Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Chemistry => Topic started by: Rabbit on 13/04/2004 20:44:49
-
As a chemist, I soon learned that the world assessed your value from the number of scientific publications to your name. I joined in the race until I no longer wanted an academic career. What I published in industry was because I thought it was interesting. Years on, I am dismayed by the a) increas in the number of journals b) by the ever-increasing number of publications and c) about the fact that no-one (read NO-ONE) reads even a percent of what is published. And the pubishing houses do not worry about this (yet) because they are there to make money.
Other science disciplines have been able to walk around the publsihers by putting their work on the internet. Not the chemists for some reason. Can anyone explain why chemists cannot do this?
And a suggestion: if every chemist was restricted to only FIVE publications per year, this would solve the problem of too much (often useless) information. Then people would be able to read everything that got published. And those poor publsihers would have to think about being a little more respectful to their authors... oh happy day!
And... when was the last time that you read a serious full paper from begin to end? Don't you normally just skip from one chemical structure (drawing) to another trying to spot what molecules really interest you? Heh - how about publications without those stupid stories and just the facts!!
After 150 years of chemistry, should we not try to change a few things in the scientific publishing world?
-
Rabbit, while i am in a different field I do see some paralells to what you are talking about. However, I do not share your concerns with the situation. I believe that the more publications out there the better. Obviously NO ONE is going to be able to sort through all the material out there. A good scientist is one who knows how to find the literature that pertains to their interests, and how much of this is worth reading, before it becomes a waste of their time. With more people being published it just makes more material available. There are still a higherarchy of journals in each field. (I am going to look first to Science or Nature.... then to Cell or Development, or Imunology.... then to Genetics..... then to many others.... etc. I will read anything (or at least skim as you said) in these that is even remotly related to my field. For me to read something in "The American journal of biological genetic studies in transgenic mountain lions" (this is a fictitious journal) the paper had better be on something almost exactly what I am studying, or else I am NOT going to bother paying attention to it. However, the few people that this paper IS very relavant to would not have the oppertunity to access this information if this journal didn't exist.
While i do agree with you that measuring scientific merit by publication records is harmful to scientific progress, I would argue, in fact, the opposite, that more journals would be better for science to allow an even greater number of publications. I see too many scientists being non colaborative with their couleauges simply because they are afraid that someone will steal their idea, and then steal their coveted publication. This is a very frustrating rwality that I deal with on a daily basis. I also see people rush through large experiments and cut corners and leave avenues unexplored instead of really taking their time to understand one thing at a time becaue they are too worried about getting enough information to make a publishable paper.
lastly I think the scientific comunity needs to wake up to the concept that a rejected hypothisis is just as, if not more, important than an accepted one. Journals only publish successful results. Researchers don't even dream of trying to publish failed experiments. So while we increase our general block of knowledge and move on as a scientific comunity with every paper published.... there are countless labs out there wasting their time doing an experiment that has been tried hundreds of times before them, and shown not to work. But we are held back in our advancement by the fact that this information is not shared.
And as for the "articles with just stories" those are a completely different type of publication with a completely different purpose, and they are very beneficial to science. At this stage in my personal scientific development, i actually read more of those articles, even if they aren't dirrectly related to me work, than I do actual experimental publications, because they contribue more to my general base of knowledge.
If I met you in a scissor-fight, I'd cut off both your wings; on principle alone!!
-
Thanks for your feedback on this! I fully understand your arguments for not restricting publications but... (yes, a but) I assume you are working in a university, right? All the universities I know have a big, big problem with library budgets and are forced to cancel subscriptions for all but the better journals. So, who will read the publications in the newer and/or less prestigeous journals? And, as you point out very clearly, the paper-race is killing good, reasoned and sound scientific thinking - at least the way it is put to practice. If universities used another mechanism to "weigh" the value of scientists, this problem would be reduced quite quickly. I do think a publication is one instrument to evaluate how good a scientist is but not the only one. And the publishers are laughing to the bank (expression) all this time. They get free content and then charge the earth for people to read it.
We are working on accessing the chemistry that never got published. This is some 80% of the work carried out, reactions that worked but did not fit into a nice story. You mention the failed experiments and this too is valuable information for scientists too. Completely neglected! We estimate that the money spent on unpublished chemistry so far exceeds $50 billion. What about other science disciplines?
