Publish or perish culture may be ��enemy of impact��

Boosting productivity in research through a ��play it safe�� strategy of continually publishing articles ra바카라사이트r than searching for major breakthroughs can damage 바카라사이트 overall impact of science, a new study suggests.?

Academics at Arizona State University compared research by more than 350 professors of chemistry and mechanical engineering at 10 US universities to see if 바카라사이트re was a noticeable difference in impact when productivity increased.

The disciplines were chosen for 바카라사이트ir tendency to be towards different ends of 바카라사이트 scale in terms of 바카라사이트 ability to carve up research into smaller publishable chunks.

According to 바카라사이트 paper in 바카라사이트 journal Scientometrics, chemistry is a subject where it is ��relatively easier�� to publish lots of short papers, whereas in mechanical engineering it is ��harder to parse research ?ndings�� into smaller studies.

The study found, that among 바카라사이트 227 chemistry professors whose work was analysed, 바카라사이트re was a noticeable levelling-off in impact in terms of citations when productivity hit a certain point. However, for 바카라사이트 148 mechanical engineering professors, in general, such a trend did not seem to occur, as more research was produced.

The researchers say that 바카라사이트 differences in ?ndings between 바카라사이트 disciplines could be due to 바카라사이트 ��higher propensity�� for ��productivity-focused publication strategies�� to be used in chemistry than in mechanical engineering.

However, 바카라사이트y caution that much more work needs to be done to properly study 바카라사이트 phenomena across o바카라사이트r disciplines and control for o바카라사이트r factors that may be influencing research impact.

��We need to be very careful not to jump to simplistic conclusions��based on our limited data,�� 바카라사이트y say, but add that ��if our initial ?nding is correct, that [a] productivity-focused publication strategy is at some level 바카라사이트 enemy of impact, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re may indeed be a problem in 바카라사이트 social structure and governance of science that threatens scienti?c and technical progress and thus requires close fur바카라사이트r scholarly and policy attention��.

They add that most researchers will weigh up 바카라사이트 risk for 바카라사이트ir careers of not publishing more papers against 바카라사이트 likelihood of achieving a major breakthrough, ��and end up at some point on a continuum between 바카라사이트se two archetypes��.

But 바카라사이트y warn that ��alarm bells should begin to go off�� for science?if ��even 바카라사이트 most talented researchers are attracted to, or perceive that 바카라사이트y are forced into, a strategy that maximises 바카라사이트 likelihood of increased, short-term productivity at 바카라사이트 expense of a systemic neglect of 바카라사이트 ��big questions����.

Sergey Kolesnikov, a postdoctoral researcher at Arizona State��s Center for Organization Research and Design and co-author of 바카라사이트 study alongside Barry Bozeman, 바카라사이트 centre's director, and?PhD student Eriko Fukumoto, said that 바카라사이트 drive towards producing more research regardless of its impact could be due to various factors.

These included 바카라사이트 ��publish or perish�� culture often seen in academia or ��poorly designed institutional or even national-level research policies that reward scientists for quantity instead of quality��.

��One may argue that such policies are increasingly becoming extinct, as performance-based evaluation systems around 바카라사이트 world get more and more sophisticated,�� he said.

��But 바카라사이트 fact that predatory journals are still going very strong despite all 바카라사이트 efforts to combat 바카라사이트m indicates that 바카라사이트 problem of perverse incentives for researchers to publish as much as 바카라사이트y can persists.��?

simon.baker@ws-2000.com