When I challenged the author about cranking out so many papers from the same PhD, he pointed out that he had a further six papers in various states of progress, all reaching the same conclusion, but based on different case studies. I pointed out that this was not good academic practice and that we only wanted one paper that fell within our word limits. The author was very attentive to what I was saying, and it was clear that this was all new to him, having only recently completed his PhD. He suggested, respectfully, that maybe the published Instructions for Authors should make this point clear.
The problem with that suggestion is that the Instructions for Authors (IfA) are not meant to form general advisory page about the protocols of academic publishing, a topic about which much has been written in the past. Rather, the IfA are intended to highlight journal-specific matters. Moreover, we tend to see advice about general academic conduct as a primary responsibility of PhD supervisors, who usually make sure that they enlighten their PhD students about a much wider range of issues than multiple submissions. I have tried to make the general principles of authorship clear in publications of my own, in the past, for example:
But of course, I am not the only person who writes such papers, and it is quite important for new academics to learn about a whole range of issues relating to developing a career as a professional academic. And finely slicing a piece of research into a disproportionately large number of papers is only one of many pitfalls for the budding academic.
No comments:
Post a Comment