Publish or perish
CMAJ 1997;156:1383
In response to: G. Jones
Dr. Jones agrees that we need a uniform and objective means of rating contributions that includes such factors as authorship position and the role of the investigator. He has given a tantalizing scoring method for assigning contributions. Although we agree that some formal method of evaluation is needed, we can identify some problems with his proposal. The person listed last may be the senior author who may (or may not) have been responsible for the intellectual content and overall supervision of the study. Furthermore, the method may not address the authorship styles in which a few authors are listed along with the group or in which members of the group are simply listed in alphabetical order or in the order of total number of patients enrolled. We feel that any scoring method would be more valuable if the investigators were asked to indicate (1) the role they played in the study (principal, coprincipal or co-investigator), (2) the percentage of the overall study they feel they were responsible for and time they put into the study and (3) perhaps (for major promotions) even a formal report of their role in the study. This would allow each author to be more explicit about his or her role in each study and would allow independent confirmation of the stated roles.
Jones raises the separate and complex issue of the challenge to academics to "publish or perish." He suggests that only unique, mature and important information be submitted for publication. Medical progress is generally made in small steps, and even well-designed negative studies may be informative to medical readers. The peer review process employed by most journals should, at least in theory, weed out studies that lack the importance or quality required for publication. As well, the significance of some research is identified only many years after it is reported. This issue continues to pose important challenges and warrants continued discussion. Perhaps it should be a topic for a national consensus conference of academics, scientists, department chairs and deans. Such a conference could be expanded to address the value of participation in symposia, presentations at meetings and educational activities.
H. Dele Davies, MD, MSc
Alberta Children's Hospital
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alta.
Joanne M. Langley, MD, MSc
IWKGrace Health Centre
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
David P. Speert, MD
University of British Columbia
Division of Infectious and Immunological Diseases
British Columbia's Children's Hospital
Vancouver, BC
for the Pediatric Investigators' Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada (PICNIC)
 |
Send a letter to the editor responding to this letter
Envoyez une lettre à la rédaction au sujet de cette lettre |
Letters