I keep coming back to the same problem each time - the publishers! They keep their strangle-hold on the scientific community for as long as publication is the prime incentive for scientists. Do something about this and we can return to what science should be all about - enriching understanding.
What do other scientists think?
-
The publishers have every right to publish whatever they want to, whether it is good science or science fiction. If people pay for the subscriptions to read it, then the publisher makes money, the scientist gets another notch on the CV and everyone is happy. If no one reads it, the publisher won't be publishing it very long. I don't think the publishers have a strangle hold on anything. They are simply printing what they believe will sell. The more "prestigious" journals have higher standards and thus hold a larger audience. The more obscure journals are more specialized and serve a smaller audience. Probably they let some wishful thinking slip in sometimes, and if it is too often, then their circulation will reflect that.
I do agree that universities and other institutions should use some other basis for evaluating scientific skill and productivity. It is often not fair to the scientist, and it discourages "good papers" in favor of "quick papers". However, what other criteria will they use? Often there is no other person on staff that has the expertise to question a potential candidate on their scientific background simply because it is so specialized. So, who makes the call? The publishers aren't pretending to, they just print stuff. The committee or person making the decision needs to look at the publications, the journals and the articles and see if they are "good science" or just fiction. If they don't, it's their mistake.
Wow, a long reply to a topic I really have little interest or experience with. I do have one published paper (co-author, several years ago) - in one of the most prestigious journals in my field.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I actually don't work for a university. I am lucky enough to work at an institution where I have access to any journal I could ever fathom reading and more. But I remember from college how frustrating it was not to have access to a paper I wanted. I wish that the government would tink about regulating journal prices, or at least come out with some sort of a more organized database of all journals and where they can be accessed.
I like tweener's point that the system works like most things in a capitalis society; by simple economics... (hehe I'm staring to drool over this topic, I was a Biology major, economics minor in college) As much as I am usually against any sort of government intervention into an economic system, I really do think in this case that some intervention into this system would solve many of its problems (such as possibly access to results from "unsuccessful experiments"??)
I think most people would agree with you that it would be nice to have a better way to evaluate a researcher's performance other than the publication record, but as tweener so kindly pointed out.... what??? Plus as much as the publication race does cause "rushed science" at times, I know so many labs that wouldn't accomplish anything if they didn't have to worry about beating others to publishing results on the experiment they are working on.
Tweener what journal did you get published in?? I'm still awaiting my first co-authorship and don't think it will come for at least another year if not more, and no primary authorships for much longer than that, but I'm still young (just not patient)
Lift your skinny fists, like antennas to hevan!
-
It was the IEEE transactions on Antennas and Propagation (Electromagnetic waves). The article was about a computer model I wrote to predict the attenuation and dispersive delay characteristics of millimeter waves from 1 to 1000 GHz. The primary author was Hans Liebe, the scientist who developed the model that I coded. The paper was pretty short and was basically to announce the availability of the model to the propagation community. I was a grad student at the time working for Dr. Liebe. He was a really great person and one of the most intelligent people I've ever known, as well as being one of the most respected scientists in his field.
BTW, I'm totally against government control of pricing. I know some of the journals are expensive, but if you want the government involved, let them pay for the subscriptions through funding the library budget. Or just ask the University to pull some of the funding from the Athletic Dept. HA!
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I'd say that I'd go look up your publication, just for kicks, but I'm not sure where I'd access it, and I probably wouldn't understand a word, so I'm not going to try. But thats still cool. I know I said this before, but you have no IDEA how anxious I am to get my name on something, just to say I did.
Lift your skinny fists, like antennas to hevan!
-
I'd give you a link or reference, but I don't remember the exact title or when it was published. Sometime in 1987 I think. I'm not a member of the IEEE any more so I can't search their archives. I probably wouldn't understand it anymore either.
Good luck in your quest to get published, but don't let it lead you into a field you aren't interested in. Stick with what you want to do, not what falls your way. You'll stay much happier in the long run.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
Rabbit, while i am in a different field I do see some paralells to what you are talking about. However, I do not share your concerns with the situation. I believe that the more publications out there the better. Obviously NO ONE is going to be able to sort through all the material out there. A good scientist is one who knows how to find the literature that pertains to their interests, and how much of this is worth reading, before it becomes a waste of their time. With more people being published it just makes more material available. There are still a higherarchy of journals in each field. (I am going to look first to Science or Nature.... then to Cell or Development, or Imunology.... then to Genetics..... then to many others.... etc. I will read anything (or at least skim as you said) in these that is even remotly related to my field. For me to read something in "The American journal of biological genetic studies in transgenic mountain lions" (this is a fictitious journal) the paper had better be on something almost exactly what I am studying, or else I am NOT going to bother paying attention to it. However, the few people that this paper IS very relavant to would not have the oppertunity to access this information if this journal didn't exist.
While i do agree with you that measuring scientific merit by publication records is harmful to scientific progress, I would argue, in fact, the opposite, that more journals would be better for science to allow an even greater number of publications. I see too many scientists being non colaborative with their couleauges simply because they are afraid that someone will steal their idea, and then steal their coveted publication. This is a very frustrating rwality that I deal with on a daily basis. I also see people rush through large experiments and cut corners and leave avenues unexplored instead of really taking their time to understand one thing at a time becaue they are too worried about getting enough information to make a publishable paper.
lastly I think the scientific comunity needs to wake up to the concept that a rejected hypothisis is just as, if not more, important than an accepted one. Journals only publish successful results. Researchers don't even dream of trying to publish failed experiments. So while we increase our general block of knowledge and move on as a scientific comunity with every paper published.... there are countless labs out there wasting their time doing an experiment that has been tried hundreds of times before them, and shown not to work. But we are held back in our advancement by the fact that this information is not shared.
And as for the "articles with just stories" those are a completely different type of publication with a completely different purpose, and they are very beneficial to science. At this stage in my personal scientific development, i actually read more of those articles, even if they aren't dirrectly related to me work, than I do actual experimental publications, because they contribue more to my general base of knowledge.
If I met you in a scissor-fight, I'd cut off both your wings; on principle alone!!
-
Thanks for your feedback on this! I fully understand your arguments for not restricting publications but... (yes, a but) I assume you are working in a university, right? All the universities I know have a big, big problem with library budgets and are forced to cancel subscriptions for all but the better journals. So, who will read the publications in the newer and/or less prestigeous journals? And, as you point out very clearly, the paper-race is killing good, reasoned and sound scientific thinking - at least the way it is put to practice. If universities used another mechanism to "weigh" the value of scientists, this problem would be reduced quite quickly. I do think a publication is one instrument to evaluate how good a scientist is but not the only one. And the publishers are laughing to the bank (expression) all this time. They get free content and then charge the earth for people to read it.
We are working on accessing the chemistry that never got published. This is some 80% of the work carried out, reactions that worked but did not fit into a nice story. You mention the failed experiments and this too is valuable information for scientists too. Completely neglected! We estimate that the money spent on unpublished chemistry so far exceeds $50 billion. What about other science disciplines?
I keep coming back to the same problem each time - the publishers! They keep their strangle-hold on the scientific community for as long as publication is the prime incentive for scientists. Do something about this and we can return to what science should be all about - enriching understanding.
What do other scientists think?
-
The publishers have every right to publish whatever they want to, whether it is good science or science fiction. If people pay for the subscriptions to read it, then the publisher makes money, the scientist gets another notch on the CV and everyone is happy. If no one reads it, the publisher won't be publishing it very long. I don't think the publishers have a strangle hold on anything. They are simply printing what they believe will sell. The more "prestigious" journals have higher standards and thus hold a larger audience. The more obscure journals are more specialized and serve a smaller audience. Probably they let some wishful thinking slip in sometimes, and if it is too often, then their circulation will reflect that.
I do agree that universities and other institutions should use some other basis for evaluating scientific skill and productivity. It is often not fair to the scientist, and it discourages "good papers" in favor of "quick papers". However, what other criteria will they use? Often there is no other person on staff that has the expertise to question a potential candidate on their scientific background simply because it is so specialized. So, who makes the call? The publishers aren't pretending to, they just print stuff. The committee or person making the decision needs to look at the publications, the journals and the articles and see if they are "good science" or just fiction. If they don't, it's their mistake.
Wow, a long reply to a topic I really have little interest or experience with. I do have one published paper (co-author, several years ago) - in one of the most prestigious journals in my field.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I actually don't work for a university. I am lucky enough to work at an institution where I have access to any journal I could ever fathom reading and more. But I remember from college how frustrating it was not to have access to a paper I wanted. I wish that the government would tink about regulating journal prices, or at least come out with some sort of a more organized database of all journals and where they can be accessed.
I like tweener's point that the system works like most things in a capitalis society; by simple economics... (hehe I'm staring to drool over this topic, I was a Biology major, economics minor in college) As much as I am usually against any sort of government intervention into an economic system, I really do think in this case that some intervention into this system would solve many of its problems (such as possibly access to results from "unsuccessful experiments"??)
I think most people would agree with you that it would be nice to have a better way to evaluate a researcher's performance other than the publication record, but as tweener so kindly pointed out.... what??? Plus as much as the publication race does cause "rushed science" at times, I know so many labs that wouldn't accomplish anything if they didn't have to worry about beating others to publishing results on the experiment they are working on.
Tweener what journal did you get published in?? I'm still awaiting my first co-authorship and don't think it will come for at least another year if not more, and no primary authorships for much longer than that, but I'm still young (just not patient)
Lift your skinny fists, like antennas to hevan!
-
It was the IEEE transactions on Antennas and Propagation (Electromagnetic waves). The article was about a computer model I wrote to predict the attenuation and dispersive delay characteristics of millimeter waves from 1 to 1000 GHz. The primary author was Hans Liebe, the scientist who developed the model that I coded. The paper was pretty short and was basically to announce the availability of the model to the propagation community. I was a grad student at the time working for Dr. Liebe. He was a really great person and one of the most intelligent people I've ever known, as well as being one of the most respected scientists in his field.
BTW, I'm totally against government control of pricing. I know some of the journals are expensive, but if you want the government involved, let them pay for the subscriptions through funding the library budget. Or just ask the University to pull some of the funding from the Athletic Dept. HA!
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I'd say that I'd go look up your publication, just for kicks, but I'm not sure where I'd access it, and I probably wouldn't understand a word, so I'm not going to try. But thats still cool. I know I said this before, but you have no IDEA how anxious I am to get my name on something, just to say I did.
Lift your skinny fists, like antennas to hevan!
-
I'd give you a link or reference, but I don't remember the exact title or when it was published. Sometime in 1987 I think. I'm not a member of the IEEE any more so I can't search their archives. I probably wouldn't understand it anymore either.
Good luck in your quest to get published, but don't let it lead you into a field you aren't interested in. Stick with what you want to do, not what falls your way. You'll stay much happier in the long run.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I appreciate the advice, but i would NEVER choose a field because of the "potential for a publications"
Lift your skinny fists, like antennas to hevan!
-
You make some good points about access to information in journals. There is now a big drive to encourage all journals to provide their content for free, online. At the moment the cost of publication is covered by subscriptions paid by readers. The approach being suggested is that publication costs should instead be shouldered by the author; that is, publication becomes part of the cost of doing the research - a not unreasonable philosophy, and a financial drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of research costs.
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
wow, i've never heard of the idea of making the author pay.... but you're right compared to the amount of 44 that is spent daily in even a small research lab, they could charge quite a hefyty fee, and it still wouldn't affect a lab's budget too much. Plus with how every publication benefits your CV... anyone would be willing to pay it!
Geeze this is a REALLY good idea... they need to do it!
Lift your skinny fists, like antennas to hevan!
-
quote:
Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer
I appreciate the advice, but i would NEVER choose a field because of the "potential for a publications"
Lift your skinny fists, like antennas to hevan!
I never said you would, but I've known a couple of people who would.
I like the idea of letting the researcher pay for the publishing costs, but then that brings up the conflict of interest situation of how good is the science. As it stands, the journal editors have the say about what is published. Under that system, they would have a lot of additional pressure to publish results based on who submitted them. Not that they don't have that pressure now, but I can see it being more intense.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I cannot see why it would result in more intense pressure to publish - the revenue would be the same regardless of what paper they published. In fact the system is probably more corrupt in its present form. One journal I know of boasts an 80% acceptance rate. Indeed that is true. But looking at where the submitted manuscripts originate you can see that 80% come from labs in the US (where the journal is based) and 20% from Europe. Interestingly the 20% that are rejected are overwhelmingly the European submissions !
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
Is that corruption, or do those europeans just misspell a lot of words? [:D]
Seriously, I was just thinking of the "pressure" being exerted by the "customer". If the reader is the customer, then they will demand "good science". If the paper writer is the customer, they will demand being published. Then the readers will have less say in the quality of the publication. This could easily lead to journals with almost zero circulation and even less scientific merit. But still rate a "published" paper. How would this help a university hiring committee to select a candidate?
