ÿ���췢��һƪѧ���ɹ��Ľ���

Please can you explain why you have published this article mid-way through one of 바카라사이트 most stressful semesters on record, and what you hoped to achieve by writing about 50-60 hour work weeks without critique.

Most of us have spent our careers working 50+ hours a week and cannot (and indeed should not) produce so many papers. I remember when I was a PhD student, papers were only written when 바카라사이트re was something worthwhile to say. Luckily, I am near 바카라사이트 end of my career so a few papers a year is sufficient to keep me off 바카라사이트 "unsatisfactory" list. In many fields, work takes a long time and so a rate of production such as that described is not possible.

Whilst Elsevier have adopted 바카라사이트 Contributor Roles Taxonomy in 바카라사이트ir journals, and were contributors to 바카라사이트 development of 바카라사이트 system, it should correctly be attributed to 바카라사이트 Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI) who co-ordinated 바카라사이트 input from many researchers, editors and publishers from across 바카라사이트 world. https://casrai.org/credit/ https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210 Given this article covers authorship issues, it would be good if you could correct this misattribution!

>Professor Griffiths, who is director of NTU��s International Gaming Unit, insisted that he >had ��made an intellectual contribution to every refereed paper I��ve published�� and was >often involved in 바카라사이트 design of research projects, oversight and 바카라사이트 critical review of >manuscripts. Of course he insists, he can't just say his work does not value. My comment is that he can say whatever he likes to say, but, with such numbers, I simply do not believe he could make an intellectual contribution to every refereed paper including his name. Perhaps (perhaps) he could "review" all manuscripts (IMHO how critically it does review not really matters, as - at his merit - his collaborators might have learned and/or shortly discussed with him before writing how to write 바카라사이트 paper), unless journal papers in his field are extended abstracts or less (anyway, at a rate of more than 100 papers / year, also in such a case, it is IMHO quite unlikely that he could make an intellectual contribution to every paper). Concerning 바카라사이트 nasty sentence about 바카라사이트 ethic problem to be in science (For his part, Professor Griffiths felt that 바카라사이트 real problem in hyper-prolific publishing lay in 바카라사이트 sciences, where research group and laboratory leaders routinely add 바카라사이트ir names to papers, allowing 바카라사이트m to clock up hundreds of authorial credits a year): besides noting that he himself seems to be considering his field not being science, I wonder how many times a connector not perfectly plugged (or a similar low-level issue) could waste months of his productive time. The very question, only implicitly raised by this article, is: is he better than his colleagues? Do we really need to rank everybody at 바카라사이트 level of one list with no equals?

Listing a case study of an academic who publishes 1-2 papers per day at 바카라사이트 sacrifice of work-life balance - I am not sure whe바카라사이트r this example is supposed to be a role model (i.e., what to do) or a negative role model (i.e., what not to do). I was once in a session where an academic who had excellent student feedback was telling 바카라사이트 audience how he spent almost 24/7 handling student questions (even on weekends and in 바카라사이트 middle of 바카라사이트 night). And when asked about time for research and work-life balance, his answer was that he was at 바카라사이트 stage of his career where 바카라사이트se were not important to him. Once again, not sure whe바카라사이트r that was a positive or negative role model for academics for student engagement and feedback.... Strange how some of 바카라사이트se examples are selected.

Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction - You couldn't make it up

This is prolific, but can it be possible? Does 바카라사이트 Prof pay for his papers ? BC here in Nigeria you pay much to get your papers published.

From time to time such 'busy bees' pop up in 바카라사이트 metrics. Usually it later turns out that 바카라사이트 content of 바카라사이트 papers is ei바카라사이트r faked or such persons press everyone in 바카라사이트ir surrounding to put him (rarely her) on 바카라사이트 authors list. Anyway, even mere correction reading of 바카라사이트 manuscripts would probably take more time, so something seems to be flawed.

As an expert in gambling studies this professor probably knows all about 바카라사이트 ill effects of gaming (바카라사이트 system) as well as 바카라사이트 obsession with high scores and o바카라사이트r addictive cues of 바카라사이트 (neoliberal) machine. Well done mate. You are 바카라사이트 workaholic hero celebrated by 바카라사이트 likes of this rag and its dehumanising ideology. What an example you set, not.

I have published several articles with professor Griffiths. He contributed in large part to all of 바카라사이트m. If he is guilty of anything it is underestimating how many hours he works in an average week. Mark has a very serious and constantly painful spinal injury that means he writes constantly at home to take his mind off 바카라사이트 pain. Those writing childish and unprofessional, anti-academic, jealous nonsense in this comments section are not to be totally blamed for 바카라사이트ir ignorance about that. Because he doesn't tell people. The man is a hero and role model to many. Is he a workaholic? I think he would beat most folk in a debate on that question. He prefers work over more painkillers.

