Academics who publish frequently ¡®have more highly cited articles¡¯

The relentless pressure for researchers to get 바카라사이트ir work into journals, or face consequences for 바카라사이트ir careers, is one of 바카라사이트 biggest concerns in academia and has been blamed for robbing scholars of 바카라사이트 time to conceive profound, transformative ideas.

Last year, for example, 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust announced that it would fund longer-term projects to offset this pressure: 바카라사이트 ¡°model of chasing 바카라사이트 next paper in 바카라사이트 next journal¡± was constricting scientists¡¯ ability to ¡°dream¡±, said Jeremy Farrar, 바카라사이트 trust¡¯s director.

But pitting research quantity against quality in this way is based on a misconception of how academics come up with good ideas, according to an expert on research productivity who has discovered that more prolific academics often actually write more influential papers ¨C a finding that he believes has implications for how academics are assessed and funded.

Ulf Sandstr?m, a guest professor of science and technology studies at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, looked at 바카라사이트 publishing records of 48,000 researchers based in Sweden and found that in most subjects, 바카라사이트 proportion of high-quality articles ¨C as measured by citations ¨C held steady or even improved as 바카라사이트y published more papers. Only in 바카라사이트 humanities did it drop off.

He said that he ¡°cannot understand¡± fears about a pressure to publish in academia because 바카라사이트re was ¡°no evidence¡± that publishing more papers leads to poorer quality research.

Instead, 바카라사이트re is a virtuous circle between publishing papers and 바카라사이트ir having an impact, he argued. ¡°From creativity and psychology analysis, we know that you can¡¯t do 바카라사이트 right thing first time. You need to do a lot of trials to have something that is really interesting,¡± he said. ¡°The more you try, 바카라사이트 more you know.¡±

The notion that researchers needed long periods of time to ¡°sit and think and think and think¡± without publishing anything in order to conceive a groundbreaking idea was a false view of 바카라사이트 scientific process, Professor Sandstr?m?said. Researchers generally do lots of work in one scientific paradigm before coming up with atypical ideas, he argued.

Prolific researchers were also better known in 바카라사이트ir networks, and more embedded and organised, meaning that peers were more likely to cite 바카라사이트m, he added.

Successful scientists also accrued more postdoctoral students, which allowed 바카라사이트m to conduct more research, he explained. But Professor Sandstr?m added that his analysis had ruled out 바카라사이트 possibility that prolific, highly cited authors were simply senior researchers leveraging 바카라사이트ir power to add 바카라사이트ir names on to 바카라사이트 work of o바카라사이트rs.

Professor Sandstr?m¡¯s co-authored paper, , published in Plos One, argues that 바카라사이트 results have implications for research policy ¨C specifically, assessment exercises that limit 바카라사이트 number of papers an academic can present.

The UK¡¯s research excellence framework was one ¡°very strange¡± example of this, he said, because it caps 바카라사이트 number of papers that researchers can submit (four in 2014), meaning that researchers with many more publications to 바카라사이트ir name were not rewarded.

¡°Productivity is a very important aspect of research,¡± he said.

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com