'Publish or Perish' seems to be the general code of law as far as the scientific community goes. The idea, while being a relatively trite manifestation of knowledge for all, has come to be known as the single most dreaded facet of building a career in research. As you go up, the impact factor of the journals you publish in is expected to show a concordant rise. The instrument of knowledge is bypassed by the instrument of conformity. Is the evil of globalization to blame, or the competitive edge that has overtaken research the main reason? A bit of both in my opinion.
Scientific literature has seen a reversal of fortunes with advancements in information technology, and it suffices to say that it has been one of the cornerstones of the knowledge economy in the last 20 years. The digitization has resuscitated the field where journals would otherwise be forever lost in a library shelf of a university. The very fact that articles are now accessible in any corner of the earth at any time (of course, internet connectivity is mandatory, but e-journals can make up for the lack of it). The positives are there for all to see. A scientist working in a remote lab in Africa now has access to research coming out of the hallowed portals of MIT. It has provided scope for constant feedback on research, and erratum are more poignantly highlighted than a letter to the editor would have done in recent times. But somehow, some journals, either by sheer luck or careful selectivity, have risen to prominence as having more venerable research compared to another.
This has led to an era of competition, where scientists are vying for limited print space in journals. Therefore, some research is considered more publishable than the other. And it is considered fashionable to print only in the big 4 because they seem to matter more. Sadly, a lot of researchers face a dilemma of prolonging their work or conducting more experiments in order to accentuate their chances of conquering the holy grail, or publish it instantly when the results are novel and exciting. The element of curiosity is being pushed to the back-burner, as post-college career is highly dependent on the publications on one's resume rather than the importance of the work. Now, this does not imply that the exclusivity of some journals is necessarily a bad thing. They are considered the cornerstone of cutting-edge research, a sort of a benchmark. Not just in science, but also in disciplines of engineering. It is more important to change the perception, to be able to differentiate between the quality of research and the impact of the journal. Especially in countries where publication record takes a backseat to everything else- the candidate's proficiency as a team player, extra-curricular pursuits, and basic qualities like presentation skills.
Admit it, people go to graduate school because they love science. That's how it should remain throughout their career. More and more scientists are coming out and collaborating in order to better than chances of enhancing their quality of work. More such ideas are certainly worth probing.
A must watch show coming this fall:
And if you haven't heard of Arcade Fire, here you go:
Scientific literature has seen a reversal of fortunes with advancements in information technology, and it suffices to say that it has been one of the cornerstones of the knowledge economy in the last 20 years. The digitization has resuscitated the field where journals would otherwise be forever lost in a library shelf of a university. The very fact that articles are now accessible in any corner of the earth at any time (of course, internet connectivity is mandatory, but e-journals can make up for the lack of it). The positives are there for all to see. A scientist working in a remote lab in Africa now has access to research coming out of the hallowed portals of MIT. It has provided scope for constant feedback on research, and erratum are more poignantly highlighted than a letter to the editor would have done in recent times. But somehow, some journals, either by sheer luck or careful selectivity, have risen to prominence as having more venerable research compared to another.
This has led to an era of competition, where scientists are vying for limited print space in journals. Therefore, some research is considered more publishable than the other. And it is considered fashionable to print only in the big 4 because they seem to matter more. Sadly, a lot of researchers face a dilemma of prolonging their work or conducting more experiments in order to accentuate their chances of conquering the holy grail, or publish it instantly when the results are novel and exciting. The element of curiosity is being pushed to the back-burner, as post-college career is highly dependent on the publications on one's resume rather than the importance of the work. Now, this does not imply that the exclusivity of some journals is necessarily a bad thing. They are considered the cornerstone of cutting-edge research, a sort of a benchmark. Not just in science, but also in disciplines of engineering. It is more important to change the perception, to be able to differentiate between the quality of research and the impact of the journal. Especially in countries where publication record takes a backseat to everything else- the candidate's proficiency as a team player, extra-curricular pursuits, and basic qualities like presentation skills.
Admit it, people go to graduate school because they love science. That's how it should remain throughout their career. More and more scientists are coming out and collaborating in order to better than chances of enhancing their quality of work. More such ideas are certainly worth probing.
A must watch show coming this fall:
And if you haven't heard of Arcade Fire, here you go:
2 comments:
very true my friend I agree with all of your views.
Glad that you see my point!
Post a Comment