New Life Form Found

#51
That really depends on where you are, a top research university (or institution) or podunk U.
Researchers don't work at podunk U. It sounds arrogant and elitest, but the "researchers" at Podunk U do not have upwardly mobile careers. Excessive publications in bad journals may help them get tenure, but their salaries are capped and they are not competitive for large grants. There is no money at Podunk U.
 
#52
Researchers don't work at podunk U. It sounds arrogant and elitest, but the "researchers" at Podunk U do not have upwardly mobile careers. Excessive publications in bad journals may help them get tenure, but their salaries are capped and they are not competitive for large grants. There is no money at Podunk U.
Publish or Perish

just read a few of the results to that google query
 
#53
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. If it's that publishing is essential to the career of scientists, you'll get no argument from me. My point was that those journals you cite as publishing anything as long as you are willing to pay the publication fees don't do anything for a scientist's career. Journals have what is called an "impact factor". It is publishing in high impact journals that is important. I can pretty much guarantee you that a scientist who publishes 15 articles in odd, low impact journals is not going to get tenure at Illinois whereas a scientist with two high impact articles has a solid chance.
 
#54
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. If it's that publishing is essential to the career of scientists, you'll get no argument from me. My point was that those journals you cite as publishing anything as long as you are willing to pay the publication fees don't do anything for a scientist's career. Journals have what is called an "impact factor". It is publishing in high impact journals that is important. I can pretty much guarantee you that a scientist who publishes 15 articles in odd, low impact journals is not going to get tenure at Illinois whereas a scientist with two high impact articles has a solid chance.
I didn't just say that some journals will publish anything though that is part of the problem. I said that on top of that we reward for the wrong thing, we value quantity over quality regardless of where it is published. "Publish or Perish" That is one of the reasons we see so many retractions, publishing in quantity in hopes that they don't get caught.

And yes Podunk U's do value publishing, I have one near me that is constantly bragging about it's published professors even though they publish in crap publications.
 
#55
I didn't just say that some journals will publish anything though that is part of the problem. I said that on top of that we reward for the wrong thing, we value quantity over quality regardless of where it is published. "Publish or Perish" That is one of the reasons we see so many retractions, publishing in quantity in hopes that they don't get caught.

And yes Podunk U's do value publishing, I have one near me that is constantly bragging about it's published professors even though they publish in crap publications.
And I'm arguing that the definition of quality is the problem. Quality is defined (for the purposes of obtaining faculty positions and gaining tenure) as the impact factor of the journal in which the work was published. Like everything else, sensationalism is king. Certainly quantity is also important, but I think we'd actually be better off if quantity was held in higher regard than where articles were published. If solid, well done, detail oriented papers in topic specific journals were not looked down upon, we'd probably see fewer retractions.

Regarding the Podunk U near you, I'm sure they do value their publications. And they likely encourage their faculty to publish in high numbers. But those publications are not going to alter the scientific landscape nor will they have much impact on the decisions regarding which research proposals are funded by NIH/NSF and other funding agencies.
 
#56
And I'm arguing that the definition of quality is the problem. Quality is defined (for the purposes of obtaining faculty positions and gaining tenure) as the impact factor of the journal in which the work was published. Like everything else, sensationalism is king. Certainly quantity is also important, but I think we'd actually be better off if quantity was held in higher regard than where articles were published. If solid, well done, detail oriented papers in topic specific journals were not looked down upon, we'd probably see fewer retractions.

Regarding the Podunk U near you, I'm sure they do value their publications. And they likely encourage their faculty to publish in high numbers. But those publications are not going to alter the scientific landscape nor will they have much impact on the decisions regarding which research proposals are funded by NIH/NSF and other funding agencies.
That is part of the problem here, we are using different definitions of quality. Quality is not just where you get published. A fraudulent or incorrect paper, no matter where it is published, is not a quality paper. The OP is a prime example, it got a lot a press and publicity but you can't say there is much if any quality involved.

The rush to publish and incentives to publish as frequently as possible degrades the quality. It doesn't matter if it is in a highly respected journal or some crap pay to publish rag, The incentive is for researchers is to publish early and often in order to keep their jobs and get more funding rather than rewarding for the overall quality. The high end researchers just have different outlets than the low end Podunk U researchers, the competition is the same, the stakes are just higher for some than others.
 
#57
That is part of the problem here, we are using different definitions of quality. Quality is not just where you get published. A fraudulent or incorrect paper, no matter where it is published, is not a quality paper. The OP is a prime example, it got a lot a press and publicity but you can't say there is much if any quality involved.

