In regard to publishing, I do not agree with you, I agree with Sir Peter Medawar. Medawar won the Nobel Prize in Medicine and the Copley Medal.
The papers are the end-point of research. IF you have not published it as some form of a communication (e.g. Journals, proceedings, books, govt docs, internal-use docs, its not research. YOu did somethign, but you have not done research. Publishing is part of research, not adjunct to it. Having said that, this is my opinion and you have a right to yours (obviously), however, one of the biggest failures as a scientist is not finishing what you start by publishing what you spent all that time doing. Young upstart scientists would be better to consider publishing as part of their research, even if my opinion is completely wrong, because they may feel pressure to finish what they start and publish the results for potential the good of society. While its sitting in a lab drawer, there is no good to be had except self-fulfilling gratification that you know or found something out that no one else knows. Mindset is everything when it comes to maintaining motivation. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Rodney J Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Just two tangential points on this topic that I've been mulling about and > bouncing off my local colleagues. > > 1. First, the papers we produce are not our research, they are but > advertisements of our research. We all know very highly cited papers whose > underlying quality of data may not match the elegance of wordsmithery that > got it published. However, it is the data itself that is the fundamental > component of our research, no? Is there a possible future where data > citation rankings will also be used to quantify research output? The more > people use my data, the more beneficial it is to the larger community... We > can already associate doi values for raw data. > > 2. Second, and perhaps more fundamental, we have historically chased > particular journals in our discipline because they were the sole place to > showcase our work. We pay page charges, publication fees, or membership > dues and do the reviewing pro bono as pointed out in the Chronicle article. > However, there are increasingly large numbers of locations we can put our > data, analyses, and interpretations outside just a handful of publications. > Many of us no longer get the physical journals each month. I used to thumb > through them when they arrived to keep up with the latest and greatest work > but now Google Scholar and Web of Science are my primary vectors towards > research discovery. The odd thing about this arrangement is that WE are the > content creators, not the journals. Without the content then the Chief > Executive of Elsevier, Mr Engstrom, wouldn't have received the reported > $4.6e6 compensation for 2010. Is there a future where the magnitude of > venues for our research results in competition among the journals for good > science such that the journals chase the people who actually make content > instead of the other way around? > > Just some thoughts, > > Rodney > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM, James Farlin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Some journals, such as the open access UC Journal Collabra are doing just >> that, where a portion of publication fees are set aside for authors and they >> can either use that money to compensate themselves ($/review done) or donate >> it to a fund to offset those publication fees for other authors with less >> funding (UGs, Grad, Post-docs). >> >> They have a very short video which explains the model on their website: >> http://www.collabra.org. >> >> Encouraging to see from this young scientist. >> >> James >> >> On Feb 16, 2016 1:21 PM, "David Duffy" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h >>> >>> "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned >>> into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the >>> publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft >>> labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as >>> doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." >>> >>> -- >>> David Duffy >>> 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) >>> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana >>> Botany >>> University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi >>> 3190 Maile Way >>> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >>> 1-808-956-8218 > > > > > -- > Rodney J. Dyer, PhD > Department of Biology > Center for Environmental Studies > Virginia Commonwealth University > http://dyerlab.bio.vcu.edu -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
