What is the point of publishing a research paper nowadays when even a blog post or a lecture slide can have...
local storage : Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set property 'innerHTML' of null
How would an AI self awareness kill switch work?
How much mayhem could I cause as a fish?
Do authors have to be politically correct in article-writing?
What is the difference between rolling more dice versus fewer dice?
Does diversity provide anything that meritocracy does not?
How to assess the long-term stability of a college as part of a job search
Is there a lava-breathing lizard creature (that could be worshipped by a cult) in 5e?
How can I play a serial killer in a party of good PCs?
How do you voice extended chords?
Is using an 'empty' metaphor considered bad style?
How does Leonard in "Memento" remember reading and writing?
How does one write from a minority culture? A question on cultural references
Limits of a density function
Why did Luke use his left hand to shoot?
Globe trotting Grandpa. Where is he going next?
In Linux what happens if 1000 files in a directory are moved to another location while another 300 files were added to the source directory?
How to visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem from complex analysis or geometric topology considerations?
Does Skippy chunky peanut butter contain trans fat?
How to deal with possible delayed baggage?
Building an exterior wall within an exterior wall for insulation
Why avoid shared user accounts?
Airplane generations - how does it work?
Why would space fleets be aligned?
What is the point of publishing a research paper nowadays when even a blog post or a lecture slide can have more citation count than a journal paper?
What are the challenges to publishing a paper when you have a huge number of collaborators?What is the point in publishing a paper in a journal rather than arXiv?What is the point in publishing a paper in a workshop rather than in a conference?Why are journals used in modern scientific academic research?
I am quite surprised to find that a lecture slide for a course has 133 citations from highly reputable researchers across the world. The main contribution of the lecture slides (which seems to be the reason for the citations) appears in 1 line on 1 page of the slide out of 30 slides.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~tijmen/csc321/slides/lecture_slides_lec6.pdf
To see citation count, google: "RMSProp"
Another set of random course notes from lecture 12 of a course just happens to have over 100 citations
http://cs229.stanford.edu/notes/cs229-notes12.pdf
Google: Reinforcement Learning and Control - CS229
This 8 page course note has 200 citations, which is more than many of actual research papers
http://cogprints.org/5869/1/cnn_tutorial.pdf
Also, another summary of a blog post (less than 14 pages) have over 700 citations (From the paper: This paper originally appeared as a blog post at http://sebastianruder.com/
optimizing-gradient-descent/index.html on 19 January 2016.)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04747.pdf
To see citation count, google: "An overview of gradient descent optimization
algorithms"
This paper isn't even published anywhere aside from Arxiv.
What is the point of even publishing a paper and going through the painstaking process of peer review and editing if you can just write some blog post or a power point lecture slide on some hot topic and accumulate citation counts (which is crucial for securing funding, etc.)?
publications research-process citations academic-life
add a comment |
I am quite surprised to find that a lecture slide for a course has 133 citations from highly reputable researchers across the world. The main contribution of the lecture slides (which seems to be the reason for the citations) appears in 1 line on 1 page of the slide out of 30 slides.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~tijmen/csc321/slides/lecture_slides_lec6.pdf
To see citation count, google: "RMSProp"
Another set of random course notes from lecture 12 of a course just happens to have over 100 citations
http://cs229.stanford.edu/notes/cs229-notes12.pdf
Google: Reinforcement Learning and Control - CS229
This 8 page course note has 200 citations, which is more than many of actual research papers
http://cogprints.org/5869/1/cnn_tutorial.pdf
Also, another summary of a blog post (less than 14 pages) have over 700 citations (From the paper: This paper originally appeared as a blog post at http://sebastianruder.com/
optimizing-gradient-descent/index.html on 19 January 2016.)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04747.pdf
To see citation count, google: "An overview of gradient descent optimization
algorithms"
This paper isn't even published anywhere aside from Arxiv.
