Now on ScienceBlogs: Attack of the pregnant cannibal fathers

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination
Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC getting a PhD in Behavioral Neuroscience. He holds a BS and MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University. If a volcano were to erupt Pompei-style in Central Park, his body would be preserved in a scoliotic posture over his lab desk. Archeaologists would later conclude that he spent most of his day training rats to perform tricks, until he went blind building electrical equipment by hand using a dissecting microscope. But, still, he died happy...because science is cool.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision-making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments I currently attend or attended in the past.

Search

Archives

Blogroll


The Daily Read Science News Science Blogs Medicine Blogs Econ Blogs Papers to Read Comics Links to Pure Pedantry via

« All-Nighter Ho! -- Brain and Behavior: Neuroeconomics | Main | All-Nighter Ho! -- Medicine: Some sort of Vegetart »

All-Nighter Ho! -- Policy and Politics: Pay for publish

Category: Science policy
Posted on: June 21, 2006 11:07 PM, by NotoriousLTP

Will Jake be doing all these posts from this issue of Nature? Perhaps...

This issue of Nature also has an editorial related to some Asian countries' recent decision to pay researchers for publishing papers:

South Korea has become the latest country to offer scientists cash prizes for publications in top-level international journals (see page 792). Other nations, including China and Pakistan, already have such programmes in place. The thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars on offer can be a fat prize for researchers in countries with lean science budgets.

...

Proponents can point to other potential advantages too. Scaling up bonuses for high-impact papers, as these programmes often do, might stem the urge to churn out quick papers in order to beef up a publication list. (Graduate students in China often need to have several publications for higher degrees.) And they also encourage scientists in countries with traditions of local-language publishing to think more internationally.

But there are some powerful arguments against the widespread adoption of the practice. Cash bonuses tied to specific publications are likely to exacerbate corrupting tendencies in the scientific community. Debates over who should be included on author lists, and who should be the first author and the corresponding author, will surely get even more vicious when a chunk of money is on the line. A scientist struggling to meet a mortgage payment might be more willing to forgo a potentially fantastic result for a quick cash-earner. And a researcher measuring science in terms of dollars might even be more tempted to plagiarize or fabricate data.

The question with any of these policies needs to be: Will this make research of lesser or greater quality? My gut instinct in this case says probably no.

Even if you scaled it to prefer papers that are high impact, impact of papers -- in the way that actually matters not just getting into a good journal -- is not usually determined in short time scales. Since impact can't be accurately determined this system would produce a culture of scientists who want to produce a flashy paper today rather than answering the question that matter even it takes them a while.

We need to arrange incentives for scientists to create a career of quality scientific research. Really chasing a problem takes decades, often with multiple papers that build on one another. In this sense, the existing system of reward by faculty position -- for all its flaws -- and monetary awards for lifetime service is much more likely to be effective.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

1

Davidson College (and I assume others) bases pay raises in part on the number/quality of publications. I assume others do as well, so I don't see this as especially different. If you get paid for every pub, aren't you going to want to pursue a line of research that leads to many pubs?

Posted by: Dave Munger | June 22, 2006 6:47 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM