Publish or perish

William Briggs has a column today called “Scientists Discover Way to Increase Publication Count”

It’s about the current climate in research publications. Find it here:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8226

Advertisements

9 comments on “Publish or perish

  1. youkipper says:

    Oh for goodness sake, the William Briggs blog doesn’t specify climate science like you seem to want to believe, regardless of the plain fact that it doesn’t.

    Yes it is about science, and yes science includes climate science, of course it does. But Briggs is talking about science in general. All of his criticisms include all of science, he doesn’t even mention climatology. The science he is talking about includes the science behind the computers you use, the drugs people take etc. You have singly mindedly singled out your pet hate of climate science, made your blog post about it and ignored that if you accept what Briggs says you logically have to apply it to all science including the 99% I assume you do accept.

  2. I don’t think I can explain if you simply cannot comprehend that “science” includes “climate science” and that if you consider the exact phrase “climate science” not being in the document as meaning climate science is not included. However, if “science” and “climate science” are totally different, I think that may actually support my position.

    Isn’t this like arguing that “It’s been a long winter” is actually never possible because winter goes from Dec. 21 to March 19th? Winter can’t be any longer. Technically, it is correct. However, it would only be argued by someone who enjoys nitpicking and has no point to make.

  3. youkipper says:

    Sorry but your ‘answer’ isn’t clear. However I know that climate research is not mentioned while your post suggests that it transparently is.

  4. youkipper says:

    I don’t understand the point of your comment.

    Is there anything in my first comment that is incorrect?

  5. “All this is known and of concern to the seventy-plus signatories to the article Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration in The Guardian. This open letter proclaims “We must encourage scientific journals to accept studies before the results are in.” (Briggs)

    I believe the words “scientific journals” would include climate science. So yes, your last comment would be incorrect when taking the full context of the article. If we look at only one or two
    sentences, then you would be partially correct, as the actual statement is that it is LESS troublesome, not nonexistent.

    In addition, had you read the linked article,you would have found this:
    “Early in their training, students learn that the quest for truth needs to be balanced against the more immediate pressure to “publish or perish”. For a junior scientist to compete at securing a permanent academic position, her top priority must be to publish in journals with the greatest prestige and impact. If she survives to become a senior scientist, she’s likely to then pass this lesson on to her own PhD students.” which provides additional evidence that this applies to all scientists.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration

  6. youkipper says:

    Sorry you have got me confused. Is there anything in my last comment that is incorrect? You clearly claimed “It’s about the current climate in research publications” but climate research is not even mentioned. You really need to read things before you start posting about them.

  7. Briggs does not endorse climate change science. His definition of “poor and inconsequential works” is very different from yours, which is allowing you to misinterpret the message. I would note that he does believe all such papers are ignored, which is evident if you search the site for “peer-reviewed”.

    He has written on the problems with statistics in climate science, including:
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/changing-sun-changing-climate

    Not mentioning climate science by name does not mean that it is excluded from the problem. It just was not included by name. If this caused confusion, it was not intended to.

  8. youkipper says:

    Have you read it? It doesn’t even mention climate research.

    In fact it differentiates between “humanities and sciences”, where the “Over-supply in the sciences is less troublesome because poor and inconsequential works are ignored.” This would include the climate sciences so if anything he is endorsing the sciences over the softer academic pursuits.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s