What is the point of even publishing a paper and going through the painstaking process of peer review and editing if you can just write some blog post or a power point lecture slide on some hot topic and accumulate citation counts (which is crucial for securing funding, etc.)?
publications research-process citations academic-life
add a comment |
I am quite surprised to find that a lecture slide for a course has 133 citations from highly reputable researchers across the world. The main contribution of the lecture slides (which seems to be the reason for the citations) appears in 1 line on 1 page of the slide out of 30 slides.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~tijmen/csc321/slides/lecture_slides_lec6.pdf
To see citation count, google: "RMSProp"
Another set of random course notes from lecture 12 of a course just happens to have over 100 citations
http://cs229.stanford.edu/notes/cs229-notes12.pdf
Google: Reinforcement Learning and Control - CS229
This 8 page course note has 200 citations, which is more than many of actual research papers
http://cogprints.org/5869/1/cnn_tutorial.pdf
Also, another summary of a blog post (less than 14 pages) have over 700 citations (From the paper: This paper originally appeared as a blog post at http://sebastianruder.com/
optimizing-gradient-descent/index.html on 19 January 2016.)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04747.pdf
To see citation count, google: "An overview of gradient descent optimization
algorithms"
This paper isn't even published anywhere aside from Arxiv.
What is the point of even publishing a paper and going through the painstaking process of peer review and editing if you can just write some blog post or a power point lecture slide on some hot topic and accumulate citation counts (which is crucial for securing funding, etc.)?
publications research-process citations academic-life
I am quite surprised to find that a lecture slide for a course has 133 citations from highly reputable researchers across the world. The main contribution of the lecture slides (which seems to be the reason for the citations) appears in 1 line on 1 page of the slide out of 30 slides.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~tijmen/csc321/slides/lecture_slides_lec6.pdf
To see citation count, google: "RMSProp"
Another set of random course notes from lecture 12 of a course just happens to have over 100 citations
http://cs229.stanford.edu/notes/cs229-notes12.pdf
Google: Reinforcement Learning and Control - CS229
This 8 page course note has 200 citations, which is more than many of actual research papers
http://cogprints.org/5869/1/cnn_tutorial.pdf
Also, another summary of a blog post (less than 14 pages) have over 700 citations (From the paper: This paper originally appeared as a blog post at http://sebastianruder.com/
optimizing-gradient-descent/index.html on 19 January 2016.)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04747.pdf
To see citation count, google: "An overview of gradient descent optimization
algorithms"
This paper isn't even published anywhere aside from Arxiv.
What is the point of even publishing a paper and going through the painstaking process of peer review and editing if you can just write some blog post or a power point lecture slide on some hot topic and accumulate citation counts (which is crucial for securing funding, etc.)?
publications research-process citations academic-life
publications research-process citations academic-life
edited 6 hours ago
The man of your dream
asked 6 hours ago
The man of your dreamThe man of your dream
42629
42629
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It's not fair to only look at the peak of the distribution. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to compare peaks to peaks and averages to averages.
The two sources you mention are both in the field of machine learning. If we assume that they correspond to the blog/lecture notes sources with the most number of citations (i.e. the peaks), then we can conclude that these venues can generate at most ~700 citations. If you compare to the most cited machine learning papers, these 700 citations are minute. For example putting "machine learning" into Google Scholar yields:
Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python (journal article) -- 14919 citations
Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (book) -- 34724 citations
What about averages? I don't know what the average number of citations a blog post or lecture slide gets, but I'd guess less than one, since many blog posts don't attract comments. The average number of citations for a journal article however is easy to find - just look at the impact factor. Putting in "machine learning journal" into Bing, I get journals such as Machine Learning (IF = 1.855 as of time of writing) and International Journal of Neural Systems (IF = 4.58). Clearly the average journal article gets a lot more citations than the average blog post or lecture slide.
tl; dr: What's the point of studying machine learning instead of playing soccer and earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a week? The answer to that question is similar to the answer to this one.
add a comment |
The instances you mention don't show that statistically blogs or slides get cited well. Just that you find some instances in the universe of events.
Papers tend to be abstracted (chemistry does this quite well). Blogs and slides not.
Science citation searches don't generally index blogs and slides (especially uncited ones). Thus they can be difficult to find during a lit search.
Journals exercise a function of review and editing that drives a superior work product in formatting. Blogs and slides are generally a mess in their referencing fro instance, compared to papers. It's not just that editors and reviewers drive this but that authors tend to "up their game" when sending work product for review.
There is some benefit in review scientifically (more so for weaker papers, but still).
Papers help your career.
Nothing prevents publicizing a paper by blogging or presenting it in addition. And usually the blogging or presenting will be superior because solid work has already been done previously.*
Narrative technical reports ("Word documents" or the sort) are generally superior to slideware in information density and quality. [Read the Tufte contributions to the Space Shuttle disaster inquiry for some of this...Feynman had same issue with the previous disaster and the problems with slides versus sentence and paragraph reports.
*Small aenecdote to explain. I took a course once where we had a true seminar (oval table discussion with small group) on foreign policy controversies. Every Tuesday, we handed in a 2 page written paper before the discussion (on a set of readings). Every Thursday, we just had discussion, on a new set of reading, but no paper was required. The Tuesday discussions were stunningly better than the Thursday discussions. Doesn't this make sense when you think how much better you understand something after writing it up properly? The same applies for doing a presentation or a blog on a piece of science (after writing it up formally).
New contributor
add a comment |
The principal contemporary reason for formally publishing articles is that governments and institutional administrators demand of researchers proof of their productivity. Being unable to assess such productivity according to their own criteria (in general because they have none) they attach simple metrics to research activity which they use to rank researchers. The principal metrics are money secured in competitive grant programs and counts of papers indexed by some supposed authority. In the current moment, publishing in journals serves mainly to achieve the second goal.
Formal journal publishing generally adds little value from an intellectual point of view and generates obstacles (paywalls) to dissemination of ideas. Something like the ArXiv achieves wide, free, dissemination of knowledge in a rapid and easy way. The author can write an article according to the author's criteria and distribute it as the author sees fit. Sometimes the refereeing process adds value, when the referees and editors behave in a serious fashion, but more often they do not or the process simply delays dissemination.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125615%2fwhat-is-the-point-of-publishing-a-research-paper-nowadays-when-even-a-blog-post%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's not fair to only look at the peak of the distribution. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to compare peaks to peaks and averages to averages.
The two sources you mention are both in the field of machine learning. If we assume that they correspond to the blog/lecture notes sources with the most number of citations (i.e. the peaks), then we can conclude that these venues can generate at most ~700 citations. If you compare to the most cited machine learning papers, these 700 citations are minute. For example putting "machine learning" into Google Scholar yields:
Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python (journal article) -- 14919 citations
Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (book) -- 34724 citations
What about averages? I don't know what the average number of citations a blog post or lecture slide gets, but I'd guess less than one, since many blog posts don't attract comments. The average number of citations for a journal article however is easy to find - just look at the impact factor. Putting in "machine learning journal" into Bing, I get journals such as Machine Learning (IF = 1.855 as of time of writing) and International Journal of Neural Systems (IF = 4.58). Clearly the average journal article gets a lot more citations than the average blog post or lecture slide.
tl; dr: What's the point of studying machine learning instead of playing soccer and earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a week? The answer to that question is similar to the answer to this one.
add a comment |
It's not fair to only look at the peak of the distribution. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to compare peaks to peaks and averages to averages.
The two sources you mention are both in the field of machine learning. If we assume that they correspond to the blog/lecture notes sources with the most number of citations (i.e. the peaks), then we can conclude that these venues can generate at most ~700 citations. If you compare to the most cited machine learning papers, these 700 citations are minute. For example putting "machine learning" into Google Scholar yields:
Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python (journal article) -- 14919 citations
Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (book) -- 34724 citations
What about averages? I don't know what the average number of citations a blog post or lecture slide gets, but I'd guess less than one, since many blog posts don't attract comments. The average number of citations for a journal article however is easy to find - just look at the impact factor. Putting in "machine learning journal" into Bing, I get journals such as Machine Learning (IF = 1.855 as of time of writing) and International Journal of Neural Systems (IF = 4.58). Clearly the average journal article gets a lot more citations than the average blog post or lecture slide.
tl; dr: What's the point of studying machine learning instead of playing soccer and earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a week? The answer to that question is similar to the answer to this one.
add a comment |
It's not fair to only look at the peak of the distribution. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to compare peaks to peaks and averages to averages.
The two sources you mention are both in the field of machine learning. If we assume that they correspond to the blog/lecture notes sources with the most number of citations (i.e. the peaks), then we can conclude that these venues can generate at most ~700 citations. If you compare to the most cited machine learning papers, these 700 citations are minute. For example putting "machine learning" into Google Scholar yields:
Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python (journal article) -- 14919 citations
Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (book) -- 34724 citations
What about averages? I don't know what the average number of citations a blog post or lecture slide gets, but I'd guess less than one, since many blog posts don't attract comments. The average number of citations for a journal article however is easy to find - just look at the impact factor. Putting in "machine learning journal" into Bing, I get journals such as Machine Learning (IF = 1.855 as of time of writing) and International Journal of Neural Systems (IF = 4.58). Clearly the average journal article gets a lot more citations than the average blog post or lecture slide.
tl; dr: What's the point of studying machine learning instead of playing soccer and earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a week? The answer to that question is similar to the answer to this one.
It's not fair to only look at the peak of the distribution. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to compare peaks to peaks and averages to averages.
The two sources you mention are both in the field of machine learning. If we assume that they correspond to the blog/lecture notes sources with the most number of citations (i.e. the peaks), then we can conclude that these venues can generate at most ~700 citations. If you compare to the most cited machine learning papers, these 700 citations are minute. For example putting "machine learning" into Google Scholar yields:
Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python (journal article) -- 14919 citations
Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (book) -- 34724 citations
What about averages? I don't know what the average number of citations a blog post or lecture slide gets, but I'd guess less than one, since many blog posts don't attract comments. The average number of citations for a journal article however is easy to find - just look at the impact factor. Putting in "machine learning journal" into Bing, I get journals such as Machine Learning (IF = 1.855 as of time of writing) and International Journal of Neural Systems (IF = 4.58). Clearly the average journal article gets a lot more citations than the average blog post or lecture slide.
tl; dr: What's the point of studying machine learning instead of playing soccer and earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a week? The answer to that question is similar to the answer to this one.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
AllureAllure
31.5k1997147
31.5k1997147
add a comment |
add a comment |
The instances you mention don't show that statistically blogs or slides get cited well. Just that you find some instances in the universe of events.
Papers tend to be abstracted (chemistry does this quite well). Blogs and slides not.
Science citation searches don't generally index blogs and slides (especially uncited ones). Thus they can be difficult to find during a lit search.
Journals exercise a function of review and editing that drives a superior work product in formatting. Blogs and slides are generally a mess in their referencing fro instance, compared to papers. It's not just that editors and reviewers drive this but that authors tend to "up their game" when sending work product for review.
There is some benefit in review scientifically (more so for weaker papers, but still).
Papers help your career.
Nothing prevents publicizing a paper by blogging or presenting it in addition. And usually the blogging or presenting will be superior because solid work has already been done previously.*
Narrative technical reports ("Word documents" or the sort) are generally superior to slideware in information density and quality. [Read the Tufte contributions to the Space Shuttle disaster inquiry for some of this...Feynman had same issue with the previous disaster and the problems with slides versus sentence and paragraph reports.
*Small aenecdote to explain. I took a course once where we had a true seminar (oval table discussion with small group) on foreign policy controversies. Every Tuesday, we handed in a 2 page written paper before the discussion (on a set of readings). Every Thursday, we just had discussion, on a new set of reading, but no paper was required. The Tuesday discussions were stunningly better than the Thursday discussions. Doesn't this make sense when you think how much better you understand something after writing it up properly? The same applies for doing a presentation or a blog on a piece of science (after writing it up formally).
