Depends what you mean by "textbook". A primer on first year physics or something like it does not have the scientific or intellectual weight of a scholarly monograph or a peer-reviewed paper in a top-tier scholarly journal. It just doesn't and it shouldn't.

This is not to say textbooks are "easy" to write. It is much harder writing for an unsophisticated audience/lay folk or undergraduate students. One can't make assumptions about anything, and the prose has to be crisp, clear and engaging. By contrast, in writing for peers one can leave out details (they know them), and write in a sophisticated, academic style. This is far easier and more natural for academics.

I've just completed a book on study skills for international postgraduate students. It was one of the hardest things I have ever done and it took years. Every sentence had to be considered for its clarity and purpose.

But, given the nature of supply and demand, and the competitive nature of scholarly publishing: almost everyone has a "textbook" in them, but few can publish in A-ranked scholarly journals. Hence the difference in their academic respectability.

Yes of course, a textbook contributes to the world of knowledge often significantly more effectively than a journal article. It is of course the rather silly culture of academia that thinks impact journals are more important. Hopefully this will one day die out and reason will overtake fashion.

Depends what you mean by "textbook". A primer on first year physics or something like it does not have the scientific or intellectual weight of a scholarly monograph or a peer-reviewed paper in a top-tier scholarly journal. It just doesn't and it shouldn't.

This is not to say textbooks are "easy" to write. It is much harder writing for an unsophisticated audience/lay folk or undergraduate students. One can't make assumptions about anything, and the prose has to be crisp, clear and engaging. By contrast, in writing for peers one can leave out details (they know them), and write in a sophisticated, academic style. This is far easier and more natural for academics.

I've just completed a book on study skills for international postgraduate students. It was one of the hardest things I have ever done and it took years. Every sentence had to be considered for its clarity and purpose.

But, given the nature of supply and demand, and the competitive nature of scholarly publishing: almost everyone has a "textbook" in them, but few can publish in A-ranked scholarly journals. Hence the difference in their academic respectability.

In my opinion, if this "textbook" is based on peer-reviewed scientific material, then yes. If not, I don't think anything is better than a scientific piece that has been peer-reviewed.

Generally any book published will be peer reviewed. However the content can be either elementary for example as a textbook at freshman level or research oriented for graduate students. So it is rather difficult to weigh that in line with a journal paper. Having said that, in my opinion some weightage should be given, since the effort involved in preparing the textbook is quite large unlike a journal paper. How much is the question?

In My opinion, text book that is creating value and contributing in the body of knowledge is more value able than a journal article.

Condition is if it is creating any new knowledge and value for its readers.

I think it all depends on what the Institution has decided to use as evaluation criteria. When tenure criteria are defined both in terms of research achievement and teaching performance, a textbook is certainly a distinction when the rubric "teaching" is evaluated. However, when the rubric research is considered, I think original research (including topical reviews and meta-analyses) need to be presented.

Therefore, step one in the definition of tenure criteria of an institution should be to decide on the weight of different areas of academia , i..e., teaching, researching, committee work ... whatever seems appropriate and adequate; and then, in step two criteria which are considered relevant indicators for these areas should be listed. In my opinion, textbook writing and original publications cannot compensate for each other e.g., when a professor is up for tenure and research is requirement, a textbook does not do the trick; OR: when a professor is up for tenure and teaching is a requirement, missing teaching credentials cannot be compensated by publications of original research.

Bell, in my opinion writing top tier article is having more weight than text book if your are focused towards your career and academic ranking and if you want to be popular among your peers and students then text-book works.

This kind of a comparison is not perhaps proper. Some text books are so important that they score much higher than any article. At the same time, articles generate knowledge which ultimately enter into text books.

100% agreed with the opinion of Hemanta...

Text book writing is more of an Art. Research article writing is most scientific.

Text books are for the larger audience. Research article is for the previleged intellectuals.

Text book writing has commercial inclination while the other is for pushing the frontier of knowledge further.

Comparision is not ideal because their objectives differ!

I support the current practice where a textbook submitted for promotion takes more points than an article. Textbook writing is for a specific public, say Secondary School form three. If the public is not carefully determined, you can write alright but your content may be above your public. If the textbook should have exercises for the learners, how to make sure that the exercises do not include elements that the learners have not yet learned, suitability of the exercises and the aim and objective of the exercise are all major tasks that the writer has to consider before writing. Article writing is also for a specific public i.e. academics in Linguistics for instance. In this, the difficulty in choosing words that correspond to the level of your public is not a major problem. Testing exercises and its subsequent problems do not arise for the writer of an article to solve.

In my opinion, write a textbook is harder than write a paper. But the question is what kind of contributtion should be evaluated? As the collegues said, the aims or different, write for a large audience or comunicate a scientific result.

I think making a sustained effort to help teachers and school based professionals integrate effectve/evidence-based practices into their typical practices is also worthy of consideration.

I think writing a text book in an innovative manner and attempting to engage student community may be equally challenging just as a well researched paper. However, the following factors may be relevant :

a) shelf life of the book,

b) Popularity of topic,

c) Publisher

d) Audience: whether local or local/national

e) Reviews by the experts

Why is there no text book leading to the understanding of a research paper?

It is difficult but worth trying in some subjects.

I agree that the aims are so different that a direct comparison is unfair to authors of both types of material. The focus of the institution,research or teaching, can create artificial divisions and conceivably unproductive competition among scholars.

Textbooks require significant analysis and synthesis of current evidence. I think they should be given significant weight. The research, synthesis, and presentation of information requires as much critical thinking, reflection, analysis, and synthesis as many research projects!

It varies between country to country, institution to institution, and department to department. In some countries, if you publish in top tier journals, you get cash prize. In many universities, they try to calculate the author impact and review the publication history.

I was going through most of the answers. I saw one element was missing. The person who is competent enough to publish his own book, normally will have a decebt publishing history and with a good academic standing. Hence, publishing extra papers vs. writing or editing a volume wouldn't make much difference when such person needs to be evaluated for promotion.

Having edited 20 books myself (http://pandi-perumal.blogspot.com), if some novice author approach a top notch publisher for publishing his work, most likely they will turn down the offer. Additionally, most of the book proposals will be evaluated critically. I have evaluated for many publishers.

Writing a manuscript with many collaborators and publishing in a high tier journal is easier than writing an academic book. You have to explain everything so that even a reference book is understood by a graduate student. You need to generate many tables and figures, tons of copyright clearances, etc. It is tough job. Any academician knows it. It needs dedication, time management, and hard work. Not everyone can do it.

If one has few extra papers in a top tier journals, and another one has equally done well (or even for that matter done little low), but has written a book, If I were to hire, I would go with the latter. Certainly he would be a hard worker.

In academics, we all juggle many balls and wear many hats. From my experience, editing a volume per year will not compromise my journal article publications. I know how to work around. For example, if I have a pressing obligation or deadline to meet; I would say, I am not taking lead on this paper, I don't want to communicate or be a corresponding author, etc. This will save a bit of my time.

Finally coming back to the reality, it's all boil down to the following: if the hiring department chair has published few books himself, he would appreciate someone who have written a book. Alternatively, if the hiring chair (committee) is an young and energetic person, but haven't published any book, most likely he would prefer someone who has published more. At that point, it becomes purely a personal choice.

I guess the answer depends on textbook and the article. Writing an article in "science" or "nature" journals is worth more than writing a small book.