What is the Motivation for Publishing Scientific Research?

[Monique]

His point was that academics "publish junk to keep their job." Whilst I agree that there are many journals that are not peer-reviewed in which one can publish articles, such "junk" articles are not going to get one research grants.

I don't know whether that is true. Researchers publish prematurely to get a list of publications, later those publications can turn out not to withstand further experiments. The grant reviewer won't read every single article of a researcher and depending on the grant they probably don't pay too much attention.

For instance: a clinical research group is financed by a hospital. When the research group keeps publishing data about all kinds of associations, the hospital is probably only going to look out the output and does not have enough expertise to judge the true value of the publications. Also, the hospital is biased to maintain their research departments (which makes the hospital more prestigious), so the group with the most publications will receive the most money.

The same probably happens in Universities, where an internal board looks at the output of a research group. The University wants to maintain their research department, so as long as the group is publishing, they will receive money from the University.

What do you think?

 

[cristo]

The same probably happens in Universities, where an internal board looks at the output of a research group. The University wants to maintain their research department, so as long as the group is publishing, they will receive money from the University.

What do you think?

This may be a matter of a difference between countries, or academic fields, but I was under the impression that a research group receives its funding from a research council (at least here in the UK anyway). The research council will look at past publications (and will be able to spot the difference between useful publications and "junk" publications) as well as proposals for future research activities. The university will, of course, encourage its groups to publish as this will draw money in, but I don't think that notion of publishing anything, anywhere is encouraged, as this is not going to, necessarily obtain grants from the councils. Therefore the university will keep employed members of a group who are drawing in grants from the councils by publishing useful papers.

 

[Monique]

There are primary, secondary and tertiary streams of money that are invested into research. These come from the University, from grant councils and from private investors. This is not a universal system?

It would be an ideal world where every paper published is useful and only published to further the academic knowledge on a subject. Many research groups struggle to keep their heads above water so will settle for lesser publications. You're not always lucky enough that research gives you all the right answers, the publication pressure always remains.

 

[Pythagorean]

There are primary, secondary and tertiary streams of money that are invested into research. These come from the University, from grant councils and from private investors. This is not a universal system?

It would be an ideal world where every paper published is useful and only published to further the academic knowledge on a subject. Many research groups struggle to keep their heads above water so will settle for lesser publications. You're not always lucky enough that research gives you all the right answers, the publication pressure always remains.

Are you in the US?

I'm in the US too, but I thought that scientists got grants from councils and private investors, and broke a chunk of that money off to the university. I don't know at what point the university starts funding (beyond a grant council within the university).

I'm under-experienced in the field to have directly seen much about funding, so a lot of this is conclusions from word-of-mouth.

 

[Mk]

Intellectuals bore me.

Who? What? I like smart people.

 

[D H]

It is anathema in the US for a university to fund research. Seriously. The primary job of a researcher is to obtain funding from outside sources: government, industry, non-profits.

Universities do fund some "research", however, this "research" is usually very applied (e.g., building labs and other infrastructure) and is intended to bring in grant money or to woo researchers who will bring in grant money.

The people who evaluate research proposals are bean counters and administrators. Bean counters are incapable of distinguishing a good paper from a bad one. They are quite capable of counting the number of publications on a PI's CV. Administrators have to look at so many proposals that all they want is a total score. Publication count is part of that score.

 

[Pythagorean]

Who? What? I like smart people.

If that's how you chose your friends.

I like honest, useful, harmless, and fun people. Intelligence is not a requirement. Intelligence is an aspect of people that can make them more or less interesting, depending on how resourceful they are with it. Self-proclaimed intellectuals usually aren't very resourceful with their intelligence and tend to sit around and think a lot (in my experience).

People who have a superiority complex (i.e. "i like smart people", as if intelligence is how they judge everyone) usually have morality issues and aren't harmless, fun, or honest... and aren't always necessarily intelligent just because they're endeavored with intelligence. They're usually lazy and inconsiderate.

 

[Monique]

Are you in the US?

No, the Netherlands

I'm in the US too, but I thought that scientists got grants from councils and private investors, and broke a chunk of that money off to the university. I don't know at what point the university starts funding (beyond a grant council within the university).

I'm under-experienced in the field to have directly seen much about funding, so a lot of this is conclusions from word-of-mouth.

I looked it up. The primary stream of money comes directly from the University (given as a lumpsum by the government) and is destined for those with a long-term contract at the University (professors/lecturers), their research is generally very theoretical in nature and destined for international publications. The second stream of money is for PhD students and postdocs, payed by the grant council NWO, receiving such a grant is very competitive in nature and thus requires you to have good publications. The third stream of money comes from the free market of business investors and is for practical research, bound by conditions of the contractor.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, the Netherlands



I looked it up. The primary stream of money comes directly from the University (given as a lumpsum by the government) and is destined for those with a long-term contract at the University (professors/lecturers), their research is generally very theoretical in nature and destined for international publications. The second stream of money is for PhD students and postdocs, payed by the grant council NWO, receiving such a grant is very competitive in nature and thus requires you to have good publications. The third stream of money comes from the free market of business investors and is for practical research, bound by conditions of the contractor.

That makes sense to the discussions I've heard on the subject.

 

[mathwonk]

As fermat once said, i wrote a brilliant and witty post that was obliterated by the browser.

 

[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.