Scientific Knowledge is so wide.  There is room for all of us to CONTRIBUTE, according to our ability and interest.  Have a look at this link:

"Oscar points out a good number of reasons, with some rather interesting additional reading materials, as to why we are so inclined to share what we know with others without even asking for much in return: sharing as a gift, as a key motivator to increase our reputation, as we seek emotional communion, etc. etc..."

http://www.elsua.net/2012/09/19/why-do-i-share-my-knowledge/

That is quite natural. Normally all researchers are very excited to make others known about our findings. Being a contribution to the research area concerned, we will be happy and proud about it. The only difference is some researchers may wait for some more time to get some more extended results or to make the research paper more and more refined.

Moreover, there are some mandatory (statutory) requirements for academic people to have publications  for career advancements.

In all the things we humans do, either we do it for the sake of our  living as a necessity (not much interested in social effects of results) and satisfying intellectual curiosity or from a higher and broader awareness and purpose that what we do have greater effects not only to our lives but to society.

Scientists are from these two categories, some are introverts and do science as a means of living and an intellectual curiosity while others and extroverts do science for the latter purpose, passionately desire and do scientific results to be promoted, propagated and reached to society for preservation, continuity and progress of knowledge for social betterment.   

Any knowledge scientific or otherwise is for sharing and disseminating. Shared knowledge expands and receives appreciation or critical acclaim. Humans are social beings and like to communicate, share, criticize and appreciate. Scientists working in private or profit motivated organizations may be forced to remain silent for business reasons or contractual obligations.

I consider that the number of publications and conferences is an indicator of scientific activity and less an indicator of quality. Publications and conferences are a product of the scientists work. Quality indicator is determined by the effect of the publication in the given domain of science and is estimated partially by the number of citations and the journal impact factor.  

Thank you, dear sirs, for your wonderful contributes.

Yes, we are all different. And this adds diversity and colour to the World.

As I posted this question, I immediately thought of two of my favourite scientific characters, both fundamental for the future of culture and of Science . Both so different, and yet so valuable...

Copernico died for the cause of communicating his fundamental Truth, that changed the World, as we know it.

Leonardo concealed his work, and remained unknown to his fellow contemporaries, were it not for the extravagant personality that built his character. His real value may be yet partly undiscovered. But the World also changed after him.

Would anyone dare to score these two scientific giants???

I wonder...

Scientific Knowledge is so wide.  There is room for all of us to CONTRIBUTE, according to our ability and interest.  Have a look at this link:

"Oscar points out a good number of reasons, with some rather interesting additional reading materials, as to why we are so inclined to share what we know with others without even asking for much in return: sharing as a gift, as a key motivator to increase our reputation, as we seek emotional communion, etc. etc..."

http://www.elsua.net/2012/09/19/why-do-i-share-my-knowledge/

Scientific communication and sharing of research results is presumption for myself dear @Maria. Peer to peer communication is necessary. Our scientific knowledge and our research results are for the sake of humanity, not only for our selfish purpose. Feedback from our peers is hardly needed for future improvement of our results.

Dear all,

Good day,

The number of publications and conferences are not an indicator of scientific quality. My opinion is that a single scientific research puplication with a great reputation is enough in the scientific life of a researcher.

Best regards

Dear Maria, I cannot say how can we ever measure Galileo, Copernicus or Leonardo.

But allow me to present "Albert Einstein's page on Google Scholar".  The take home lesson is WE ARE DWARFS.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qc6CJjYAAAAJ

Basic purpose of scientific knowledge/research is to communicate --- may be faster, may be slow, it depends on scientist to scientists.

Without communication of knowledge, there will be no benefit to scientist itself and other stakeholders including society.

Dear Miranda !

Thank you for scoring Einstein. I tried, in vain , to communicate with him, but he has "no verified eMail"... snif!

Dear Roland! Dear Subhash !!!

Yes, that is why we are here. We are trying to communicate, and to share... And that is good. Real good!

I like being here. (with you!)

Some of the researchers retract if they have results. But this is a mental and psychological exception. Most of us want to share and to show success, get compliments even if regarding the risk to get critcized, refused, misunderstood. We are normally social beings and need the feedback.

Doubt kills more dreams than failure ever will. Stand up for what is right even if you stand alone. A heart without dreams is like a bird without feathers. Stand up for what is right, regardless of who is committing the wrong. Stand up for truth regardless of who steps on it. Fear the vulture and the vulture will come. Fear nothing and you are the vulture. Always surround yourself with friends with plenty of light in them. That way you will be surrounded by candles when days are dark. Humanity is lost because people have abandoned using their conscience as their compass. Wise words are like seeds. The more you scatter them, the more they will grow into infinite gardens of knowledge.

– Suzy Kassem

In seeking knowledge, something new is learned In seeking wisdom, something old is unlearned To grow, we need to learn, unlearn and re-learn

– Med Jones

Motivation and curiosity moves us to do research. Quality of research and papers are important than the quantity of papers.

I am not against quantity provided quality is maintained.

Quality paper receives more recognition and citations  ---- resultant effect communication!

Following are my answers:

Why do we feel the urge to communicate our scientific knowledge?

FHP>> for knowledge contribution - if many researchers have this urge then through multiplier effect, our human knowledge contribution will be substantially increased.

Why do some scientists prefer to keep their discoveries silent?

FHP>> may be they think / their discovery is not mature yet / "ground shattering" or they don't have the urge to share their research findings / knowledge due to rivalry, competition, research only as hobby etc.

Is the number of publications and conferences an indicator of scientific quality?

FHP>> not necessary - some researchers are motivated to publish more to meet university management quota, promotion etc.  The quality of scientific publications & conference proceedings also depends on how stringent the peer review process. 

Or is quantity the enemy of quality?

FHP>> generally can be - if a researcher is focusing on either one, s/he might pull down the other attribute.  However, some researchers can display both quantity and qualify attributes in their scientific discovery / publications

We also have a desire to present our papers at conferences.  Our present day conferences are like the scientific meetings of the past century.  Perhaps there are just a few differences, like more ladies being present, whereas in past generations, science societies comprised male members only.  At conferences, we also get to see the special tourist spots, and shopping malls and markets.  Let's have a good legitimate enjoyment of the blessings of present day researchers.  Good evening.  From mobile.

@ Subhash

I am fully agree with you, the quality of research and papers are important than the quantity of papers

Regards

i think there is no one reason beyond this; it's part of our job to communicate our scientific material ,in addition there is urge to show our scientific material as a way  to highlight ourselves and it may be love of Construction and development of knowledge as communication considered a way to achieve this.

what move us ?  incentives and rewards and Motivation comes from inside resulting from love of knowledge and contribution to it.

there is also Moral motive as in some societies and religions.

Regarding last two questions ;I guess that there is correlation between Number of publication and scientific quality generally, but not linear ones.

Quantity could be enemy of quality to variable degrees ; differ among scientific communities and by factors that drive us to publish our scientific materials.

Dear Eraldo: “… any other practical purpose …”

Dear Maria: Of course. Why do some Professors insist in teaching?

Sharing, for whatever drives us to do it, is part of us. That includes sharing scientific knowledge, research output, and other things.

You said it all in one single sentence. Thank you dear Barbara.

I fully agree. Without communication, there would be no progress in Science...

Thank U!

Scientific knowledge should be communicated as fast as possible in order to solve all kind of problems, including  support for the same scientific research. People or institutions keek discoveries silent because they are not ethically motivated (do not have a moral motivation). What matters is Business, Money. For me quantity is not the enemy of quality. Quality may be in quantity.

Once something is discovered scientists want to share their findings with the world to implament that or to not lose the chance to be the first one to register that novelty. Some scientis are very careful, want to prove their discoveries and hold some time until they make them known to the world.

The motivation of a scientist comes from his desire to change the world to better. Number of publication and confererences is not an direct indication of quality, but the more exposed is the scientist thoughts the better to approve or discard his findings which may not be as good as the other ones.

Not always quantity is an enemy  of quality. The true enemy is when the scientist forgets what his role is in order to focus on publishing more and more. But if he has a theory well supported by literature or researches, not problem. A text a day, keep the bills away.

Vilemar Magalhães

In all these areas of popularizing and communicating of scientific knowledge media have to play an important role. Where scientific knowledge is of use for everyone media have to distribute that knowledge. That's the service-function media often have to play.

Where science may provide a new insight in how the world is functioning media should disseminate these discoveries in special sections or magazines. That's the cultural aspect of science reporting.

And where science itself is under scrutiny, media have to provide arguments and room or time for discussion. That's the democratic argument for science communication.

http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/abstracts/II_11_communicating.htm

Why do we feel the urge to communicate our scientific knowledge?

I think this has to be individual to every scientist & also linked to their personality and circumstances.  Our motivations are basically intrinsically or extrinsically driven. The 'beauty pageant' answer is that we want to produce knowledge that will help improve our society. However, the truth is that we also exist as individuals. Money, promotion, recognition, security ... we basically have a hierarchy of needs that differs from person to person.  Yes, we want to develop knowledge & share it with others, but the motivations from within ourselves & those which result from outside influence (peer recognition, financial provision, job requirement, etc.) also have to be recognised. Call me sceptical, but I believe there is more behind the claims of those who simply want to make the world a better place (& I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all).

I think everything is turned money wise. with different business models around the research industry. 

I  partially agree with Nicholas: "I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all"

However, we ( the researchers) are the weakest link,

when we read and learn about the others work we have to pay,

when we write, we have to pay,

when we travel to conferences we have to pay,

for accommodation and travel costs we have to pay,

when we review a work no body pays.

if it is the other way around I think knowledge will be shared and no body will have to be silent.

Nicholas and Ahmad have made an important point.  So now Maria, your question ties up neatly with Abhijit.  I haven't had time to answer it yet, but perhaps I should...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_education_research_taken_a_turn_towards_business

Ahmad (et al.),

So if money is a key issue & we reverse the issues raised as Ahmed suggests .... where does the money come from? Few of these issues are possible without somebody paying for them in some way.

Scientific communication and knowledge sharing has dramatically changed with technology development. Social media as "communication vehicle"! Scientific communication in the digital age!

In the paper ANChor: A powerful approach to scientific communication,  "...the proposal is that this approachpowerful way to unify, clarify, and sharpen scientific messages and also realize a competitive edge that is becoming progressively more important in today’s academic environment..."

Research ANChor: A powerful approach to scientific communication

Chapter Scientific communication in the digital age

Thank you, dear Roland.

I believe I was born with the "natural" gift of easy communication.

When I was a young child, I remember that whenever I entered a room with people, most of the presents showed joy to see me. (I believe that the secret for that is that I've always enjoyed being myself, and I've always enjoyed being around. (My round face keeps a permanent smile, even when I'm asleep.) The rest comes as a natural consequence. But I admit that I have made an effort to keep up-to-date and to enhance my cultural ability, to improve my communication with others.

Yes, dear Ljubomir. There is still a lot to be learnt in terms of communicating skills. We can still always improve and modernize those skills. It is our duty , as scientists to improve our communicating skills, if we want to contribute to the progress of science.

Dear Maria:

The art of publishing involves not only communication and dissemination of research results, but also intrinsically refers to the reflection that there is no research without teaching and no teaching without research.

Best Regards,

Andréa

"When we communicate questions rather than answers we are closer to wisdom than to science"

What an excellent view!

You'd be surprised at how many people take the stance that if you can't give the answer, don't pose the question ... if you don't have the answer, then you don't have the knowledge (with the inference that you are deficient in some way, & the unspoken inference that the critic is not). With the academic world & his dog taking the scientific high ground, it is good to hear some good philosophical reasoning  ;-)

Communication is part of who we are and our experiences. Communication however has two parts the ability to discuss ideas and rationale and equally important the ability to listen. This last aspect is often forgotten in the overall scheme of things

"If you have nothing to say, say nothing."

— Mark Twain

Why should we communicate - because everyone has the right of expression, and everyone should have the opportunity to see or listen to the opinions of others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZduSScDW0

Watch this documentary: Aaron Swartz: The Internet's Own Boy -  it will make you think about communication, where you stand on accessing information, and how you react to opinions that don't necessarily fit with your own.

Aaron Swartz opined: “So it’s not, you know, only certain people have a license to speak -  now everyone has a license to speak.  It’s a question of who gets heard”.

Regardless of how others may view what we have to say, I think we should communicate it in some form or other. Like the posts on RG, the responses of others help us clarify and refine our own thoughts.  It's all very well to say nothing when you are not part of a discussion, but if you are present or have a role in the process, then to say (communicate) nothing but a passive-aggressive act. I think Twain was referring to those who speak for the sake of speaking, and not making any commentary on the quality of the speech of others.  As long as you think before you speak, then speak out. But, you must be prepared to listen to the thoughts of others. As Chistine says, communication is a 2-way process.

Dear Bernd Schmeikal,

I wouldn't care for the frontiers between Wisdom and Science.

I loved your answer, because it arose several questions in my mind.  So I hope you didn't loose your wisdom for that ! (Thank you!) :)

Maria: you might not care for the barriers, but it can be argued quite effectively that they are present in our perceptions, definitions and distinctions. I really liked Berndt's analogy too, so hopefully he will follow it up in a new thread  🎓

Scientific knowledge is in perpetual evolution; it finds itself changed from one day to the next.

--- Jean Piaget

Bernt: to link your song & your question - if it ain't dark yet, then there is still consciousness.  Go on, ask the question and see what is in those minds out there  ;-)

 Let me remind you that "no man is an island"...

I bet the World is waiting anxiously for Bernd's questions, because they will give rise to so many beautiful answers... (even if only one outstanding singular answer would be a great contribute ! )

"Modern dialog formats in science communication are reminiscent of a culture of public discourse and involvement in past centuries. "- Könneker and Lugger (2013)

Article Public Science 2.0-Back to the Future

I'm not sure about it, but I think the reason to keep silent is different for every scientist. There are "careful" scientist who doesn't want to spread any mistake because they're not sure enough and still seek for better answer. There are scientist who doesn't know yet about how to share and keep their research in the library as a hard copy. There are scientist who work for somebody else and their supervisor is super busy, and doesn't care much about publication, so the scientist doesn't have legal right for their scientific result etc.

I might keep silent, if I predict that my work might result in pernicious consequences for the world...

But, then again, who can predict the future with total certainty?

Again downvoting! An explanations are welcomed! It is unethical without rationale dear friends.

I do not like what appears when you put mouse pointer on red arrow "down vote poor content, this action is anonymous")!

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.

--- Plato

Yes, Dear Ljubomir Jacić,

Down vote is unethical without rationale!

Dear Ljubomir, dear Subhash!

Thank you for noticing. (I personnaly am usually more alert to the interesting contents of contributes, than to the number of votes. I hadn't even seen that our dear Bernd had one stupid, silly downvote...)

As usual, my reaction to this is to simply upvote, whenever I notice that there was downvoting, whatever the content of the contribute. If we all do this, downvoting will soon be reverted and it will stop, just as it started... (anonymously silly!)

Dear Bernd, here are some of my own private thoughts that I dedicate to you, today:

When I stated this thread, on the value (or not) of scientific communication, my first imediate thoughts were about Leonardo (who conceiled much of his work) and Copernic (who risked his life and died, in defence of his original strong convictions and scientific belief of the Truth).

In terms of my own research on the History of Artistic Anatomy and of the intricate relation between Arts and Science,  I have been collecting, for several years now, artistic representations of flayed bodies, such as the Greek myth of Marsyas and Apollo, or the Catholic cult of Saint Bartholomew.

I have grown in interest and admiration for the personality of Bartholomew, the Roman Legionaire, who was flayed alive, by his own fellow roman coreligionists, as a punishment for his  original conviction and religious beliefs.

Don't we all so very often feel as flayed alive, when communicating in public our original scientific beliefs?

Guidelines for scientists on communicating with the media

ENGAGE! Seek out opportunities to communicate directly with civil society groups and members and to discuss the implications of your work. After all, in a lot of cases they will actually have paid for it. Maintain and build their trust in what you are doing whenever you can.

http://www.sirc.org/messenger/

Thank you, dear Subhash!

That is the way to be positive. I'll follow your advice. Bless you !

Publication bias affects the body of scientific knowledge in different ways, including skewing it towards statistically significant or “positive” results. This means that the results of thousands of experiments that fail to confirm the efficacy of a treatment or vaccine – including the outcomes of clinical trials – fail to see the light of day.

http://www.elsevier.com/connect/scientists-we-want-your-negative-results-too

Yes, dear Subhash.

Failures are the intricate fundamental piece of learning and research. I believe that a research with only positive results is fundamentally bias. We learn more from errors than with success. (In this sense, I dislike and avoid scientific success).

You are very right! Dear Maria.

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt

Failures, repeated failures, are finger posts on the road to achievement. One fails forward toward success.

C. S. Lewis

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.

Thomas A. Edison

Elsevier has very good practice. "New Negatives in Plant Science is an open access, peer reviewed, online journal that will publish hypothesis-driven, scientifically sound studies that describe unexpected, controversial, dissenting, and/or null (negative) results in basic plant sciences..."

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-science

A great example to follow.

I wish there could be such book on medical unsuccess. Unfortunately, medical failures would put lifes at risk, and noone would like to publish on that. On the other hand, fortunately, our more risky research fundaments on animal experimentation.

There is no use of scientific research results and knowledge without proper communicating and applying.

As Mark Walport aptly put it,

“Science is not finished until it is communicated.”

National Academy of Sciences pay full attention to scientific communication.

"The continuing challenges facing scientists, professional communicators, and the interested public as they seek to exchange information about science has resulted in a growing area of research—the science of science communication. Investigators are delving into such issues as the role of social networks in how information is disseminated and received; the formation of beliefs and attitudes leading to decisions and behaviors; and strategies for communicating science in a highly-charged, politicized environment..."

http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/completed_colloquia/agenda-science-communication-II.html?referrer=https://www.google.rs/

Visibility of research work depends on  how well you promote it. Everyone is a Stakeholder. We need more than ever to get into the debate. It is possible to communicate research effectively.

http://www.uv.es/operuv/docs_esdev/20111128_07-Communicating_your_research_results.pdf

ResearchGate site is doing a good job in this field. 

Some, more silent, less reknown good scientists may come here, freely and communicate their ideas in a pleasant way as we have been enjoying ourselves.

I feel good here!

Thank you, dear Brenda. Indeed, right.

Sometimes, if and when we  feel that we are loosing our commitment and enthusiasm for research, and still believe that we are on the right track, we may need aclaim, to keep us going... More often, I should seek positive constructive criticism to get me back on track, or to help me find new ways of evolving and developping my research. This is why we attend conferences, for the exchange of experiences in our patrticular field.

Nevertheless, the fear of negative criticism may be misleeding ...

It takes some courasge to expose yourself.in public.

Scientific knowledge/results must be communicated in the form of paper or otherwise as early as possible to avoid any type of copying!

A good editorial from Marcia McNutt is Editor-in-Chief of Science

Even the most brilliant scientific discovery is of little value, if not communicated widely and accurately.

With the explosion of science around the globe, the dissemination of scientific information, once the purview of learned societies and a handful of publishers, is now a growth industry. This growth has attracted new models and new providers of services.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/13.full

As long as master a subject, quantity is never an enemy. It is difficulties to stop speaking when we sure we found the answers we needed.

False allegations of scientific fraud requires intensive scientific communication for many reasons. An excellent article is attached.

http://www.smartsciencecareer.com/falsely-accused/#more-956

Dear Ljubomir.

This is interesting... 

Yes, it is inevitable to be criticized and even provoke jealousy, when we communicate. And mostly, if we are succesful in communication. The darkest aspects of human jealousy, such as false accusations of dishonesty or fraude, or plagiarism, should be predictable too. It's good to know how to react, if the moment comes to have to cope with such behaviours. It would hurt the more, if you thrive towards honesty in your work...

In Science, in general, more and more often, we find several different researchers to discover the same things siultanewously throughout the World. (as a coincidence. ) Should this be considered plagiarism, or mere coincidence ? Probably, this is why so very often Nobel prizes are granted to different unacquainted scientists, for the same deeds and discoveries that happen simultaneously in different parts of the modern World

In an increasingly competitive and global market, researchers and the institutions they represent need to communicate their research effectively to an international audience.

Researchers need the communication skills to enable them to publish in international journals and present at conferences in English; apply for funding to national and international bodies; communicate with the wider public and policy-makers; and build international collaborations to further their research.

Please refer to the link for a report  (COMMUNICATION SKILLS FOR RESEARCHERS)

http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/bc_researcher_connect_brochure_web1.pdf

By communicating effectively, a scientist can get better recognition.

Quantity of refereed articles shows great number of high quality work.

An author likes rapid publication when personal o communitary interest are put in game. But when there is not personal o communitary interest of expressing the work for a better perfection and reflection, it could be silented a time.

It has to also be seen from the perspective of social purpose, beyond simply getting results and be known. Scientific knowledge after all  is power and those who gets is utilize it to their own empowerment and those who do not have it, they leave in difficulty. Because of that social purpose, when a scientist is inspired to share his/her scientific knowledge, it is from that noble innate desire to let society utilize it for its further betterment.  

Communicating Science to the Public—and to Other Scientists - about the importance of storytelling and crossing scientific language barriers!

Communicating Science: Tools for Scientists and Engineers

"Scientists and engineers who foster information-sharing and respect between science and the public are essential for the public communication of and engagement with science. Although traditional scientific training typically does not prepare scientists and engineers to be effective communicators outside of academia, funding agencies and research institutions are increasingly encouraging researchers to extend beyond peer-reviewed publishing and communicate their results directly to the greater public..."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/communicating-science-to-the-publicand-to-other-scientists/

http://www.aaas.org/pes/communicatingscience

 The pressure in academia has been a reason for many scientists to rapidly and continually publish academic work .For promotion,career advancements, etc.

Research results are of little value unless they can be communicated to others.

Great links (as usual !!!) Dear Ljubomir. Thank you.

Quite interested. Quite interesting.

Thank you.

Dear Behrouz and dear Subhash.

I wouldn't go as far as that. I don't believe in publishing or communicating only for academic promotion. What's the use of academic promotion?

And the value of research is certainly independent from succesful communication ..

I should think that the real value of communicating our results is to collaborate in the future advancement of scientific knowledge. We are all part of a more gigantic step that is certainly bigger and more common, more dependent on collaboration than of any individual quest or deeds.

We are not alone. We need to communicate in order to collaborate in the future advancements of a multidisciplinary Science.