Research evaluation
Vol 33(4), November 2007
By
Jul 11, 2008 - 7:22 PM

Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007;58(8):1100–1107.
A regression model with an interaction term shows that multiple publication does lead to greater reception of the research, even if reception actually depends on length of article. The authors say that it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.

Gawrylewski A. New site pits 'published' vs. 'posted': Nature Precedings raises questions over the value of sharing findings before submitting to peer review. The Scientist 2007 June 19.
Nature set up a new site, named "Nature Precedings", to post preprints of articles that haven't yet undergone peer review. This experiment will be watched to see its consequences on scientific communication, publishing, and evaluation.

Macdonald S, KamRing J. Ring o' Roses: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies Journal of Management Studies 2007;44(4):640–655.
Academic performance is measured by papers in quality journals much more than by contributions to knowledge, and published papers measure academic performance and determine funding. Considering the gamesmanship of publishing in quality journals the author concludes that cunning and calculation support scholarship, and this gamesmanship will continue until the publication in quality journals is considered more important than the content of the published papers.

Moore A. Can journalists help improve peer review? The Scientist 2007;21(7):25.
Major journals risk losing credibility when press releases are issued with added "spin" before publication. When research makes headlines, science journalists facilitate a kind of post-publication scientific review. Their interviews with other scientists, as well as the author, reflect the collective wisdom and opinion of far more scientists than the number involved in the peer review.


© Copyright 2008 by European Association of Science Editors