Correspondence | Published:

Junior researchers

Fewer papers would scotch early careers

Nature volume 534, page 621 (30 June 2016) | Download Citation

Daniel Sarewitz argues that the pressure to publish is fuelling irreproducibility, but we disagree that the solution is to publish fewer papers (Nature 533, 147; 2016). In today's competitive arena, asking this of scientists — particularly junior ones — is to ask them to fall on their swords.

Investing more effort in fewer but 'more complete' publications could hold back early-career researchers, who already face fierce competition. To generate a first-author publication, graduate students on average take more than a year longer than they did in the 1980s (R. D. Vale Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13439–13446; 2015). Introducing further delays for junior scientists is not an option as long as performance is rated by publication metrics.

In our view, publishing less is not a feasible or responsible way to improve data quality. This would be better achieved by increasing the transparency of peer review and by introducing alternative metrics as indicators of reproducibility. Science's goal is to share as much information as possible — not to withhold it.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. The Future of Research, Abington, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Gary S. McDowell
    •  & Jessica K. Polka

Authors

  1. Search for Gary S. McDowell in:

  2. Search for Jessica K. Polka in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica K. Polka.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/534621b

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing