Publications are not the finish line : Focusing on societal rather than publication impact
| Autor: | Sanne L. Nijhof, Michael A. Grandner, Sara Mirali, Giulio Cavalli, Stephanie Holst-Bernal, Farah R. W. Kools |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Kools, F. R. W., Mirali, S., Holst-Bernal, S., Nijhof, S. L., Cavalli, G., Grandner, M. A. |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
0301 basic medicine
Opinion interdisciplinary collaboration Interdisciplinary collaboration 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine translational medicine Political science scientific waste 030212 general & internal medicine interdisciplinarycollaboration Objectivity (science) Social accounting Medicine(all) lcsh:R5-920 evaluation business.industry Translational medicine General Medicine Public relations Medical research 3. Good health 030104 developmental biology Incentive publication society accountability Publishing Accountability impact Medicine business lcsh:Medicine (General) Social responsibility |
| Zdroj: | Frontiers in Medicine, Vol 5 (2018) Frontiers in medicine, 5(NOV). Frontiers Media S. A. Frontiers in Medicine |
| ISSN: | 2296-858X |
| Popis: | Have bibliographical quantification of publications and the subsequent accompanying rewards perverted the incentives of scientists? Are we lost in a publish-or-perish research culture? Alarmingly, ample (bio)medical research findings intended to improve patient outcomes and lead to innovations in patient care never leave the lab (1–3). This widening gap between discovery and implementation undermines the social responsibility of scientists and erodes their public stature. When research findings have the potential to improve the health and well-being of society but are not translated into real-world benefits, it represents a failure of the system and a failure to society. A re-evaluation of the parameters that define scientific success is imperative. Climbing the academic ladder and securing financial support relies heavily on a scientist's productivity, which is typically defined by the number of publications and their bibliometric scores (4, 5). Several groups are working toward developing novel measures for impact, but so far traditional bibliometric evaluation criteria prevail (6, 7). Whilst understandable that a quantitative system of evaluation might fulfill a desire for objectivity, this creates an intrinsically competitive culture in which regularly publishing ever-novel work is key to individual career success and open collaboration is undermined. When novel discoveries are incentivized over refinement and implementation, it becomes strategically disadvantageous to do the work needed to translate discoveries into working strategies that benefit patients, the ultimate goal of translational medicine (1–3). Proper recognition and rewards for aiding efforts to achieve this goal must be advocated for, guided by the principles of social accountability and fostered by the support of key stakeholders (8). |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|