with correct procedures, not how long it took.
No. We used to have this type of criterion for being considered for assoc. prof./reader at our faculty, but we dropped it. One reason is the obvious mentioned above, that quantitative volume has no bearing on progression or quality. Another reason is that it implies serious inequality due to different academic traditions - e.g. history, where (assuming equal contribution to research) papers of 50-70 pages is nothing strange, and logic, where papers of 1-2 pages is nothing strange.
A good article should be clear and concise... Avoid irrelevant and unnecessary information
I recall a paper from 1953, about one page long, demonstrating the structure of DNA. Rather influential, right! So length should of course be irrelevant when judging importance, but of some reason short papers are not always counted as equally important, even when you perform a within-field comparison.
In fact I envy those who publish in medical fields, normally some of their papers are two to three pages including images and very short description that you can read in 30 sec while ascending in elevator!
To the point is the best papers that I have ever read!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication