Download |WORK| Publish Or Perish 64 Bit

The emphasis on publishing has decreased the value of the resulting scholarship as scholar must spend time scrambling to publish whatever they can manage, rather than spend time developing significant research agenda. The pressure to publish-or-perish also detracts from the time and effort professors can devote to teaching undergraduate and post-graduates. The rewards for exceptional teaching rarely match the rewards for exceptional research, which encourages faculty to favor the latter whenever they conflict. Many universities do not focus on teaching ability when they hire new faculty and simply look at the publications list.[2] This single-minded focus on the professor-as-researcher may cause faculty to neglect or be unable to perform some other responsibilities.

Another type of unethical practice is salami slicing. In Salami slicing, same research is split into many fragments and published. Some researches counter this by saying that sometimes the research are too big that they have to be split, so as to publish it in a single article.[7] Another dubious practice is of duplicate publication. In this researchers publish the same material in different journal with different key words, captions and co-author variation on each occasion, thus making it difficult for plagiarism software to detect them. This is mostly done in order to give a boost to their CV. Recently I myself encountered a manuscript sent for review by Oman Medical Journal. Reading the manuscript produced the feeling of dj vu. A search on the internet revealed that the authors already published the manuscript in journal of research in medical sciences.[8] The reviewers have very important job in ensuring that such fraudulent behavior is detected. The editorial board has so many articles to look at one moment, and they rely heavily on their reviewers on this issue. If published, subsequent retraction of these fraudulent articles by the journal is costly for the journal and also puts a dent in the reputation of the journal. The journals should ensure that such authors are debarred from publishing in the scientific journals for a certain period of time. In the west, such retractions may lead to loss of job of the individual and may also be barred from receiving federal receiving research funds. It is high time that we follow the example of west and modify over rules for publication frauds. The basic ethical principles of every scientist are intellectual honesty, which must be present in all stages of scientific work: From a hypothesis, through the appropriate choice of research methodology, analysis and interpretation of the results, including their publication.[9,10]

Download Publish Or Perish 64 Bit

Download Zip 🔥 https://cinurl.com/2y7PA5 🔥

This essay discusses the problems with the modern "publish-or-perish game". I know it is important for scientists or scholars to feed themselves and their families, and by that, it means there are few choices but to participate in the rat race to secure funding and jobs.

However, it is worth thinking over whether we have messed up our "grand quest" of seeking reliable and useful knowledge that shed light on objective reality and solutions to real-world issues. I will be very frank that I personally found 9 out of 10 papers published in my field are poorly written, or the research design limitation makes them almost worthless (i.e., the research is broken into too small and narrow objectives when my field is supposed to be looking at something big - Ecology), which I find annoying. This also have downstream effect that undermines the reputation of "scientists" and "experts", because journalist would further degrade the already scarce useful information.

Also worth a look is this paper, (and in fact this author in particular) who claimed there is no problem of "publish-or-perish". However, I can tell from their method and raw data (S1) that there are some serious problems concerning their data criterion of minimum 2 papers spanning 15 years (meaning they included a good chunk of people never getting into academia or serious research institutions i.e., they ignore the "perish" factor).

Because promotion and funding of physicians in academic medicine are closely linked to the number of their publications, investigators feel impelled to publish as frequently as possible. This pressure leads to a number of unfortunate practices in medical publishing, including undertaking trivial studies because they yield rapid results, needlessly reporting the same study in installments, reporting a study more than once, and listing as authors people only marginally involved in the study. It may also be a motivation for fraud. An effective way to reduce these offenses and affirm the supremacy of substance over volume in scientific research would be to place a ceiling on the number of publications that can be considered in evaluating a candidate for promotion or funding. Each publication would then receive commensurately more attention, both from the researcher and from those judging the work.

One of the most striking developments in collegiate life since World War II has been the increased emphasis in the academy on publishing and research. Teaching loads until recently were falling, and at the highest ranked schools the senior faculty often teach but one class a semester, with frequent leaves for major research projects.

I am president emeritus of Missouri State University. After earning my B.A. from Wheaton College (Illinois), I was awarded a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Illinois in 1973. I then joined the faculty at the University of Kentucky, where I progressed through the professorial ranks and served as director of the Clinical Psychology Program, chair of the department of psychology, dean of the graduate school, and provost. In 2005, I was appointed president of Missouri State University. Following retirement from Missouri State in 2011, I became senior policy advisor to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. Recently, I have authored two books: Degrees and Pedigrees: The Education of America's Top Executives (2017) and Coming to Grips With Higher Education (2018), both published by Rowman & Littlefield.

I am the founder of Ivy Insight, a boutique college admissions consulting firm, and an internationally recognized expert in the field. My book Get Real and Get In (St. Martin's Press) is an insider's guide targeted to college bound students and published on August 3, 2021.

In academia -especially for young researchers- there seems to be only one way to the top: publish frequently and in well-regarded journals. This pressure however may sometimes come at the expense of academic quality. As with other things, good research sometimes just needs time. Unfortunately, infrequent publishing might be followed by less recognition, and funding might be more difficult to obtain in the short-term. Eventually, one might lose the opportunity to move up the career ladder. In a nutshell: Publish or perish.

Taking this into consideration, I suggest some areas that require further research (to do at another time due to the publish or perish dilemmaJ) which suggest that the publish or perish system endures because it provides short-term gratification in a long-term academic game.

While it has been argued that publishing frequently comes at the expense of originality and innovation, academics also cite deadlines such as paper calls and conferences and the review process itself as means to work through ideas and enable them to come to fruition. This suggests that there may be some short-term gratification that results from publishing often as opposed to waiting years for a high-quality idea to emerge and be published. On the contrary, if the idea might not amount to something publishable, the review process may be a way to root it out. Clearly, the inverse is also true e.g. that great ideas and theories are obviously not developed in a day but short-term gratification might be attained from delivering frequent outputs.

Publishing in top-tier peer-reviewed journals has been a source of great contention as many argue that the process forces publications into certain conversations and might prize certain discourses, that the metrics which rank journals are problematic and that the peer-review process itself is rife with transparency, bias and time allocation issues. Yet, publishing in top-tiered journals also provides scholars with a sense of pride, inclusion into an academic conversation and sense of accomplishment. Again, there seems to be a sense of short-term gratification related to publishing in top-tiered peer reviewed journals: scholars develop a certain prestige, are able to network and communicate with others in the community and use a yardstick to measure their progress. Given that senior scholars do not need to prove themselves to the same extent that junior scholars do, it can be argued that gratification might be more of a short-term benefit. 006ab0faaa