September 5, 2011

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science - The Guardian

David Colquhoun   
Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.
Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.
The blame for this sad situation lies with the people who have imposed a publish-or-perish culture, namely research funders and senior people in universities. To have "written" 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being rather shameful. University PR departments encourage exaggerated claims, and hard-pressed authors go along with them. >>>

No comments:

Random Posts


  • India to propose regulatory body to curb misconduct

    Nature news India is to consider creating a national body to investigate plagiarism and misconduct in science after a string of high-profile frauds. C. N. R. Rao, who heads the national science advisory committee, told Nature that he will discuss the proposal at his next meeting with Prime Minis... READ MORE>>

  • Author guidance on plagiarism and duplicate publication

    Maxine Clarke The Commentary in the current issue of Nature by Mounir Errami and Harold Garner, A tale of two citations (Nature 451, 397-399;2008), has predictably received a lot of attention. In a nutshell, the authors ask whether scientists are publishing more duplicate papers, and by their newl... READ MORE>>

  • Plagiarism and preprints

    Hilary Spencer In the Publishing in the New Millenium forum, Corie Lok asks about a recent paper in Nature by Mounir Errami and Harold Garner. The paper, A tale of two citations, suggests that there is a high level of duplicate papers being published. These papers may illustrate co-submission, pla... READ MORE>>

  • Something rotten in the state of scientific publishing

    By Jonathan M. Gitlin There is an interesting commentary in this week's Nature1 that takes a look at the subject of plagiarism within the scientific literature. It's certainly a contentious subject; from day one as an undergraduate it was drilled into us that there could be no greater sin than pla... READ MORE>>

  • Erratum to: Astrophys Space Sci (2006) 302(1–4):61–65

    Energy-momentum of a stationary beam of light in teleparallel gravityOktay Aydogdu · Mustafa SaltiDOI 10.1007/s10509-005-9005-8After investigation and at the request of the President of the Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey, the Editors of Astrophysics and Space Science have de... READ MORE>>

  • Erratum to: Astrophys Space Sci (2005) 299(2):159–166

    Energy-momentum in the viscous Kasner-type universe in teleparallel gravityMustafa SaltiDOI 10.1007/s10509-005-5159-7 After investigation and at the request of the President of the Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey, the Editors of Astrophysics and Space Science have decided to ... READ MORE>>

  • Erratum to: Astrophys Space Sci (2006) 301(1–4):43–46

    The momentum 4-vector imparted by gravitational waves in Bianchi-type metricsAli Havare · Murat Korunur · Mustafa SaltiDOI 10.1007/s10509-006-6303-8After investigation and at the request of the President of the Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey, the Editors of Astrophysics and ... READ MORE>>

.

.
.

Popular Posts