What is the Motivation for Publishing Scientific Research?

[dimensionless]

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.

What surprises me is that there seems to be a fairly low number of papers that have only a single author.

 

[Astronuc]

What surprises me is that there seems to be a fairly low number of papers that have only a single author.

Well, probably that's because there other's who contribute to any given author's work. There is a lot of collaboration in science and technology.

I know of a few people who could publish individually, but then they usually involve others in their work and often have co-authors.

On the other hand, I usually publish as a co-author, and my presentations include those who collaborate or provide support to my work.

 

[Smurf]

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.

My roomate (Physics PhD) tells me that their publishing papers from the fusion-thingy or something in France with 100+ authors to it.

 

[Astronuc]

My roomate (Physics PhD) tells me that their publishing papers from the fusion-thingy or something in France with 100+ authors to it.

Yeah - fusion projects, e.g. ITER are BIG projects and require a lot of folks who contribute to them.

 

[Smurf]

You think if I went there and like... sweeped the floors for them, I could get my name on it?

 

[noblegas]

.

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 ?

I know this thread is really old, but I feel a need to make comments that were not made yet . yes I agree with you Omega_M. Because if there were physicists and scientists publishing papers solely to share the new developments and discoveries made in their field, there would be a flock of scientists publishing all of their work on pre-print format like www.arxiv.org rather than publishing in traditional academic journals.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I know this thread is really old, but I feel a need to make comments that were not made yet . yes I agree with you Omega_M. Because if there were physicists and scientists publishing papers solely to share the new developments and discoveries made in their field, there would be a flock of scientists publishing all of their work on pre-print format like www.arxiv.org rather than publishing in traditional academic journals.

From what I understand a major element of the purpose for publishing in scientific journals is the peer review process. Surviving peer review to get published in a journal and receiving comments from others in the same field is a form of validation both for the author and the audience.

 

[noblegas]

From what I understand a major element of the purpose for publishing in scientific journals is the peer review process. Surviving peer review to get published in a journal and receiving comments from others in the same field is a form of validation both for the author and the audience.

yes , but even though peer review process has been around since the 1600's , peer review was not widely considered mandatory requirement for papers to get recognized/published in journals until the middle of the 20th century; Why was the peer-reviewed process made to be mandatory for papers published; Einstein didn't have his famous scientific papers on special relativity peer-reviewed( http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml ) and I read someone that scientists in the 1800's and 1700's had their works published in books like isaac Newton's principia and darwin's origin of species that were available to the scientific community and a general audience;

 

[humanino]

yes , but even though peer review process has been around since the 1600's , peer review was not widely considered mandatory requirement for papers to get recognized/published in journals until the middle of the 20th century; Why was the peer-reviewed process made to be mandatory for papers published; Einstein didn't have his famous scientific papers on special relativity peer-reviewed( http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml ) and I read someone that scientists in the 1800's and 1700's had their works published in books like isaac Newton's principia and darwin's origin of species that were available to the scientific community and a general audience;

There was a major shift in the way we do research at about that time. Newton was a mathematician, a physicist, a chemist, a philosopher... there is no such thing today. In fact, various countries will claim they had the last mathematician who knew ALL mathematics of his time : France claims Poincare for instance. Whoever that was does not matter : today, nobody would ever dare such a claim. It is simply impossible to absorb the amount of work being done in a lifetime, not even to mention absorb also everything that had been done before. At the time of Newton or even Einstein, they were exchanging letters between each other's (a few tens in the world) and answering at best every other week. Today, if we do not answer someone's email, the conversation is dead in a couple of days (that is, whoever did not answer is out of the game). You may not like it, but many have the feeling that we are making intensive progress very fast.

 

[Haldhad]

Once you publish you have some sort of copyright law on your side that protects you or your ideas from being exploited for commercial gain by unscrupulous plagiarists. Presuming it is in an accredited journal and not the Psychics Journal of Woo for Woo Artists or some such bs journal.

Plus its a way of making money, stroking your ego (if its any good) and getting your ideas to as many people as possible. There is also a less selfish reason, the greater good (assuming its a pivotal paper).

 

[cristo]

Plus its a way of making money...

This is false: you do not get money from a publisher when they publish one of your articles (in fact, a lot of the time it is the other way around!).

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, someone necroposted an off-topic comment in an old thread!

Zz.

 

[Haldhad]

This is false: you do not get money from a publisher when they publish one of your articles (in fact, a lot of the time it is the other way around!).

I didn't say you did, but it is good advertising. For example if I have an idea and I want to sell it to a business, the question will arise as to what testing or review it has undergone, if I say in my shed with a bicycle tire and a 3 amp battery, they will laugh in my face. If I cite a journal reference they are more likely to be buying that it at least works in the lab or theory. In short publication lends credence to your ideas and ensures they are far more likely to be taken seriously by commercial enterprises. So one reason for publication is to make money out of an idea, not directly but by association with accredited standards. I thought the comment was more self evident than it was. Obviously not. Obviously something like a patent doesn't necesarilly mean anything works, just that it is your idea. If I got my idea for super efficient hull design published in a journal on fluid flow dynamics (physics or hull design) then it's going to be 10 x easier to market it.

Wierd I don't know how I stumbled on this thread but I did. If you're all that bothered lock it. I don't care, sincerely. The comment wasn't off topic btw either the topic is publication of ideas.