on Wed, 10 Jul 2002 Dan Lester <dan@riverofdata.com> wrote:

> Purest nonsense.  Half of the published "research" is pure crap.  It
> is redundant, trivial, and a host of other adjectives.  That's true in
> library science, in physics, and in all other fields.  Yes, we can
> quibble forever about whether it is half, or 40 percent, or 60
> percent, that could be done without, but having MORE stuff published
> does not mean we've done anything BETTER.  Of course if "serving the
> academic community well" means that we can all have eight articles
> published to help get tenure instead of five, maybe they're right,
> though I still don't consider that anything BETTER.

        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.

.
.
.