academics, as seen from vegreville. it can be cold here. and it is flat.

Email me

Previous Posts Site Feed

Links

What the hell have I been doing this (academic) year?

  • Manuscripts accepted: 2
  • Manuscripts under review: 1
  • Revise and resubmits to do: 3
  • Working papers: 3
  • New projects: 2
  • Conference presentations: 2
  • Seminars given: 1
  • PhD students in progress: 5
  • PhD students completed: 0
  • Other students supervised: 2
  • Courses taught: 0
  • Courses scheduled: 4
  • Referee reports to write: 2
  • Referee reports completed: 17
  • Committees: 3
  • Angry co-authors: 0
  • Angry students: ?

powered by Blogger

designed by mela and modified by vegreville


Creative Commons License
The contents of this web site are licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Monday, January 23, 2006

I wonder

In my field, research output is measured by publications in journals. But not all publications are equal.

I remember hearing in graduate school: 'It's OK to publish one paper there--that's not too bad. But don't publish two. The second subtracts from your vita, not adds to it.'

Is that really true? Is a publication in a some outlets worse than shelving the paper? (I have had my fair share.) I used to think worse. But now, getting the paper into print is a win. And all publications take lots of work--as long as the publication is refereed, the referee is going to want some revision. Never minor, either.


link | posted by vegreville at 8:25 PM |


1 Comments:

Blogger The Unknown Professor commented at 9:51 PM~  

I think it depends on the level of the school. At least in my discipline, at top schools publishing in jorunals that are at too low a level is taken negatively.

At lower-tier schools, that's not the case.

However, if you have a bunch of 2nd-tier publications, a top-tier one (like a Journal of Finance or a Journal of Financial Economics) makes the lower-tier ones look better. It's not rational, but I've heard it too often to discount it.

Want to Post a Comment?