Brumback Roger A
Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE 68131, USA.
J Child Neurol. 2012 Dec;27(12):1565-76. doi: 10.1177/0883073812465014.
"Publish or perish" is the time-honored "principle" for academicians who race to accumulate lines under the "publications" section of a curriculum vitae. The original intent of publication-to inform others of findings and further scientific knowledge-has been corrupted by factors including (1) exponential growth of journals and the journal industry, fueled in part by intrusion of the Internet into all aspects of academic life; and (2) adoption of journal metrics (rather than written content) as the measure of scientific quality. The proprietary Thomson Reuters Impact Factor is the most pernicious metric, having caused editors and publishers to change editorial practices to boost the number. At the same time, gullible administrators and government agencies have been persuaded that metrics for the journal in which materials are published can be used as a measure of the worth of individual investigators (and institutions) and their research efforts: simple numbers can be substituted for the burdensome effort required to read and assess research quality. Thus, granting of research funds, awarding of academic rank and tenure, and determination of salaries (including bonus payments) have become tied to manipulable journal metrics rather than the significance or quality of reported research. Therefore, it is no wonder that the integrity of science is more often being questioned. How should a young investigator approach the "publish or perish" dilemma? Performing sound research and preparing optimal materials for publication must remain the overriding goals: properly articulate the question addressed by the study; thoroughly document all methods and case information; carefully describe results including any conflicting or negative findings; discuss the importance of the findings along with how the results address the initial question and whether findings refute or confirm previous studies; prepare properly cited bibliographic references; list all author contributions, potential conflicts of interest, financial support, and required ethical approvals; and provide a catchy title and an abstract containing sufficient information that other investigators perusing scientific indices will be enticed to read the published article. Submit the completed manuscript to the most appropriate journal based on that journal's previously published content and relevance to the field of study regardless of journal metrics. On publication, notify investigators in the same field to ask for their comments on the work. Thus, an individual will become known for the quality of his or her work product and the worshiping of publication metrics will be unnecessary.
“不发表就出局”是学术界由来已久的“原则”,院士们竞相在履历的“发表作品”部分积累成果。发表的初衷——将研究结果告知他人并增进科学知识——已被多种因素扭曲,这些因素包括:(1)期刊及期刊行业呈指数级增长,部分原因是互联网渗透到学术生活的方方面面;(2)采用期刊指标(而非书面内容)作为科学质量的衡量标准。汤森路透的专有影响因子是最有害的指标,它导致编辑和出版商改变编辑做法以提高该数值。与此同时,轻信的管理人员和政府机构被说服,认为发表材料的期刊指标可用于衡量个体研究者(及机构)的价值及其研究工作:简单的数字可以替代阅读和评估研究质量所需的繁重工作。因此,研究资金的授予、学术职称和终身教职的评定以及薪资(包括奖金)的确定都与可操纵的期刊指标挂钩,而非已发表研究的重要性或质量。所以,难怪科学的诚信越来越受到质疑。年轻的研究者应如何应对“不发表就出局”的困境呢?开展可靠的研究并准备最佳的发表材料必须始终是首要目标:恰当地阐明研究所解决的问题;全面记录所有方法和病例信息;仔细描述结果,包括任何相互矛盾或负面的发现;讨论研究结果的重要性,以及结果如何回答最初提出的问题,以及研究结果是反驳还是证实了先前的研究;准备引用恰当的参考文献;列出所有作者贡献、潜在利益冲突、资金支持以及所需的伦理批准;提供一个吸引人的标题和一份摘要,包含足够信息,以便浏览科学索引的其他研究者被吸引去阅读已发表的文章。根据期刊先前发表的内容及其与研究领域的相关性,将完成的稿件提交给最合适的期刊,而不考虑期刊指标。文章发表后,通知同一领域的研究者征求他们对该研究的意见。这样,个人将因其工作成果的质量而闻名,也就无需追捧发表指标了。