Un tema frecuente últimamente:
- Al Roth, comentando un artículo de la gente de Retraction Watch, y concluyendo que el peer review tiene problemas, pero es mejor que las alternativas;
- Andrew Gelman, sobre lo difícil que sigue resultando eliminar artículos en buenas revistas con autores de prestigio.
- Y Richard Tol, sobre la discusión cantidad vs calidad en las publicaciones científicas, con algunas perlas buenísimas:
Students are not helped if you just put your name on their paper. You help them by discussing every stage of their research
You are a co-author if the paper would have been materially different without your input
The Chinese authorities worry about involution, excessive competition between manufacturers. Perhaps they should also be concerned about academic involution. They should first do away with cash bonuses for publications and then follow the REF and gradually raise the bar — from one paper per week to one per month to one per year.
