Journalist - Kenya
[HEIDELBERG, GERMANY] The demand for frequent publishing in
peer-reviewed journals is putting enormous pressure on early career researchers
trying to make breakthroughs, academicians say.
Julie Williamson, a lecturer in Human Computer
Interaction at the UK’s Glasgow University, told the 7th Heidelberg
Laureate Forum (23-27 September) in Heidelberg, Germany,
that young scientists need to publish less to produce high quality papers.
The forum is an annual weeklong networking conference for
selected young researchers in mathematics and computer to spend time with award
winning laureates.
“Certainly, the
quantities of publications keep growing and often we publish for reasons that
has nothing to do with scientific contributions,” she states.
For instance, she explains, a computer scientist may
publish frequently to attend conferences, or because of expectations to do so
much work every year.
“That is not the same thing as publishing because I have
made an important discovery that I want to disseminate. It is important to
attend conferences to build your networks and get fresh ideas. But I want us to
separate that from publications and publishing.”
According to Williamson to “publish or perish” is a
horrible stress on early researchers and makes them go for less risky research
that they know will definitely be published.
“They will not be exploring the more creative, unusual
ideas and things that you want to show can work. Those in their early career
will have to play it safe. They cannot take risks for interesting breakthroughs
because they need to have something that they can publish and not likely of
negative results that are not publishable,” she says.
 |
| Delegates debating the future of scientific publishing at the Heidelberg Laureate Forum © Heidelberg Laureate Forum Foundation |
Scientific publishing, especially for the developing
world early researchers, will make the results of their works publicly
accessible, says Efim Isaakovich Zelmanov, a mathematician from the University
of Californian in San Diego.
Zelmanov says that the structural order in academic
institutions is such that to go higher and also to be promoted you have to
publish.
However, he says that the controversy around “publish or
perish culture” in order to get hired or promoted is intensifying with some
claiming it is putting unnecessary pressure on researchers, especially early
career scientists.
There is also the concern that authors write papers,
editors send them to referees to work them and owners of publishing houses get
income yet they contribute almost nothing to the research done.
“The system is unfair as it is, has been rotten for some
time, money goes to the libraries and many feel that if the research is funded
by public foundation, it has to be accessible to anybody,” says
Zelmanov.
“These are serious and legitimate concerns.
But the [alternative] system being proposed that authors pay for papers to be
published but are made freely accessible to all is worse,” he says.
“This,” he adds, “is equivalent to stating that we do not
need to adopt papers from poorer countries as many authors can’t afford the
cost, which is grossly unfair.”
Zelmanov explains that there are little submissions from
Africa because of the lack of good education. “In most African countries there
is not good enough education that can support researchers and publishing. As
the profiles of scientific institutions remain low, they will not be favoured
by editors.
Peer review is also done mostly in the west and
refereeing from the developing countries is lower than the share of papers
produced. “For instance, when an editor gets a paper from a country not known
for high level of mathematical research, he can be biased against it,” he says.
