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
