RE: Guardian on research publishing

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com>]

I think that Sandy does make a very important point. It must have 
been years since Harvard made this decision and I would love to 
know why it has not been implemented in the US where often 
Harvard initiatives seem to be taken so seriously. In the UK the 
RAE and now the REF, government demands that dominate UK 
university research, only ask for four items (I think) for 
consideration from active researchers

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 07 September 2011 23:37
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Guardian on research publishing

Interestingly, this critic does not mention the one approach that 
is likely to be effective in solving the problem he notes, viz., 
limiting the number of papers that a scholar can submit to a 
promotion-and-tenure committee. That forces scholars to select 
what they believe to be their most valuable contributions to 
scholarship, undercuts the incentive to waste time publishing 
many more papers than the number than can be submitted, and 
limits what those on the committee need to read to make their 
assessments. This approach has been implemented in a number of 
places, such as Harvard Medical School as i recall, but it should 
be much more widely adopted.

Sandy Thatcher


>The Guardian has a piece on the problems of research publishing
>(part of what it appears to be an ongoing conversation at the
>paper):
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science?CMP=twt_gu
>
>The essay calls for post-publication peer review.  The author's
>position is that the crisis in research publishing has come about
>because people are publishing material when they do not in fact
>have anything to say.
>
>Joe Esposito