If you publish a lot « Sociology Job Market Rumors

2 years - 83 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 28 Goods vs 19 No Goods
Thread: 392 Goods vs 124 No Goods

Sociology Job Market Rumors » Off Topic » Off Topic

If you publish a lot

12…5 Next »

Sociologist
fff0

Many people will come up with cynical dismissals: “salami slicing,” “superficial,” etc. This cynical attitude, perhaps rooted in insecurity or jealousy, can even interfere with job prospects. “Anyone doing serious work can’t publish *that* much. Pass.”

Sometimes criticisms of uncomfortably long CVs are fair.

But don’t dismiss everyone who publishes “too much.” Some people simply become obsessed with ideas and spend a lot of their free time reading, writing, and thinking about papers. Why h@te on them? They found a passion and were lucky enough to turn it into a job.

2 years ago # QUOTE 28 GOOD 19 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
1cb7

YAAAAS

2 years ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
420c

as long as not stolen from graduate students

2 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
77f4

If you publish 36 articles in a year you are salami slicing.

2 years ago # QUOTE 35 GOOD 6 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
492a

If you publish 36 articles in a year you are salami slicing.

Who publishes 36 articles a year?

What if it’s not primarily quantitative work?

2 years ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
77f4

If you publish 36 articles in a year you are salami slicing.
Who publishes 36 articles a year?
What if it�s not primarily quantitative work?

Piquero and all his crim bros.

2 years ago # QUOTE 12 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
420c

If all by myself, it takes at least three months to do a well-conceptualized and well-written solid quantitative paper (around 10,000 words), under the conditions of minimum teaching loads/family obligations.

2 years ago # QUOTE 25 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
bc3a

If all by myself, it takes at least three months to do a well-conceptualized and well-written solid quantitative paper (around 10,000 words), under the conditions of minimum teaching loads/family obligations.

The point is some people work on research nearly every waking hour that they’re not teaching. Many of these types don’t have kids. I’m sure you know one or two of these types. The only thing they can be accused of is addiction.

2 years ago # QUOTE 13 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
c070

There is nothing wrong with publishing a lot. The problem is the competition this triggers. Productive people set standards that others have to strive for. This is what creates salami slicing, recycling of text, ideas and whatnot, not to mention the lack of well thought out and developed research in the discipline.

Many people in sociology are capable of fantastic research. Instead they are forced to squeeze as many papers they can into the time they have, rather than doing something really great.

2 years ago # QUOTE 25 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
a2ba

It's also important to remember that some people publish on big teams, and that who gets to be an author varies a lot by subfield. You can get a whole lot more publications if you're just running some robustness checks for your buddy than if you're doing it all yourself.

This is also why bean counting doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't hate the people who do that but also, do not hold me to that standard.

2 years ago # QUOTE 14 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
92f9

There is nothing wrong with publishing a lot. The problem is the competition this triggers. Productive people set standards that others have to strive for. This is what creates salami slicing, recycling of text, ideas and whatnot, not to mention the lack of well thought out and developed research in the discipline.
Many people in sociology are capable of fantastic research. Instead they are forced to squeeze as many papers they can into the time they have, rather than doing something really great.

this describes a lot of disciplines. soc is not alone.

2 years ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
688f

Who cares about any of it

Outside of top programs you have to work hard to be denied tenure. Get the job and then do wtf you want

2 years ago # QUOTE 7 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
a367

I agree that the above is a serious problem.

No question that some people publish a lot, and a lot of it is crap. And no question that the push to publish as much as possible no matter the quality has created a lot of mediocre papers.

However, quantity and quality are not necessarily antithetical. Some people write a lot, and majority is great. Simmel is a classical example. Others write a little, and most is great. Durkheim and Cooley are good examples. I’d give contemporary examples but don’t want to have sjmr destroy them.

Anyway, I agree with the problem you’re pointing out. But I merely add that some can publish a lot of high quality simply because they can’t stop writing and thinking. No harm.

2 years ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
384a

I agree that the above is a serious problem.
No question that some people publish a lot, and a lot of it is crap. And no question that the push to publish as much as possible no matter the quality has created a lot of mediocre papers.
However, quantity and quality are not necessarily antithetical. Some people write a lot, and majority is great. Simmel is a classical example. Others write a little, and most is great. Durkheim and Cooley are good examples. I�d give contemporary examples but don�t want to have sjmr destroy them.
Anyway, I agree with the problem you�re pointing out. But I merely add that some can publish a lot of high quality simply because they can�t stop writing and thinking. No harm.

Agreed. If only there were a way to assess the quality of work to determine productivity instead of just counting the number of works produced . . .

2 years ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
9a74

If I publish 10 articles 3 are strong 6 are mediocre and 1 is downright weak. Is that better than someone who published 1 strong article?

2 years ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
9a74

^my answer is yes

2 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
384a

If I publish 10 articles 3 are strong 6 are mediocre and 1 is downright weak. Is that better than someone who published 1 strong article?

Three being strong helps you. But why publish 6 mediocre papers and 1 paper you admit is weak? Why not work and make those 7 papers be 2 or 3 strong papers, instead?

This calculation--should I just throw stuff out there, or should I work to make what I publish be very good--is the most damaging result of the push to count instead of read.

2 years ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
c945

If I publish 10 articles 3 are strong 6 are mediocre and 1 is downright weak. Is that better than someone who published 1 strong article?

For better or worse, many hiring / tenure committees will indeed think so.

2 years ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
40f5

As seen on here a lot, most people just blindly count beans. This is all the more true if you're not in an elite R1 department. There are major incentives to look 'productive.'

What stands the test of time? Only your very best work. That's if you're lucky.

Less beans please. More substance. If you can do both, great. Most can't and won't.

2 years ago # QUOTE 11 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f1a7

What stands the test of time? Only your very best work. That's if you're lucky.

Less beans please. More substance. If you can do both, great. Most can't and won't.

Spot on.

2 years ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

12…5 Next »

If you publish a lot

Reply »