What is the Motivation for Publishing Scientific Research?

[dimensionless]

I was in a library recently and was struck by the shear number of journals. Journals often focus on some very specific topic, contain many thousands of articles going back more than 100 years. What is the motivation for people to submit papers to journals? I would expect that doing so would feel like throwing needles into a haystack.

 

[D H]

Publish or perish.

 

[D H]

Publish or perish

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-3/p61.html" published in Physics Review discusses the publish or perish phenomenon:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-3/images/p61fig1.jpg

Three recent events, taking place in rapid succession, incited me to write this Opinion. The first was an annual report from a major school of engineering whose dean proudly listed 52 papers that he wrote in the course of the previous year.​

 

[Evo]

This isn't philosophy, moving thread.

 

[siddharth]

Discovering and sharing new facts about the world and contributing to human knowledge? must keep straight face

 

[dimensionless]

Discovering and sharing new facts about the world and contributing to human knowledge? must keep straight face

Yes, but it takes a lot effort to write a 3,000-10,000 word paper in Latex. From my perspective, I have ideas and equations, but I'm unfamiliar with the journals. I'm also poorly versed with the bulk of existing research.

 

[Astronuc]

Publish or perish.

There certainly is that, and I've pretty much been told that by faculty. I now review articles for various scientific and technical journals and conferences. There is a lot pressure, even without the politics in academia ( :yuck:)

I've also seen cases where the same piece of work is repackaged, or there is an incremental change that really doesn't warrant a new paper, but there it is. :yuck:

There is the sharing of technical information, but also its a matter of getting exposure to the community in hopes of getting additional support for the research.

I am also amazed at papers with a huge number of authors, e.g. 10+. I suppose when a group does research and reports on it, everyone is entitled to credit. And face it, some big experiments require the contribution of lots of folks, and each contribution is important.

 

[D H]

There certainly is that, and I've pretty much been told that by faculty.

I did a ten year stint in a FFRDC. Take out the "pretty much" from "pretty much been told that" and you have one of the ranking metrics for members of the technical staff. Universities are much, much worse.

My employer took on a couple of graduate interns this summer. Both want a task that will lead to a paper, just in case they decide to stay in academia. They want a head start on the paper count in their CVs.

I am also amazed at papers with a huge number of authors, e.g. 10+.

Did you see the cartoon in my second post on this thread?

 

[Monique]

What is the motivation for people to submit papers to journals? I would expect that doing so would feel like throwing needles into a haystack.

That's why everyone wants to publish in Science or Nature. If you publish there you know your research is going to impact the field. There are hunderds of small journals for people to publish in, the quality and impact of the work in those journals is very small and I only look at those if a search yields a hit and I'm curious.
There are about 10 journals that I follow on the foot, you need to be aware what other people are doing in your field.

 

[Astronuc]

Did you see the cartoon in my second post on this thread?

Yeah - hence the comment. I could have added NASA and National Labs to academia as well.

I can't the thought of doing a paper, just to do a paper, and in fact, I've refused to publish because I didn't think the quality of a paper was sufficient.

I'd like to publish more, but most of what I do is proprietary or otherwise restricted.

 

[George Jones]

Did you see the cartoon in my second post on this thread?

Until reading what Astronuc wrote and your reply, I didn't get the cartoon. I thought it was about self-promotion.

Shows the importance of correct punctuation.

 

[Monique]

I am also amazed at papers with a huge number of authors, e.g. 10+. I suppose when a group does research and reports on it, everyone is entitled to credit. And face it, some big experiments require the contribution of lots of folks, and each contribution is important.

Some papers I've (co)authored have 10+ authors, it is not so difficult when you collaborate with different groups. Anyone who did work that was significant for the paper gets a place on the authors list, that doesn't mean that the 1st author didn't do any work or doesn't have intellectual property over the work.

I do think that there will be a lot of researchers that put people as a co-author, so that they can be a co-author on the other's paper to get a higher publication count, but that is all politics and hard to do anything about.

 

[D H]

When the author list is large, 1st author often doesn't mean much other than that your last name starts with an A, B, or C.

 

[Astronuc]

I seem to remember a paper recently with something like 30-40+ co-authors on it, and another with two groups for a total of something like 30-40 co-authors. I guess those in that situation just become accustomed to it, but not having done that, I think it just looks strange.

I've always simply referenced other work when using others' work(s) as a basis for work I've done or ideas that I have developed.

 

[Monique]

When I see a large list of co-authors, the first thing I do is look what institutes they are affiliated with. From there you can distill how much work each co-author did on the paper. In my case it would be 13 authors over 5 different institutes, including 3 departments of surgery. So part of the list are surgeons that have contributed to the work by recruiting patients.