New contributor
add a comment |
The instances you mention don't show that statistically blogs or slides get cited well. Just that you find some instances in the universe of events.
Papers tend to be abstracted (chemistry does this quite well). Blogs and slides not.
Science citation searches don't generally index blogs and slides (especially uncited ones). Thus they can be difficult to find during a lit search.
Journals exercise a function of review and editing that drives a superior work product in formatting. Blogs and slides are generally a mess in their referencing fro instance, compared to papers. It's not just that editors and reviewers drive this but that authors tend to "up their game" when sending work product for review.
There is some benefit in review scientifically (more so for weaker papers, but still).
Papers help your career.
Nothing prevents publicizing a paper by blogging or presenting it in addition. And usually the blogging or presenting will be superior because solid work has already been done previously.*
Narrative technical reports ("Word documents" or the sort) are generally superior to slideware in information density and quality. [Read the Tufte contributions to the Space Shuttle disaster inquiry for some of this...Feynman had same issue with the previous disaster and the problems with slides versus sentence and paragraph reports.
*Small aenecdote to explain. I took a course once where we had a true seminar (oval table discussion with small group) on foreign policy controversies. Every Tuesday, we handed in a 2 page written paper before the discussion (on a set of readings). Every Thursday, we just had discussion, on a new set of reading, but no paper was required. The Tuesday discussions were stunningly better than the Thursday discussions. Doesn't this make sense when you think how much better you understand something after writing it up properly? The same applies for doing a presentation or a blog on a piece of science (after writing it up formally).
New contributor
add a comment |
The instances you mention don't show that statistically blogs or slides get cited well. Just that you find some instances in the universe of events.
Papers tend to be abstracted (chemistry does this quite well). Blogs and slides not.
Science citation searches don't generally index blogs and slides (especially uncited ones). Thus they can be difficult to find during a lit search.
Journals exercise a function of review and editing that drives a superior work product in formatting. Blogs and slides are generally a mess in their referencing fro instance, compared to papers. It's not just that editors and reviewers drive this but that authors tend to "up their game" when sending work product for review.
There is some benefit in review scientifically (more so for weaker papers, but still).
Papers help your career.
Nothing prevents publicizing a paper by blogging or presenting it in addition. And usually the blogging or presenting will be superior because solid work has already been done previously.*
Narrative technical reports ("Word documents" or the sort) are generally superior to slideware in information density and quality. [Read the Tufte contributions to the Space Shuttle disaster inquiry for some of this...Feynman had same issue with the previous disaster and the problems with slides versus sentence and paragraph reports.
*Small aenecdote to explain. I took a course once where we had a true seminar (oval table discussion with small group) on foreign policy controversies. Every Tuesday, we handed in a 2 page written paper before the discussion (on a set of readings). Every Thursday, we just had discussion, on a new set of reading, but no paper was required. The Tuesday discussions were stunningly better than the Thursday discussions. Doesn't this make sense when you think how much better you understand something after writing it up properly? The same applies for doing a presentation or a blog on a piece of science (after writing it up formally).
New contributor
The instances you mention don't show that statistically blogs or slides get cited well. Just that you find some instances in the universe of events.
Papers tend to be abstracted (chemistry does this quite well). Blogs and slides not.
Science citation searches don't generally index blogs and slides (especially uncited ones). Thus they can be difficult to find during a lit search.
Journals exercise a function of review and editing that drives a superior work product in formatting. Blogs and slides are generally a mess in their referencing fro instance, compared to papers. It's not just that editors and reviewers drive this but that authors tend to "up their game" when sending work product for review.
There is some benefit in review scientifically (more so for weaker papers, but still).
Papers help your career.
Nothing prevents publicizing a paper by blogging or presenting it in addition. And usually the blogging or presenting will be superior because solid work has already been done previously.*
Narrative technical reports ("Word documents" or the sort) are generally superior to slideware in information density and quality. [Read the Tufte contributions to the Space Shuttle disaster inquiry for some of this...Feynman had same issue with the previous disaster and the problems with slides versus sentence and paragraph reports.