The rush to publish and incentives to publish as frequently as possible degrades the quality. It doesn't matter if it is in a highly respected journal or some crap pay to publish rag, The incentive is for researchers is to publish early and often in order to keep their jobs and get more funding rather than rewarding for the overall quality. The high end researchers just have different outlets than the low end Podunk U researchers, the competition is the same, the stakes are just higher for some than others.
Yes, we are using different definitions of quality. I'm not using a real definition of quality but rather the definition of quality that is used by faculty hiring search committees and tenure granting committees. I'm speaking of quality in terms of the types of publications that are useful in one's career. Journals are peer reviewed and as such it is assumed by the diverse committees I describe that research published in the most selective journals are the best papers that will have the most impact on the field moving forward. It's not much different than judging job applicants on whether they went to Harvard or Eastern Illinois. It's lazy, but it's reality.

And the rush does at times diminish quality. And that may cause incoherent stories that are poorly considered, but I think (and this is my opinion) that little fraud is the direct fault of the lab head. I think the fault often lies with the students and post-docs who feel the need to publish in the best journals to secure faculty positions. The lab head certainly takes blame for not properly controlling the quality of his/her product, but they are not often making the conscious decisions involved in retractions.

Finally, you think that game is the same at Podunk U but the stakes are different. I disagree. At Podunk U (maybe we have different definitions on this), teaching is an integral part of your tenure package. At research universities and institutes your ability to teach is largely irrelevant. So the game itself as well as the stakes are different.
 
#58
Yes, we are using different definitions of quality. I'm not using a real definition of quality but rather the definition of quality that is used by faculty hiring search committees and tenure granting committees. I'm speaking of quality in terms of the types of publications that are useful in one's career. Journals are peer reviewed and as such it is assumed by the diverse committees I describe that research published in the most selective journals are the best papers that will have the most impact on the field moving forward. It's not much different than judging job applicants on whether they went to Harvard or Eastern Illinois. It's lazy, but it's reality.

And the rush does at times diminish quality. And that may cause incoherent stories that are poorly considered, but I think (and this is my opinion) that little fraud is the direct fault of the lab head. I think the fault often lies with the students and post-docs who feel the need to publish in the best journals to secure faculty positions. The lab head certainly takes blame for not properly controlling the quality of his/her product, but they are not often making the conscious decisions involved in retractions.
That is pretty much my point. While I agree it is the current reality, I think it is a mistake. A good analogy is a company that sacrifices the long term health of a company in order to bolster short term profits. We're rewarding short term publicity and publishing at the expense of the longer term.

Finally, you think that game is the same at Podunk U but the stakes are different. I disagree. At Podunk U (maybe we have different definitions on this), teaching is an integral part of your tenure package. At research universities and institutes your ability to teach is largely irrelevant. So the game itself as well as the stakes are different.

I agree with that with (overall) one large exception, every one of those professors who is publishing is hoping to make a splash and move up to the big time. There may be different "ingredients" at the lower level but they are all in search of the same thing, dollars.
 
#59
That is pretty much my point. While I agree it is the current reality, I think it is a mistake. A good analogy is a company that sacrifices the long term health of a company in order to bolster short term profits. We're rewarding short term publicity and publishing at the expense of the longer term.




I agree with that with (overall) one large exception, every one of those professors who is publishing is hoping to make a splash and move up to the big time. There may be different "ingredients" at the lower level but they are all in search of the same thing, dollars.
The problem is not the method of evaluation. The problem is those individuals who try to cheat the system. And regarding those at lower levels, they're not going to make a splash. They don't have the resources or name recognition. Faculty positions are not like baseball. You don't typically start in the minor leagues then move up to the big time. The big time research institutes hire those that they feel are the best young minds and then give them the tools to succeed (there are exceptions of course). If you take a job at Eastern Illinois, you're not moving up to a research school.
 
#60
Has anyone read anything interesting on this AIDS-like disease that middle age Asians are popping up with? Sounds like the body begins making antibodies to gamma-INF and the immune system collapses making the patient suffer through AIDS without the HIV or T-cell deficits.
 
#61
Has anyone read anything interesting on this AIDS-like disease that middle age Asians are popping up with? Sounds like the body begins making antibodies to gamma-INF and the immune system collapses making the patient suffer through AIDS without the HIV or T-cell deficits.
That is pretty much all I have heard. It appears to be environmental/genetic in which case it shouldn't be pandemic, but I think we know very little at this point.