on Fri, 12 Jul 2002 Frieda Rosenberg <friedat@EMAIL.UNC.EDU> wrote:
> First culprit: the reward system (not necessarily tenure alone). What
> causes bad research is that many people who are not inclined to, and not
> talented in, the art of research are forced to do it by the academic
> reward system in general. Of those who have tenure, prolific
> authors are a small minority. But the
> large untenured body are doing their best to publish in quantity ("stake
> out their turf in the scholarly bibliographies"). It isn't just junior
> faculty who are desperate to publish; graduate students need an article
> or two out there if they are going to go job hunting. All these folks
> are hampered not only by the clock that is running, but by the long
> times it takes print pubishers to bring out something, and the even
> longer times needed for reviews to appear in print.
The myth of 'excessive publication' has no
factual basis, of course. It is a canard spread by
unscrupulous managers seeking to undermine the
influence of scientists and scholars. Derek de Solla
Price and others investigating questions of
productivity in science established clearly that most
[between 53 to 61 percent of] authors contribute no
more than one paper in a lifetime while about 25
percent can be called 'very prolific.' [LITTLE SCIENCE
BIG SCIENCE. rev. ed. Columbia University Press 1986]
> Second culprit: the publisher and the publisher's peer reviewers who
> approve the bad research (as Peter Picerno pointed out, hey, the same
> folks!) But in their hats as servants to the journal, it is evident
> that here, too, they are not given enough time (one to two weeks) to do
> their jobs
> correctly. Why such a stringent deadline on a peer reviewer? Publishers
> give *themselves* no such deadlines. It is after they've spent a year
> with the author's material that the author is expected to look it over
> and get it back to them within twenty-four hours. Something is skewed.
Nearly all publishers operate on deadlines. One of
the reasons that their production is backed up is
that many publishers have limited budget growth to
address complaints by librarians of rising prices.
The conflict here is the disparity in the growth of
R&D, which produces the papers, and libraires, which
are supposed to conserve the output of R&D. While
some publishers have chosen to keep prices low by
limiting growth, others simply let editorial
decisions be their guide. PHYSICAL REVIEW, for
example, has established a formidable record of
growth with a well-managed editorial process, a low
rejection rate, and minimal backlog. In contrast you
will find mathematics journals that carry a
substantial backlog. The issue has been described by
Merton [SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE], King et al.
[SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS IN THE U.S.] and others. If
nothing else, it is clear that the behavior of one
journal or one field is not representative.
The solution is that research libraries need
parity with the growth of R&D and education. At one
time the ACRL Standard even specified that libraries
needed 6% of college spending. What happened??
Profitability prevailed.
> The solution: structure rewards on total academic contributions. The
> quality of research is more important than the quantity, and the format
> *doesn't* matter! Broaden criteria. Reduce the need for redundant and
> shallow publication. The author is providing, in most
> cases, an electronic copy that leaves the publisher much less work to do
> than in previous years. So, speed up *that* part of the process in
> order to provide more timely appearance of the research in print, but
> allow sufficient time for good peer review, which is the value added,
> for heaven's sake.
>
> I doubt very much that a given library's collection is a determining
> factor in the quality of peer review. I'll grant it "contributes." In
> any case, I'd like to (would prefer to) hear from a peer reviewer about
> such factors. I'm sure we have many in our profession.
Don't forget that peer review is first applied to
the grant proposals that release billions of dollars,
with an extra 50 cents for overhead for every dollar
actually spent by researchers, to higher education.
Referees are not provided with libraries that are
comprehensive enough that they can actually check
unfamiliar sources and verify the claims on which
a particular piece of research is based.
Yes, the reward system is at fault. But it is not
directly connected with tenure and authorship. Ask
why would university administrators support a highly
critical review process that would cost them grants
and cash flow????
> Frieda Rosenberg
>
> The statement about the quality of research is
> true. The studies of quality that I can cite,
> however, point out that poor preparation is
> at the root of the quality problem.
>
> Poor libaries surely contribute. Referees
> are expected to evaluate submissions --
> research proposals as well as reports --
> within a week or two. Interlibrary loans can
> never provide adequate support.
>
> More details in "Undermining Peer Review"
> [SOCIETY. 38(2) 47-54. 2001]
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Albert Henderson
> Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
> <70244.1532@compuserve.com>
>
> PS Tenure is really not the issue, since the most
> prolific authors, a relative handful, all have tenure
If you truly support excellence in education and
research, then you must support excellent libraries.
If you support profitability, then you will gladly
tolerate mediocrity at every turn.
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>