*Small aenecdote to explain. I took a course once where we had a true seminar (oval table discussion with small group) on foreign policy controversies. Every Tuesday, we handed in a 2 page written paper before the discussion (on a set of readings). Every Thursday, we just had discussion, on a new set of reading, but no paper was required. The Tuesday discussions were stunningly better than the Thursday discussions. Doesn't this make sense when you think how much better you understand something after writing it up properly? The same applies for doing a presentation or a blog on a piece of science (after writing it up formally).
New contributor
New contributor
answered 5 hours ago
guestguest
612
612
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
The principal contemporary reason for formally publishing articles is that governments and institutional administrators demand of researchers proof of their productivity. Being unable to assess such productivity according to their own criteria (in general because they have none) they attach simple metrics to research activity which they use to rank researchers. The principal metrics are money secured in competitive grant programs and counts of papers indexed by some supposed authority. In the current moment, publishing in journals serves mainly to achieve the second goal.
Formal journal publishing generally adds little value from an intellectual point of view and generates obstacles (paywalls) to dissemination of ideas. Something like the ArXiv achieves wide, free, dissemination of knowledge in a rapid and easy way. The author can write an article according to the author's criteria and distribute it as the author sees fit. Sometimes the refereeing process adds value, when the referees and editors behave in a serious fashion, but more often they do not or the process simply delays dissemination.
add a comment |
The principal contemporary reason for formally publishing articles is that governments and institutional administrators demand of researchers proof of their productivity. Being unable to assess such productivity according to their own criteria (in general because they have none) they attach simple metrics to research activity which they use to rank researchers. The principal metrics are money secured in competitive grant programs and counts of papers indexed by some supposed authority. In the current moment, publishing in journals serves mainly to achieve the second goal.
Formal journal publishing generally adds little value from an intellectual point of view and generates obstacles (paywalls) to dissemination of ideas. Something like the ArXiv achieves wide, free, dissemination of knowledge in a rapid and easy way. The author can write an article according to the author's criteria and distribute it as the author sees fit. Sometimes the refereeing process adds value, when the referees and editors behave in a serious fashion, but more often they do not or the process simply delays dissemination.
add a comment |
The principal contemporary reason for formally publishing articles is that governments and institutional administrators demand of researchers proof of their productivity. Being unable to assess such productivity according to their own criteria (in general because they have none) they attach simple metrics to research activity which they use to rank researchers. The principal metrics are money secured in competitive grant programs and counts of papers indexed by some supposed authority. In the current moment, publishing in journals serves mainly to achieve the second goal.
Formal journal publishing generally adds little value from an intellectual point of view and generates obstacles (paywalls) to dissemination of ideas. Something like the ArXiv achieves wide, free, dissemination of knowledge in a rapid and easy way. The author can write an article according to the author's criteria and distribute it as the author sees fit. Sometimes the refereeing process adds value, when the referees and editors behave in a serious fashion, but more often they do not or the process simply delays dissemination.
The principal contemporary reason for formally publishing articles is that governments and institutional administrators demand of researchers proof of their productivity. Being unable to assess such productivity according to their own criteria (in general because they have none) they attach simple metrics to research activity which they use to rank researchers. The principal metrics are money secured in competitive grant programs and counts of papers indexed by some supposed authority. In the current moment, publishing in journals serves mainly to achieve the second goal.
Formal journal publishing generally adds little value from an intellectual point of view and generates obstacles (paywalls) to dissemination of ideas. Something like the ArXiv achieves wide, free, dissemination of knowledge in a rapid and easy way. The author can write an article according to the author's criteria and distribute it as the author sees fit. Sometimes the refereeing process adds value, when the referees and editors behave in a serious fashion, but more often they do not or the process simply delays dissemination.
answered 1 hour ago
Dan FoxDan Fox
2,6271911
2,6271911
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125615%2fwhat-is-the-point-of-publishing-a-research-paper-nowadays-when-even-a-blog-post%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown