No announcement yet.

Publish or Perish?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Publish or Perish?

    Post your view on this topic here

  • #2
    Yes this is as simple as OUT OF SIGHT- OUT OF MIND. Yes day by day memory is getting shorter and shorter. Even if you publish but very soon you will ve over swamped by new ones. this may be one year or one month or even one day in times to come due to burgeoning population.
    Dr Shoor Vir singh


    • #3
      Hmmmm .... perhaps I have this wrong, but it seems a false dichotomy? Why not focus on making an impact (may or may not be through publication) in some area before one, inevitably, perishes. I understand that publications are the currency and measure of productivity of researchers and are easy to count or account for impact / citations / and the whatnot - but this to me is a fools errand, even though I frequently have to stop myself from relying to heavily on this deeply flawed metric.


      • Apur4209
        Apur4209 commented
        Editing a comment
        I think that the ideal is most definitely to focus on making an impact in an area but the point that I was making is that in general, our currency is measured by metrics that are largely weighted by publication output. To put it another way - when writing a grant proposal you have to prove your impact or your potential for future impact by showing evidence that you are capable of carrying out the job and the way that we do that is by listing past publications. If the ability to publish is diminished or if the legitimacy of publications are diluted then where does this lead?

      • vkapur
        vkapur commented
        Editing a comment
        Yes, I concur - publications are the metric most often and easily used. The point is however that it is still a flawed measure, and for one to not get too caught up in the counting, but rather focus on how people are moving the field forward. Publication number is not necessarily a good proxy for impact or even an individual's track record (think predatory journals / fake citation scores - etc.); even journal "impact factors" are a bit dodgy in terms of proxy for impact (see for instance the recent discussion - Bottom line, this is a hard problem - in my view, one can do pretty well without publishing, but also one can have lots of papers, but little impact. Perhaps stated another way - publications are neither necessary nor sufficient to have impact - but are perhaps necessary (but not sufficient) to survive in an academic or research intensive setting?