I don't know. I believe that basic economics always wins no matter how hard people try to make something better. The system as it stands is definitely flawed. But....
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
People will still have say as to the quality of papers in the journals just by their readership, not by their money. Who wants to post in a journal taht no one reads? If the publishers put out bad science, then no one will read it, and they won't be able to charge much to publish in tehir journal.
We don't want the loonies taking over!
-
The quality of publications is currently decided by the 'impact factor' of the journal in which they are published. The impact factor is calculated by how frequently other authors / papers cite publications within that journal.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you work on a very niche area of science, the vestibular otoliths of lizards for example. Let's say that this topic has a dedicated journal devoted to it.
Let's also say that you can count on one hand how many other laboratories in the world are doing research in this field. Therefore the paper output and citation-rates for this discipline will be low. The dedicated journal of lizard otoliths will therefore not be heavily cited and will have a low impact factor, even if you are doing the best science since sliced bread was invented.
Immediately you can see how misleading the concept of impact factor turns out to be. Yet a few papers in Nature, Science or Cell seals most peoples' scientific careers.
I don't think that authors having to pay, rather than subscribers, will influence the quality of the published content. Papers will still be subjected to rigorous peer review, and if they don't pass muster they won't be published. Many of the present high-impact journals have an extremely low acceptance rate (I think the figure for Science and Nature is about 12% or less). With this much choice neither they, nor the quality, will suffer.
Having to pay for the publication of their work will empower authors, who are largely (at present) at the mercy of journal editors.
The better the quality of a journal, the more it can expect to charge to publish a paper. But to become good in the first place it will have to compete with other journals - this will likely lead to more efficient reviewing, more rapid publication procedures and editorial decisions and more efficient submission procedures. I think that the outcome could be very much in the scientist's favour.
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
Some very good points chris. I'd like to defend the "impact factor" though because regardless of how good your science is in your research on vestibular otoliths of lizards, there is also the factor as to how relevant and applicable it is to other reserach, and/or somehow bettering human kind. I think the "impact factor" does a good job of balancing the effects of both how good your science is, and how aplicable your research topic is.
We don't want the loonies taking over!
-
But you have to be careful because benefits to humankind crop up in the most unlikely of places - my recent article and radio piece for ABC in Australia tells the story of how a catalytic converter developed originally for a space rocket has produced the world's first artificial bone marrow and is capable of expanding stem cells outside the body with no loss of their viability or potential :
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/chrissmithcolumn2.htm
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
True, i'm not saying that we shouildn't do science simply for the advancement of human knowledge, just that we do nee to take into consideration what we are spending money on reseraching as there are so many things that we have a dirrect need for knowledge of.
We don't want the loonies taking over!
-
Very good points Chris. The Impact of the article and the journal are certainly a factor that can be taken into account by the University selection committee. Also, if the authors were paying for the publishing, then the journals would be available for free, which would probably increase the readership (probably only a little) by allowing scientists with a tangential interest to read articles without paying a fee. Some can't or won't pay the fee for a journal outside their research topic on the off chance that something of interest will pop up.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I think this system would fit in well with the increase in journals that are in purely online form, as more people would do individual paper searching instead of flipping through certain journals.
We don't want the loonies taking over!
-
I haven't had cause to really search scientific literature for many years, but I understand that most work is published on the internet before it gets to the print version, often before the "peer review" phase is complete. It seems this would add to the overall confusion of too many papers and which are "good" and which are "premature" or just plain bad.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
it makes it SO much easier to find papers that are relevant to your needs though. although it is very frustrating when you can find the perfect paper, but then find out that your institution doesn't have online access to that journal!
We don't want the loonies taking over!
-
John - you wouldn't want to pre-publish your research on the web before review was over because a) you might breach journal embargo regulations, b) others might nick your ideas and there would be nothing you could do about it.
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/
The debate continues...
-
On the subject of publications again... I've been working on my first one for quite a while now. I've been SO close for SO long, but wrapping up the last few details to have a quality paper is SO painsatking... it seems like the last 5% of the work requires about 90% of the total effort. Its drivin me nuts (but I like it!!!! [:o)])
Just a warning to any budding scientists out there.... be prepared for this!! [:p]
I'm sure once I get the paper out I'll be quite eager to show it off to everyone (so be prepared for that as well) [:p]
That's no moon.... its a GRAPEFRUIT!!!!