US universities need to re-think the 'publish or perish' dogma. It produces a lot of uninteresting papers and a lot of discontinued academic careers. The benefit of this system (presumably separating the wheat from the chaff) is questionable.
I'm not sure it's really being thought through so much as an emergent effect of the drive towards metrics. Universities want to (or are pressured to) quantify their researchers' productivity, which results in things such as impact factors, h-indices, number of papers in top-tier conferences/journals, and so on. Researchers then have to maximize these metrics.
Comments
US universities need to re-think the 'publish or perish' dogma. It produces a lot of uninteresting papers and a lot of discontinued academic careers. The benefit of this system (presumably separating the wheat from the chaff) is questionable.
I'm not sure it's really being thought through so much as an emergent effect of the drive towards metrics. Universities want to (or are pressured to) quantify their researchers' productivity, which results in things such as impact factors, h-indices, number of papers in top-tier conferences/journals, and so on. Researchers then have to maximize these metrics.
It's not just US universities. The dogma is universal.