This does make you think, no? Let me put this in another way, price formation happens in the financial markets based upon supply, demand and expectations of what and how the stock will perform in the future. Similarly, citations and public review are sort of the same thing, you judge your work on the basis of how many people think it makes sense and provides future value. If your research was a dud or boring or didnt provide future value, people will simply not refer to it...
Therefore, just like in the stock market and real life, more the value, more the success and more the research grants...
I loved one quote in the article:
Criticism of peer review in funding and publishing is nothing new. Drummond Rennie, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1986 that triggered the birth of an entire sub-discipline scrutinising peer review, with regular conferences and a stream of papers.
He wrote at that time: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”
lovely, brilliant.
No comments:
Post a Comment