 

[ZapperZ]

Note that for high energy physics experimental papers, it is not uncommon to have 100+ authors. That is just the nature of the beast.

Zz.

 

[robphy]

Note that for high energy physics experimental papers, it is not uncommon to have 100+ authors. That is just the nature of the beast.

Zz.

For example,...

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.011801
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.011802

 

[D H]

How does one cite such a beast? V. M. Abazov, et al?

 

[kant]

I see all this as more the reason of not being a scienctist. the office politics is ridiculous

 

[ZapperZ]

I see all this as more the reason of not being a scienctist. the office politics is ridiculous

What office politics?

Publishing is the most important means for the peer-review process, something that most of the general public are ignorant about. It is how discoveries and new ideas are vetted out and tested by your peers to see if they are valid. Science isn't done in popular media, or public forums like this. The benefits that you are reaping out of all the progress that you are enjoying came out of such a process. It isn't easy, but it is necessary.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

How does one cite such a beast? V. M. Abazov, et al?

Yes.

The protocol in such experimental high energy physics papers is that they go by alphabetical order, whereas in most of the other papers, they go by those who did the most relevant work.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

How does one cite such a beast? V. M. Abazov, et al?

When I worked for the local research library, the director of the research institute asked us to compile the citation database for all of the U's authors published for the year. The secretary told us to just put et al after five authors, but the librarian and I (being an undergrad in science) decided we should just put all the authors names anyway... and we did.

So I think it depends on the many steps it goes through and how it's referenced by other publications in the future. (For instance, a prominent scientist may use one of the books from our university that has the long list of authors, but decide to shorten the reference in his own book to 'et al', and then anyone who uses his paper and his references in their report will copy it the same way in their citations).

I have seen journals (and I've looked up tons of journals, even if I haven't read or understood them) with both styles of reference.

(The max number of names I ever saw was ~35 though, not over 100!)

 

[omega_M]

there are only 2 motivations for publishing articles afaik. money (research grants/better position) or recognition.

very few people are truly motivated by the desire to spread knowledge and such. Even then, they will write pop sci books and earn royalty money.

 

[Astronuc]

How does one cite such a beast? V. M. Abazov, et al?

That's how they do it at the bottom of the page of PhysRevLett.96.011802 for the reference to PhysRevLett.96.011801. :rofl:

 

[ZapperZ]

there are only 2 motivations for publishing articles afaik. money (research grants/better position) or recognition.

very few people are truly motivated by the desire to spread knowledge and such. Even then, they will write pop sci books and earn royalty money.

Then would you mind telling me how you discoveries or knowledge is first disseminated, and then verified to be valid? Where did you think the something like the discovery of high-Tc superconductors was reported and then verified? Did Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize for his pop-science books or his theatrics? How exactly did we come to the conclusion that the semiconductor in your modern electronics work and can be used?

Zz.

 

[omega_M]

Then would you mind telling me how you discoveries or knowledge is first disseminated, and then verified to be valid? Where did you think the something like the discovery of high-Tc superconductors was reported and then verified? Did Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize for his pop-science books or his theatrics? How exactly did we come to the conclusion that the semiconductor in your modern electronics work and can be used?

Zz.

I'd say, if you are in the business of discovering new things, then publishing papers motivated by personal reasons will eventually get the discovery out. the person gets recognition, his research may get a better grant and his paper comes under scrutiny. a number of researchers benefit from the discovery and write their own papers and advance their own research and earn more money. not everybody is feynman and not everybody is excited by science for science's sake. when people start seeing money, their attitudes change. as i said, maybe not everybody is in it for the money. but most people are. that's how I see it.

 

[D H]

I'd say, if you are in the business of discovering new things, then publishing papers motivated by personal reasons will eventually get the discovery out. the person gets recognition, his research may get a better grant and his paper comes under scrutiny. a number of researchers benefit from the discovery and write their own papers and advance their own research and earn more money. not everybody is feynman and not everybody is excited by science for science's sake. when people start seeing money, their attitudes change. as i said, maybe not everybody is in it for the money. but most people are. that's how I see it.

Most people need to make a living. Paris Hilton does not. Then again, she isn't doing any science.

The problem with publish or perish is not that publication is necessary. The problem is that the only thing that counts is quantity of papers, which ensues from a perceived need for objective accountability. Bean counters in part determine whether a researcher gets research grants. Bean counters know how to count beans. Number of publications is a nice objective measure. Impact of publications is far too subjective. The scientist who writes one ground-breaking paper every other year published in Nature won't receive many grants nowadays. The grants will instead go to the person who wrangles his way onto 52 mediocre papers published in the peer-reviewed Publish-or-Perish Journal of Irrelevant Results.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'd say, if you are in the business of discovering new things, then publishing papers motivated by personal reasons will eventually get the discovery out. the person gets recognition, his research may get a better grant and his paper comes under scrutiny. a number of researchers benefit from the discovery and write their own papers and advance their own research and earn more money. not everybody is feynman and not everybody is excited by science for science's sake. when people start seeing money, their attitudes change. as i said, maybe not everybody is in it for the money. but most people are. that's how I see it.

You still did not answer my question.

Furthermore, how many people actually get into physics FOR THE MONEY? Do you know how difficult physics is to do it for the WRONG reason? Do you know long it takes to get a Ph.D and THEN, spend years doing a postdoc? Doing it for for the money?

I don't think so!

BTW, how many papers have you published?

Zz.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm curious how you guys would apply your ideas about publication to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman" 's recent work (relating to the Poincaré conjecture (or is it the Poincaré theorem now?!)) and his behavior regarding it.

I don't consider him to be unexceptional. I'm just curious.

Actually, I think the whole case, including the behavior of everyone involved in it, is an interesting example.

 

[omega_M]

You still did not answer my question.

Furthermore, how many people actually get into physics FOR THE MONEY? Do you know how difficult physics is to do it for the WRONG reason? Do you know long it takes to get a Ph.D and THEN, spend years doing a postdoc? Doing it for for the money?

I don't think so!

BTW, how many papers have you published?

Zz.

I think I answered your question didn't i ? My answer may not relate to "major" breakthroughs in science and I don't know how superconductor theory got published. But things are not how they used to be a couple of centuries back, when many intellectuals had other jobs and devoted their time to the study of physics and astronomy purely out of interest. Today, fundamental science is a big industry of which the universities are a very big component. The funding of faculty in the university is driven by their research output and papers are a measure of this research.

I am not a Physics Major. I finished my master's degree and I have published 4 papers with one more which is under review. My field of interest is Dynamic Systems and Control. I have just started my Ph.D program this summer and I am well aware of the competitive research environment that exists in Universities, even in the Math and Physics Departments. I am all too aware of the pressures faced by faculty to get their proposals accepted and their research funded in an increasingly competitive environment.

Besides, I am not saying that everybody is in it for money. A person doing a PhD in physics is motivated first by interest and then by money. But from what I have experienced first hand, the entire research "industry" runs on an economic engine. Maybe I am wrong or maybe you know these things better. But common sense tells me that even if you work on fundamental sciences, there is a huge industry behind it, and the companies are in it for the money.

 

[kant]

What office politics?

Publishing is the most important means for the peer-review process, something that most of the general public are ignorant about. It is how discoveries and new ideas are vetted out and tested by your peers to see if they are valid. Science isn't done in popular media, or public forums like this. The benefits that you are reaping out of all the progress that you are enjoying came out of such a process. It isn't easy, but it is necessary.

Zz.

It would be great if the whole purpose of such research is for the advancement of knowledge in general, but most professors ( system) emphasize quentity over quality of research. In my opinion, academia is as rotten to the core as in any segment of human subculture.

 

[ZapperZ]

It would be great if the whole purpose of such research is for the advancement of knowledge in general, but most professors ( system) emphasize quentity over quality of research. In my opinion, academia is as rotten to the core as in any segment of human subculture.

And I'm sure you base this on first hand knowledge.

Can you answer my question on how we knowledge is distributed in physics without the use of research publication?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think I answered your question didn't i ? My answer may not relate to "major" breakthroughs in science and I don't know how superconductor theory got published. But things are not how they used to be a couple of centuries back, when many intellectuals had other jobs and devoted their time to the study of physics and astronomy purely out of interest. Today, fundamental science is a big industry of which the universities are a very big component. The funding of faculty in the university is driven by their research output and papers are a measure of this research.

I am not a Physics Major. I finished my master's degree and I have published 4 papers with one more which is under review. My field of interest is Dynamic Systems and Control. I have just started my Ph.D program this summer and I am well aware of the competitive research environment that exists in Universities, even in the Math and Physics Departments. I am all too aware of the pressures faced by faculty to get their proposals accepted and their research funded in an increasingly competitive environment.

Besides, I am not saying that everybody is in it for money. A person doing a PhD in physics is motivated first by interest and then by money. But from what I have experienced first hand, the entire research "industry" runs on an economic engine. Maybe I am wrong or maybe you know these things better. But common sense tells me that even if you work on fundamental sciences, there is a huge industry behind it, and the companies are in it for the money.

But "common sense" can often be wrong! Anyone studying physics can tell you that immediately! When you are in a car and accelerating forward, where do you think a balloon filled with helium will feel a push? Go on, use your "common sense" and answer that.

