Motives for writing articles
L. Solimar, in his article “How to write scientific articles,” considered 4 main motives that prompted writing articles.
1) disinterested desire to spread knowledge
2) care about your own priority
')
3) concern for their professional reputation
4) the desire to advance in service
Under the influence of the first cause, they write mostly young people, and that, apparently, only in the preparation of their first scientific work. The number of such authors is small, and for most of them the first article is the last. Therefore, the first reason should not be put on a par with other, stronger motives, although it should not be forgotten.
The second reason - priority - is driven by only a small group of authors, although it is far more important than any other reason. The desire to associate your name with any discovery has long been a hallmark of research workers. Since the publication began to serve as evidence of discovery, there has been a desire to publish their articles as quickly as possible. However, the author should not forget about the possibility of further use of his discovery. If he publishes the data he received, then someone will be able to complete these plans and deprive the author of the opportunity to reap the fruits of his labors. The ideal solution to the issue is to guarantee priority, announcing the opening, and to postpone the detailed publication until a full assessment of its potential. As is known, the first scientist who applied this method was Galileo Galilei, who sent a description of his astronomical discoveries to Kepler as an anagram, and deciphered its content only a year later. Since modern scientific journals, unfortunately, usually do not publish anagrams, the current discoverers (or inventors) must act in a different way. I would recommend starting articles with an intriguing headline, because the more impressive the title is, the less information can be provided in the article itself. For example, the heading "Amplifier with a negative inductance loaded" will immediately convince everyone that a new important principle has been discovered. The author will be forgiven if he did not provide certain data on the merits of the question, but only in general terms reported on the discovery.
Another argument in favor of the hazy titles is our moral duty to our descendants. After a few generations, the nation may wish to establish the glory of its ancestors. Maybe she wants to prove that the citizens of this particular country have the priority of all, even the most insignificant, discoveries and inventions. If we do not allow enough fog now, then we will make this future work of our descendants more difficult.
The third reason is concern for professional reputation. High professional reputation can be achieved in various ways. It is enough, for example, to make an outstanding invention or, even better, get the Nobel Prize, and your competence in this matter will be beyond doubt. However, for the overwhelming majority of researchers, the only available way is to write a large number of articles, each of which makes at least a small contribution to science. It is advisable to limit the first few articles to a narrow topic (for example, “Connections in Waveguides”) in order to gain recognition. However, the author should later certify his versatility by writing several papers covering a wider topic (for example, “Super High Frequency Oscillations”). After the publication of three dozen articles, the author’s fame will reach saturation and will no longer increase with a further increase in the number of printed works. Here comes the most opportune moment to suddenly stop printing (several review articles do not count) and try to occupy a decent leadership position.
The fourth reason - the desire to advance in the service - is closely connected with the need to gain fame as a specialist, and this can be obtained through the publication of scientific articles. If this simple dependence always worked, then the desire to occupy a high position as a special reason would not be worth mentioning. However, there is an opinion that many hold that acquiring a high professional reputation as an intermediate step is not necessary. It is assumed that the social situation can be improved by publishing a large number of articles, the scientific value of each of which is zero or even negative, and it is emphasized that only the total number of articles is significant. Although I do not have reliable statistical evidence capable of refuting these allegations, I believe that long-term benefits in this way are still doubtful. Therefore, I tend to recommend this method only as an emergency measure in the event that creative inspiration leaves you temporarily.
Printed in the magazine Proceedings of the IEEE. 31, No. 4 ( 1963 ), also the full article can be found here .
1) disinterested desire to spread knowledge
2) care about your own priority
')
3) concern for their professional reputation
4) the desire to advance in service
Under the influence of the first cause, they write mostly young people, and that, apparently, only in the preparation of their first scientific work. The number of such authors is small, and for most of them the first article is the last. Therefore, the first reason should not be put on a par with other, stronger motives, although it should not be forgotten.
The second reason - priority - is driven by only a small group of authors, although it is far more important than any other reason. The desire to associate your name with any discovery has long been a hallmark of research workers. Since the publication began to serve as evidence of discovery, there has been a desire to publish their articles as quickly as possible. However, the author should not forget about the possibility of further use of his discovery. If he publishes the data he received, then someone will be able to complete these plans and deprive the author of the opportunity to reap the fruits of his labors. The ideal solution to the issue is to guarantee priority, announcing the opening, and to postpone the detailed publication until a full assessment of its potential. As is known, the first scientist who applied this method was Galileo Galilei, who sent a description of his astronomical discoveries to Kepler as an anagram, and deciphered its content only a year later. Since modern scientific journals, unfortunately, usually do not publish anagrams, the current discoverers (or inventors) must act in a different way. I would recommend starting articles with an intriguing headline, because the more impressive the title is, the less information can be provided in the article itself. For example, the heading "Amplifier with a negative inductance loaded" will immediately convince everyone that a new important principle has been discovered. The author will be forgiven if he did not provide certain data on the merits of the question, but only in general terms reported on the discovery.
Another argument in favor of the hazy titles is our moral duty to our descendants. After a few generations, the nation may wish to establish the glory of its ancestors. Maybe she wants to prove that the citizens of this particular country have the priority of all, even the most insignificant, discoveries and inventions. If we do not allow enough fog now, then we will make this future work of our descendants more difficult.
The third reason is concern for professional reputation. High professional reputation can be achieved in various ways. It is enough, for example, to make an outstanding invention or, even better, get the Nobel Prize, and your competence in this matter will be beyond doubt. However, for the overwhelming majority of researchers, the only available way is to write a large number of articles, each of which makes at least a small contribution to science. It is advisable to limit the first few articles to a narrow topic (for example, “Connections in Waveguides”) in order to gain recognition. However, the author should later certify his versatility by writing several papers covering a wider topic (for example, “Super High Frequency Oscillations”). After the publication of three dozen articles, the author’s fame will reach saturation and will no longer increase with a further increase in the number of printed works. Here comes the most opportune moment to suddenly stop printing (several review articles do not count) and try to occupy a decent leadership position.
The fourth reason - the desire to advance in the service - is closely connected with the need to gain fame as a specialist, and this can be obtained through the publication of scientific articles. If this simple dependence always worked, then the desire to occupy a high position as a special reason would not be worth mentioning. However, there is an opinion that many hold that acquiring a high professional reputation as an intermediate step is not necessary. It is assumed that the social situation can be improved by publishing a large number of articles, the scientific value of each of which is zero or even negative, and it is emphasized that only the total number of articles is significant. Although I do not have reliable statistical evidence capable of refuting these allegations, I believe that long-term benefits in this way are still doubtful. Therefore, I tend to recommend this method only as an emergency measure in the event that creative inspiration leaves you temporarily.
Printed in the magazine Proceedings of the IEEE. 31, No. 4 ( 1963 ), also the full article can be found here .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/67723/
All Articles