In article <3qiulf$i3q at charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
plaudrup at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Peter Laudrup) wrote:
> even reverse them : not a 10 % cut, but 90 % cut
> is what we need to revitalize the science and stop
> the idiocity of publish-perish hysteria.
> Many now openly admit that ca. 90 % of what is
> presently published is a short-term data production
> without almost not significant consequences. We better
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
if reviewing anothers journal examine it for scientific merit. If there is
a solution to the excessive publishing done I can guarantee that it is not
so easy as to cut funding.
--
Mark Vivino National Institutes of Health
Biomedical Engineer DCRT/CBEL/IPRS, 12A/2033
mvivino at helix.nih.gov Bethesda, MD 20892-5624