In all of this diatribe against publishing, NO ONE has offered an ALTERNATIVE means of how such discoveries and new ideas should be disseminated. Zilch! Where do we find the written details of what was done, how it was done, and how the conclusion was arrived in intricate clarity so that someone else can try to verify if it is valid? No one has offered any alternative. So if we go by all these complaints and people STOP publishing, you will STILL be in the dark ages without all the conveniences that you have obviously taken for granted!

And since we are using personal observation here has "evidence" that gives us free passes to make generalized statement about something we barely know anything about, I should be able to do that too. From MY personal experience, most physicists first goal in publishing is to report their work. PERIOD. Is there a personal agenda to get recognized? OF COURSE! Who wouldn't want such a thing? However, most of us got into this field first and foremost because we love what we do and can't think of anything else that we want to do! It is also imperative that what we believe to be important should be published, because that is a shared knowledge. It is a responsibility, unlike working in industries where such discoveries can often be held as industrial secrets and proprietary knowledge! When you publish something, you are telling the world what you did, and how you did it, with no secrets left, so that someone else can replicate it! That is NOT a sign of a selfish act!

And THAT is MY personal view. I have more than 80 publications to my credit, so I'm not just talking about this based on some superficial observation.

I still want to know how you expect to use your modern electronics if people who worked on it didn't publish their work in the first place!

Zz.

 

[Monique]

If the lab that you are working in rather publishes a high quantity of research papers than high quality, you are in the wrong place! I wouldn't want to work in such an environment. Sure, there is pressure to publish but I want to deliver good work, so does my advisor. I also see that attitude in other good labs around me, PIs who many articles in Nature or other such top journals.

 

[omega_M]

But "common sense" can often be wrong! Anyone studying physics can tell you that immediately! When you are in a car and accelerating forward, where do you think a balloon filled with helium will feel a push? Go on, use your "common sense" and answer that.

In all of this diatribe against publishing, NO ONE has offered an ALTERNATIVE means of how such discoveries and new ideas should be disseminated. Zilch! Where do we find the written details of what was done, how it was done, and how the conclusion was arrived in intricate clarity so that someone else can try to verify if it is valid? No one has offered any alternative. So if we go by all these complaints and people STOP publishing, you will STILL be in the dark ages without all the conveniences that you have obviously taken for granted!

And since we are using personal observation here has "evidence" that gives us free passes to make generalized statement about something we barely know anything about, I should be able to do that too. From MY personal experience, most physicists first goal in publishing is to report their work. PERIOD. Is there a personal agenda to get recognized? OF COURSE! Who wouldn't want such a thing? However, most of us got into this field first and foremost because we love what we do and can't think of anything else that we want to do! It is also imperative that what we believe to be important should be published, because that is a shared knowledge. It is a responsibility, unlike working in industries where such discoveries can often be held as industrial secrets and proprietary knowledge! When you publish something, you are telling the world what you did, and how you did it, with no secrets left, so that someone else can replicate it! That is NOT a sign of a selfish act!

And THAT is MY personal view. I have more than 80 publications to my credit, so I'm not just talking about this based on some superficial observation.

I still want to know how you expect to use your modern electronics if people who worked on it didn't publish their work in the first place!

Zz.

I already mentioned that you may know more about physics than me, and obviously you do. But I respectfully disagree with your general conclusion that every physicist has the same views as you do. You don't seem to acknowledge the underlying economics that drives many people. I have already said it twice that not everybody is motivated by economics and I did not make such a sweeping generalization that everybody does.

Granted, physics is foremost an intellectual endeavor and countless physicists are stimulated by the intellectual high they get from discovering new things. And granted, many physicists want to publish their results simply to report new findings and help take the understanding of the nature to a higher level. But is that all what a physicist desires for ? Is a physicist not motivated by other economic factors which may help improve his qualify of life and give his ego a boost by ways of recognition ? After all, he is also a human. Or is it all a self-less act made in the name of science, an endeavor purely meant to satisfy the intellect ? Surely this has got to be an idealistic approach to physics and surely, not everybody subscribes to that.

Publication of papers is the sole method of introducing new science for scrutiny by the scientific community. It is the only way of of developing a better understanding of the universe. It is the only way of promoting science and technology.

But it is also a very important criteria for determining the economic worth of a physicist. And the economic worth of a physicist is important to the government, space industry and other companies working in the field of developing instruments for experimental physics.

A new hire faculty who is seeking tenure track position in some university is driven to publish for reasons other an publishing for the sake of informing others. A faculty who seeks to generate funds to support his research group is also motivated to publish papers for similar reasons. Hence, motivation for publishing scientific research must take into account both of our views.

Surely, this sounds fair to you ?