PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. Publish and Get Cash by Wim D'Haeze, Ph.D. A recent striking news article by Ichiko Fuyuno and David Cyranoski published in Nature (2006;441:792) entitled �Cash for papers: putting a premium on publication� reports that the number of countries, the governments of which provide scientists who succeed to publish their research in top journals with extra cash, is increasing. South Korea has joined the club. Indeed, the authors remark that the novel approach to bonus scientists for their top-level work has recently been launched in South Korea, but is already well-settled in countries such as Pakistan and the P.R. China. The dollar amounts that the Chinese government seems to be willing to offer are stunting and easily reach numbers as high as $50,000. Fuyuno and Cyranoski also draw our attention to the opinion of the supporters of this benefit system who argue that it dramatically increases the output of research papers, enhances the international recognition of the national science and technology program, and may compensate for the low academic wages that scientists in some of the Asian countries earn. In contrast, the most relevant criticisms include that paying for top publications may force scientists to rush to publish thereby ignoring important ethical issues related to animal and human subjects, and may increase the amount of professionally faked data and plagiarism. Thinking deeper about this development provides one with a number of questions for discussion. Why would a government suddenly decide to honor a couple of authors on a top paper with significant cash bonuses? It seems that a common trend among the countries that issued this program thus far is the existence of a science and technology program that is not yet fully internationally recognized. The latter may cause a burden for national educational programs and scientists, and may in fact negatively influence the economy of a country. Boosting the scientific output (i.e. the number of publications in top-level journals) would be amenable for such countries and a way to do so is to provide selected authors of top publications with extensive cash which would add to their already poor salaries. However, owing to the fact that, after all, true scientists should be motivated by their curiosity, the will to solve important biological questions, and the desire to discover true observations, it appears to be odd and inspired by a money-centered point of view to honor extraordinary scientists with a fat bonus. What would be alternative solutions? Good scientists are more likely attracted by excellent educational programs, top-level principal investigators, and a top-of-the-edge infrastructure. Obviously, governments in Pakistan, P.R. China, and South Korea should rethink their bonus program, and invest in their scientific infrastructure and attract more top scientists from abroad. In addition, it might be very useful to support some of the national bright researchers for a stay abroad to obtain expertise in an international environment and to bring this expertise back home where it is needed. What are the most important consequences of such a bonus system? First, it appears that for most of the cash bonuses, the money is only granted to the first and last author on a top publication. Determining the author orders on a manuscript is already often accompanied by severe discussions as all scientists need first-author publications, however, when a fat bonus is to be divided among some of the authors, one may expect that discussions may more rapidly get vigorous and overheated. Second, the indispensable help of a laboratory technician is in some cases acknowledged by an authorship (e.g. on the third or fourth position), however, it is highly unlikely that this person will be able to share part of the cake as the cash is only meant for the first and last author. Third, cutting edge science nowadays often requires collaborations between two or three labs, internationally, each involving at least one principal investigator. However, as only one name can occupy the last position, frictions among collaborators may discourage the fruitful continuation of the collaboration. Fourth, the bonus system will impose an extra level of stress on the scientist who may feel even more forced to publish in top-level journals which in return may lead to rushed and hastened publications presenting incomplete stories while ignoring important ethical issues related to, for instance, the use of animals and human subjects. In addition, it is highly likely that the number of fraudulent manuscripts will increase as well as the number of researchers who fabricate their manuscripts based on faked and non-original data. Fifth, the bonus system may lead to discrimination among scientific topics. It�s a fact that certain research (e.g. unraveling the molecular basis of a disease) is more likely to be published in a top journal than others (e.g. a geology-related study). What is the opinion of the editors and editorial boards of those top scientific journals? Most probably, they may expect a steep increase in the number of manuscripts that they will receive from Asian countries and maybe other countries in the future, should the bonus system spread to other parts of the world, as more and more authors chased by extra cash will try to catch the grand prix. Obviously, the editorial offices might get even more overwhelmed than it is the case now and the rejection rates will increase because of the existing space limitations. Moreover, is it fair that a Chinese principal investigator receives $50,000 cash for a publication in Nature whereas an equally bright investigator located in Europe does not? How will the cash bonus system affect the overall grant funding landscape? A principal investigator who routinely publishes his/her research in top-level journals will cash a good amount of bonuses most probably deriving from the countries� governments that may negatively influence future grant funding. Application of this system to the US where major grant funding agencies are currently facing steady-state annual budgets would lead to awkward situations as the money spent for cash bonuses can as well be pumped into the grant agencies which would allow more research to be funded than it is now. Moreover, it is almost sure that investigators, personally enriched by the bonus system, will likely face cuts in their research budget obtained from official granting agencies. And how about a situation where a top-level paper is first-authored by a Chinese post-doctoral research associate who did the work in the US in the laboratory of an American investigator? Will the research associate receive a fat cash bonus whereas the last author will get nothing? Although proponents of the bonus system may argue that it will boost the publication output in top journals, the bonus system is independent of the heavy peer-review process that manuscripts need to undergo prior to publication in a top-journal, the average number of publications per scientist, which is an important parameter to be promoted, will increase, and countries whose science and technology program is not yet fully and internationally recognized will start to flourish, the bonus system is deemed to induce considerable problems among the scientific communities worldwide. Moreover, the entire bonus system only seems to honor scientists who publish in top-level, or in other words, high-impact-factor journals. It is noteworthy that the impact factor as it is currently defined and calculated is not an objective parameter to rank publications or scientists and the quality of someone�s research. Of course, excellent work based on smart ideas flies high, but obviously, not all excellent work based on smart ideas can be published in the few top-level journals that exist to date. It is my opinion that personal enrichment of the first and last author of top-level publications who performed their research in one of a handful selected countries cannot be harmonized with a true scientific community where originality and honesty are highly praised words of the vocabulary. Boosting the publication output and honoring bright researchers can be done in many other ways such as by ensuring cutting edge infrastructures and equipment, by motivating young students and attracting their attention to the importance of science in the current world, and by reviewing their contributions on a yearly basis instead of on a one-time publication. Wim D�Haeze is Bio-Engineer in Chemistry and received his Ph.D. in Biotechnology at Ghent University (Belgium) in June 2001. His doctoral thesis work was focused on the understanding of several early steps of the symbiotic interaction between the Gram-negative soil bacterium Azorhizobium caulinodans and the tropical legume Sesbania rostrata. The initial steps require the production of bacterial compounds including signal molecules and complex surface polysaccharides that are pivotal for invasion of the plant tissue and the formation of new organ tissues. In the three subsequent years, he performed post-doctoral research at the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia (Athens, GA) dealing in part with the structural and functional characterization of azorhizobial extracellular polysaccharides. Currently, Wim D�Haeze is employed as Science Writer and focuses on a new horizon regarding the molecular basis of devastative neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer�s and Parkinson�s diseases, in order to screen for and develop new therapeutics. E-mail: wim.dhaeze@sbcglobal.net. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|