Friday Fun: The five diseases of academic publishing [Confessions of a Science Librarian]

My library’s Hackfest was yesterday so I’m feeling kind of burnt out today. Today’s linked post cheers me immensely, in a side-eye, gallows humour kind of way.

This recent Retraction Watch post is funny and you should read the whole thing: Got “significosis?” Here are the five diseases of academic publishing.

1. Significosis
2. Neophilia
3. Theorrhea
4. Arigorium
5. Disjunctivitis is a disease that is about a collective proclivity to produce large quantities of redundant, trivial, and incoherent works. This happens because of several reasons, but primarily because quantity of publications is usually rewarded. In addition, researchers have to stake a name for themselves; given that novelty, significance results, and new theory are favored too means that a lot of research is produced that is disjointed from an established body of knowledge. Instead of advancing in a paradigmatic fashion, researchers each take little steps in different directions. Worse, they go backwards or just run on the spot and do not achieve much. The point is that the research that is done is fragmented and is not helping science advance in a cohesive fashion. Findings must be synthesized and bridges must be built to other disciplines (e.g., evolutionary biology) so that we can better understand how the world works.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2l86jAf

My library’s Hackfest was yesterday so I’m feeling kind of burnt out today. Today’s linked post cheers me immensely, in a side-eye, gallows humour kind of way.

This recent Retraction Watch post is funny and you should read the whole thing: Got “significosis?” Here are the five diseases of academic publishing.

1. Significosis
2. Neophilia
3. Theorrhea
4. Arigorium
5. Disjunctivitis is a disease that is about a collective proclivity to produce large quantities of redundant, trivial, and incoherent works. This happens because of several reasons, but primarily because quantity of publications is usually rewarded. In addition, researchers have to stake a name for themselves; given that novelty, significance results, and new theory are favored too means that a lot of research is produced that is disjointed from an established body of knowledge. Instead of advancing in a paradigmatic fashion, researchers each take little steps in different directions. Worse, they go backwards or just run on the spot and do not achieve much. The point is that the research that is done is fragmented and is not helping science advance in a cohesive fashion. Findings must be synthesized and bridges must be built to other disciplines (e.g., evolutionary biology) so that we can better understand how the world works.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2l86jAf