
Scientists Discover Way To Increase Publication Count  - johndcook
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8226
======
pessimizer
>There will be a minor flood of papers pre-registering sketchy theories

Does pre-registering papers somehow cause all journals to lose all editorial
control?

>Some authors will publish their negative results, but many will forget them
and move on to more fertile grounds.

Why would they forget about something that they have already publicly accepted
an obligation to publish, and how would that effect their careers?

>The bulk of these maybe-so works will be taken as positive evidence even if
positive effects are never found or if negative effects are published.

First of all, right now the media (and other scientists, and regulators) jump
on the single published vaguely positive result, unaware of the 99 negative
results that were never published. It would be an improvement to reduce this
list to only the media, who are intentionally being fooled for the sake of a
good linkbait headline.

Lastly, there should be enough of a volume and normalization of pre-
registrations that if you want to pretend like the statement of a question
constitutes the answer, people will laugh at you.

------
bagosm
This article points to a problem, but doesn't point to a solution.First of
all, pre-approving papers isn't any significant improvement, since it really
doesn't remove the incentive to "cook" results, and besides if the journals
knew how to filter papers based on the proposition and the setup, it wouldn't
be any different if those papers were also accompanied by results. Putting
this in a different wording, the journals can ignore the results and focus on
the proposition and method if they know how to evaluate them.

Also, judging a peer by his "quality" and not "quantity" of work is the only
actual proposition, but it helps very little. If such objective criteria were
known, journals would apply those criteria to the papers themselves, hence,
filter only the quality ones and problem solved.

All in all, the conclusion is that problem is solved iff problem is solved.

What lacks, are objective criteria for a work of science. Anyone care to
invent any?

~~~
Someone
_" If such objective criteria were known, journals would apply those criteria
to the papers themselves, hence, filter only the quality ones and problem
solved."_

If only. Just like currently, there would be second-tier of journals that will
accept papers that are not the best of the best because all those papers make
it into the top journals (Nature, Science, the Lancet, etc)

Similarly, there would be third-tier journals gearing towards third-tier
researchers, ad infinitum. People would send papers to them because their
employer tells them "publish or perish", and a half/quarter/tenth-decent
reputation is better than no reputation. Similarly, publishers would offer
such journals because there is money to be made there.

So yes, we need objective criteria for quality, but that will probably not be
enough to get rid of the zillions of journals.

Maybe, the real problem is that modern scientists are paid by the government.
'Scientist' used to be a hobby. People did it in their spare time, or found a
patron who was willing to sponsor them. Nowadays, scientist is a profession,
and the main sponsors (governments and governmental institutions) try to be
fair in the way they distribute their money. To do so, they have to make
scientific output measurable. Quality often can only be objectively measured
after decades, so they go for quantity instead. The patrons of centuries ago
did not have to defend their choices; they just sponsored whoever they wanted
to.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _and the main sponsors (governments and governmental institutions) try to be
> fair in the way they distribute their money. To do so, they have to make
> scientific output measurable._

Your first sentence is right, but the second is off-base.

No one in gov't really gives a damn about measurable progress, which is why
the measurements used are so broken. (See my other comment for a better
measure.)

The real issue: As with any gov't cheese it needs to be spread around, or it
doesn't get the congressional support required for continuation. Ever wonder
why:

1\. The National Magnet Lab was removed from MIT and placed in that bastion of
great science, Florida State University?

2\. The Superconducting Super Collider ended up in that great cultural center
of science, Waxahachie, Texas? Perhaps ease of access?

3\. Plans for Mission Control, which were already drawn up to be north of MIT,
was redrawn to be in Houston after Kennedy was killed? (look up the history of
Tech Square in Cambridge.)

Politicians think they can spend money in certain areas and results will
materials. And they will get results, so it's self-reinforcing, but they're
too scientifically obtuse to imagine that the results are not necessarily the
ones they want.

~~~
michaelt
It would also be self-reinforcing if you decided to give all the research
funding and facilities to a clique of top universities which had already
attracted the best researchers.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _which had already attracted the best researchers._

Giving the funding to second-tier places and hoping for first-tier results is
certainly a strategy.

Another might be to note that there is a difference between self-reinforcement
of politics and self-reinforcement of first-tier universities. Clearly, we've
made a choice as to which one is deserving of self-reinforcement.

------
milliams
If you really want lots of papers to your name, join a large particle physics
collaboration. In the four years I've been doing my Ph.D. I've been a named
author on over 100 papers.

~~~
mturmon
Only problem is, your close colleagues are on to the inflation of that
statistic.

Potential solution: change disciplines after graduation?

------
jpdoctor
(number of cites) / (number of pubs * number of coauthors) has been known for
a long time to the best tenure/review committees.

Second tier doesn't use it, the politics should make it obvious why.

And the gov't grant machine doesn't use it, for different kinds of political
reasons.

------
gosub
One of the positive effect of "publish or perish" is that every
mathematician/scientist is obligated to put most of what he's thinking on
paper and on a digital medium. It is much easier to search in a pdf file than
in someone's mind.

------
pesenti
Article signed by 80 scientists:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-
in-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-
study-pre-registration)
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5868406](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5868406))

------
rokhayakebe
"Publish or Perish," "Launch or Perish."

