Urgent News Regarding Scientific Funding

Patrick O'Neil patrick at corona
Thu Jun 1 20:54:08 EST 1995



On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Mark A Vivino wrote:

> 
> There is a great deal published that has no significant value. Is the
> solution to cut funding to solve this problem? Maybe, but maybe not. It is
> really the peer review process, where-in the number of publications is
> looking at for a variety of reasons. I personally can't stand those who
> make senseless publications, or constantly publish repeat information to
> renew grants, etc. The only thing I can do is to not do this myself, and

This indicates the need for tinkering or adjustment, NOT elimination of 
peer review, as some have hinted (in search of funding for shakey 
research proposals that either got turned down or obviously would?).  I 
do not like to see a series of individual papers published by the same 
lab, for the sake of quantity, when one single paper combining the 
results into a single, coherent, paper.  In some cases, it IS almost like 
a single experiment is conducted as a PART of a larger study and, step by 
tiny step, the results are published in individual papers (a DNA 
binding assay, for instance, in one paper followed by DNA binding after 
various manipulations, etc - all within the same journal.  They should 
have been placed into a single encompassing paper instead).

Patrick



More information about the Bioforum mailing list