Of course, you are entirely right Daniel – at least from the point of view of ethics. But your advice goes against every edict in the academic rat race.
(a) publish as much as you can (publishing frequency = research quality)
(b) get grants to fund your research (requires [a])
(c) use grant money to fund students’ work that you can use to satisfy (a) and (b).
Andre: While there are certainly incentives to maximize your publication rate, there are other incentives in play as well.
If you write fewer, better papers, you are likely to me more respected by your peers — do you think more highly of someone who writes high-quality, insightful papers at a moderate pace, or someone who churns out mediocrity? Someone who focuses on quality is also likely to be cited more (one hopes), and to win “10 year” awards and the like. A researcher’s reputation is built on doing great work, not doing lots and lots of boring work.
And they call me an idealist! While I’m not an academic, my impression of life inside the ivory tower is similar that that of Julian and Andre: the pressure to be a publishing machine often outweighs other considerations, at least in the early years. It is indeed a depressing goal–and was a key factor in my decision not to pursue an academic career after completing my PhD.
@panos I’ve got roughly the same number of journal articles and I got my promotion to full prof. There were 3 external people, at least… and nobody said anything about the *number* of papers I wrote.
Of course, you are entirely right Daniel – at least from the point of view of ethics. But your advice goes against every edict in the academic rat race.
(a) publish as much as you can (publishing frequency = research quality)
(b) get grants to fund your research (requires [a])
(c) use grant money to fund students’ work that you can use to satisfy (a) and (b).
Andre: While there are certainly incentives to maximize your publication rate, there are other incentives in play as well.
If you write fewer, better papers, you are likely to me more respected by your peers — do you think more highly of someone who writes high-quality, insightful papers at a moderate pace, or someone who churns out mediocrity? Someone who focuses on quality is also likely to be cited more (one hopes), and to win “10 year” awards and the like. A researcher’s reputation is built on doing great work, not doing lots and lots of boring work.
Amen.
I intend to fully follow your advice once I have a secure enough position.
And they call me an idealist! While I’m not an academic, my impression of life inside the ivory tower is similar that that of Julian and Andre: the pressure to be a publishing machine often outweighs other considerations, at least in the early years. It is indeed a depressing goal–and was a key factor in my decision not to pursue an academic career after completing my PhD.
OK, today’s story:
A senior, well-respected professor comes to my office and asks how I am doing.
Me: “Kind of busy lately trying to prepare my promotion package”.
Senior Prof: “How many journal papers do you have”?
Me: “Six, and two of them under advanced stages of review”
Senior Prof: “And you are already up for promotion?”
This is a person who is going to vote in my case a few months from now.
@panos I’ve got roughly the same number of journal articles and I got my promotion to full prof. There were 3 external people, at least… and nobody said anything about the *number* of papers I wrote.
So, maybe there is hope, after all!