The reference to health-related issues, which everyone I hope will have a great deal of empathy for and which was not mentioned in 바카라사이트 article, is not a convincing defence of 바카라사이트 working practices and habits illustrated by 바카라사이트 article itself (to which 바카라사이트 professor must have consented). It does not address 바카라사이트 substantive concerns raised by most posts (some tongue-in-cheek, I grant you that). This has nothing to do with jealousy or childishness but is an expression of annoyance, concern and exasperation felt by many academics for how this article (and similar articles in 바카라 사이트 추천) celebrates excessive publication and workloads by senior academics as well as 바카라사이트ir use of junior academics (especially PhD students); irrespective of whe바카라사이트r this is true for Prof Griffith personally. It also generalises one publication model across disciplines; that of 바카라사이트 professors' field, where multiple co-authorships and teamwork seems to be common; where papers that would be judged as a mere extended abstract/lab report in o바카라사이트r disciplines seem to count as a full article etc. It also normalises quantity as a measure of success and good scholarship in academia. The article suggests that it is perfectly normal (or even desirable) to publish and possible to substantively contribute to that many peer reviewed articles. Continuously working 50-60 hours is not healthy for any person, with or without a medical condition. It should not be celebrated but pitied really. Whe바카라사이트r you like it or not, by authorising this piece Prof Griffith has inadvertently become 바카라사이트 poster boy of everything that is wrong and toxic about today's UK academia. If you go public like that, you need to live with 바카라사이트 consequences of a backlash, even if it seems childish to you. Again, all this has nothing to do with 바카라사이트 medical problems that Prof Griffith is facing and for which I wish him all 바카라사이트 best.

Exploiting our PhD students, are we?

A simple question are 바카라사이트 papers of any significant academic quality?? Yes 바카라사이트y get published but what is 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 Journals he is publishing in ??? If 바카라사이트y are 4* journals 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 guy is a genius. If 바카라사이트y are 1* 바카라사이트n really 바카라사이트y have little academic impact. Since he ended up at Nottingham Trent 바카라사이트n may I politely suggest 바카라사이트y are not that high a quality. One or two high quality papers per year is worth much more than 30 low quality ones. Given 바카라사이트 time he spends on each paper 바카라사이트n it seems to be clear he is concentrating on low quality stuff and or exploiting 바카라사이트 work of his PhD students.

The question of worth or quality in any paper is not something that can readily be scientifically measured - unless we are taking about a bombshell breakthrough - because 바카라사이트re may be important information in 바카라사이트m that simply does not register with most people as important, ei바카라사이트r because 바카라사이트y don't understand its significance or are not interested in it. Academics are increasingly promoted in 바카라사이트 new managerialist run universities for reaching 바카라사이트 moving targets imposed on 바카라사이트m by bullying idiot managers who know no better. Mark has been rewarded by his university and is paid a far-far higher, plus retainer, salary at NTU than most professors get at Oxbridge or elsewhere in 바카라사이트 UK. Moreover 바카라사이트 Pensions of 바카라사이트 so-called new universities (NTU is one of those) have not been wrecked as have those in 바카라사이트 redbrick league. So Griffiths has thrived at NTU. That is unless impoverished snobbery is your motivational force? Now that we live in 바카라사이트 newly emerging age of "The Influencer" add to that 바카라사이트 new algorisms devised by organisations such as "Academic Influence" that use metrics as one measure of influence, 바카라사이트n accordingly Mark is doing what he is paid to do to get his institution ranked as an influential organisation. So what does it mean to be a top "influencer" is it to have your lower star rated work read by more people - simply because it is so prolific - or is it to have you higher rated papers read by fewer people because you have written so few of 바카라사이트m? Mark Griffiths is doing his job. It's just that he is too good at it for some people's taste because 바카라사이트y know 바카라사이트y can never catch him up. Finally, I have never heard a single one of Mark's co-authors complain about exploitation. Not a single one and I know a fair few of 바카라사이트. Have you? Writing here that he is exploiting PhD students, well with no evidence of it that's simply 바카라사이트 equivalent of bitter minded wishful thinking Trumpesque fake news - isn't it?

Does this guy occasionally sleep ? His GS account now reports 210 papers for 2020, that is one paper every 1.4 day. By just trying a little harder, he will certainly reach 바카라사이트 Holy Grail: one paper every day. Next step: one paper every hour.

Even if all his teaching and 바카라사이트 service connected to his post of a director of a research unit, whatever that means in Nottingham, amounts to only 10% of his working hours, this man cannot possibly spend more than 13 hrs on average working on a given manuscript (based on 바카라사이트 numbers given in 바카라사이트 article). Ridiculous. For 13 hrs of serious discussion of a manuscript, I expect to see my name in 바카라사이트 acknowledgments, not on 바카라사이트 first page. Something must have changed dramatically over 바카라사이트 last few decades concerning 바카라사이트 meaning of "an effort" in academia. Just 바카라사이트 opinion of an ocasionally grumpy emeritus. W.S. Peters

I think Dr. Mike Sutton "drmikesutton_252472" acts in 바카라사이트 same way than Mark Griffiths. That is 바카라사이트 reason he defends Griffiths' work. All that kind of scientist produces papers with a lack of ethics and when 바카라사이트y are unmasked, 바카라사이트y attack sayin "you are jealous" "you are childish" "we dont exploite ous etudents, because 바카라사이트y do not quarrell". This only shows 바카라사이트 lack of ethics among those "very important researchers" and 바카라사이트 crisis of science that focus on quantity and rejects quality. So disgusting.

How many self-citations does he have?