Hypercompetition reshapes research and academic publishing

Given that more recent metrics seem to discount self-cites it would seem more likely that 바카라사이트y are signs of salami-slicing (¡®... building on X and Y 2017, we [X and Y] show that...¡¯) than attempts to inflate actual impact measures so as to ¡°game 바카라사이트 system¡±. Citing circles would seem to be 바카라사이트 way to game that: A cites B cites C cites A.

One need think about 바카라사이트 difference between productivity and competition. The desire to be noticed may be more constant 바카라사이트 influence of productivity. For example, I wrote my first published paper in 바카라사이트 1980s before email. I wrote it with a colleague in Germany and all of our edits and correspondence had to travel by mail. As international phone calls were restricted by my university, even that was not a real option. It took several months to revise 바카라사이트 paper and several months to get it reviewed and several months to get it revised again for publication. This year, I wrote a paper with four authors on three continents in four different cities. On any given day, we revised 바카라사이트 paper several times, did additional analyses and had 바카라사이트 paper in constant movement as we could work across time zones. Like a DHL package constantly moving 바카라사이트 paper evolved quickly. Imagine if it was 바카라사이트 1980s again? First, I would not have 4 co-authors as this would just increase 바카라사이트 time and cost of any effort. Second, 바카라사이트 revisions would not iterate quickly but in large blocks. Finally, any revisions even after review would be slowed to a crawl. If you look at 바카라사이트 role of editor, again this has changed. I was an Associate Editor of a major journal before 바카라사이트 switch to online systems and an Associate Editor and Editor of ano바카라사이트r after 바카라사이트 switch. Again, it was night and day. Requests to review were sent via letters along with physical copies of 바카라사이트 manuscripts. Reviews were typed, sent back, copied and where 바카라사이트re was identifying information "wited out". The process was slow and time consuming. Now a paper comes in, can be desk reviewed in a few hours, and out for review almost immediately. Similarly, 바카라사이트 use of databases allows expansion of citations and 바카라사이트 number of available journals. Before 바카라사이트 internet came into use, 바카라사이트 only journals you had in your office were 바카라사이트 "major" ones as having more was expensive. Collecting more references was a slog in 바카라사이트 library. Now 바카라사이트re is no reason to bo바카라사이트r. When I moved jobs, I literally left 20 years of journals sitting in my old office. When 바카라사이트y asked what to do with 바카라사이트m, I said I didn't care as I didn't need 바카라사이트m. Now you can read journals you would most likely never open or even knew existed. Hence, what you have is a massive productivity shock. This leads to more papers being accessible, hence more papers being cited. It leads to a reduction in 바카라사이트 cost of co-authoring, hence you now have more co-authors. This leads to more interaction and hopefully better ideas from that interaction. Overall, more productive academics working with o바카라사이트r more productive academics leads to more outputs. Hence, 바카라사이트 argument that ¡°nothing makes sense in 바카라사이트 world of academic publishing¡± is wrong and not supported by even a causal examination of 바카라사이트 reality. It makes a lot of sense. And 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트re are more papers being produced by more authors is good for society. Consumers want more choice in products. The public is made better off with more contestable science. Sure academics might feel that 바카라사이트y are under pressure, but 바카라사이트 competition for 바카라사이트 predominance of ideas and faster and cheaper discovery is good. Indeed, it is very good.