Thursday, July 11, 2002, 10:35:30 AM, you wrote:
AH> 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.
AH> The statement about the quality of research is
AH> true. The studies of quality that I can cite,
AH> however, point out that poor preparation is
AH> at the root of the quality problem.
It must be a cold day in Hell, Michigan, since Mr. Henderson and I
agree on something. (It is 111 at the moment in Idaho, so we'd be
happy to get some of that cold weather out west.)
AH> Poor libaries surely contribute.
I'm sure they do. And part of that poor preparation is due to poor
educations, which are also, in part, due to weak libraries.
AH> Referees
AH> are expected to evaluate submissions --
AH> research proposals as well as reports --
AH> within a week or two. Interlibrary loans can
AH> never provide adequate support.
This is true, but I'd hope that in many cases the referees would
already be knowledgable in the subjects they're refereeing and
wouldn't need as much in the way of literature to review as a part of
their work.
AH> More details in "Undermining Peer Review"
AH> [SOCIETY. 38(2) 47-54. 2001]
I'm printing a copy of it as I type. I look forward to reading it
over lunch.
AH> PS Tenure is really not the issue, since the most
AH> prolific authors, a relative handful, all have tenure.
Yes, this is an example of the 80/20 rule, I'm sure. However, it is
the ones seeking tenure that tend to produce the weaker work and
publish it in the weaker journals. Everybody has to start somewhere,
but I've been on tenure review committees, and would personally prefer
to see one or two substantial items than a handful of garbage pieces.
I've learned that others on the committees often prefer quantity over
quality.
cheers
dan
--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com www.gailndan.com Stop Global Whining!
