October 11, 2007
Can Self-censorship Save Science?
While it’s not as dramatic as eating babies, the modest proposal made by Nature Medicine this week has sparked protests from science bloggers and their readers. The editorial was aimed at researchers who love to complain about the state of scientific publishing. The litany of abuses is well known: High-profile publications exert too much control on science; commercial publishers and their high costs are holding libraries and researchers hostage; the industry and the “publish or perish” climate in academe impedes research and ruins careers.
So the wise editors at Nature Medicine suggested a voluntary cap on publications: Each researcher only gets to publish 20 papers in his or her lifetime. The limit would cause many journals to disappear, and scientists could save their work to publish the most important elements rather than slicing their research into a multitude of “minimal publishable units.”
Tara Smith at Aetiology grants that the proposal would confer some advantages but on the whole dismisses it. The comments to her post are not as charitable. “Silliest idea I ever heard of,” says one.
The bunch of anonymous “degenerate grad students” at Bayblab also write off the idea as unworkable.
But you have to wonder whether the editors at Nature Medicine were simply channeling Jonathan Swift to get back at all the scientists who gripe about Nature Publishing Group, Elsevier, and other commercial publishers.
Richard Monastersky | Posted on Thursday October 11, 2007 | Permalink
Previous: Jim Sleeper vs. Sam Tanenhaus: Round II
Next: 40 Ways to Build a Law School