Publish or Perish
It is amazing to think how rapidly science is able to progress. With the opportunity to publish their work, scientists can share their findings with colleagues throughout the world. The information is spread quickly, especially since most prominent journals can be accessed online. Arguably the advent of scientific journals was one of the greatest historical events for scientific communication and advancement. However, ScienceDaily reported on April 22, 2010 that a study suggests that, “The quality of scientific research may be suffering because academics are being increasingly pressured to produce 'publishable' results.”
According to the article, scientists’ careers are increasingly being evaluated by the number of papers they publish and the number of citations they receive. This creates a need for researchers to publish continuously in order to receive jobs and funding. The problem that arises is that journals are being accused of accepting papers depending on the results the scientists report. Daniele Fanelli, the man who conducted the study, says that, "Scientists face an increasing conflict of interest, torn between the need to be accurate and objective and the need to keep their careers alive.”
In the study, 1300 papers from all disciplines written by principal authors who were based in the United States were analyzed. Dr Fanelli checked to see if the conclusions in the papers were linked to the number of papers published on average by each scientist. He argues that his findings show that papers from states with higher averages of published papers per scientist were more likely to support the tested hypothesis. His conclusion suggests that in more competitive environments scientists are more likely to make their results look positive (some states had between 95% and 100% positive results). The article doesn’t speculate though whether the papers are being written with a positive spin or if the scientists are tweaking and selecting their data.
Whether or not this study supports the idea that because of heavy demands to publish the quality of science is being lowered, it does raise some good questions. Is the number of published papers or citations received an accurate evaluation of a scientists’ career? It seems obvious that quality should be better than quantity. Is there a trend in journals in which positive papers are more likely to be accepted? If so, there is a discouraging chance that something that has served to advance science has lost sight of the important principle that in science an unsupported hypothesis, that can be termed a negative result, can be just as important as a positive result. Hopefully, the current condition of science hasn’t really become publish or perish.
No comments:
Post a Comment