Jan 26 2015 Published by under Careers

If you're publishing multiple (closely-related or not) reviews per year, you're doing it wrong.


10 responses so far

  • Drugmonkey says:

    And yet I know this dude...... High primary productivity and repetitive reviews out the bazinga. Probably why he's been on the Highly Cited list since forever.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Also, aren't there people who have to meet annual productivity goals? Where five papers in one year don't make up for a zero the year before? So they may have different contingencies.

  • dr24hours says:

    I was invited to write a review for a prominent journal in my field. I just couldn't find the mental energy to do it at all. I can't imagine how people write a bunch.

  • odyssey says:

    DM, as you tweeted, ratio of primary data papers to reviews is critical. I was sub-blogging about someone in my sub-field whose ratio appears to be about 1:2 - primary:review. Maybe worse.

  • drugmonkey says:

    "I am a thought leader", eh?

    Is this guy at a British University perchance? I have a few of these in my subfields of interest.

  • odyssey says:

    Nope. US uni. Sometimes I get the impression he's published more reviews than the rest of the sub-field combined.

  • odyssey says:

    And yes on the "thought leader" aspirations.

  • Jo says:

    There are some obnoxious practices at work though. I've published more reviews than I care to, largely because they've been sprung on me. You speak at a specialist conference and suddenly there's a special issue of some journal arranged by the organizers that wants 5000 words.

  • Namesaste_Ish says:

    Reviews are for pussys. I'm all about the book chapter. Thats where the real sewage flows.

  • Namesaste_Ish says:

    Pussies? I think pussys. But surely not pussy's.