Publish or perish -- part 1

Today, I am beginning a series on the politics of research. I am not certain how many entries this will entail, but there will definitely be a few. One of the reasons I started this blog was to give the average person some realistic insights on how things really work in the medical field. Although my posts tend to focus on the clinical aspects of my job, I have a fair amount of research experience, have published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, and have presented research all across the county at various conferences.This information is not provided for bravado, but to provide you with the knowledge of where I am coming from in terms of my perspective.

I would say that one of the main things I have observed over the years is that research seems to be more about inflating one's ego and padding one's resume for the purpose of self-promotion. Of course this does not apply to everyone, but it is a general trend I have observed. Although this may seem cynical -- consider the following. The more publications one has, the easier it will be to be move up the ranks in any academic medical institution or university. You start off as an assistant professor (which is what I am), move up to associate professor, and then go up to full professor (also known simply as "professor"). Moving up is largely based on the number of publications you have. To become a full professor is a great honor and is associated with a respectable increase in salary and other perks such as tenure. More publications means that you will be in high demand to give speeches in your area of specialty, which commands thousands of dollars per speech. More publications also means that you may be in demand for various media interviews and also requested to testify as an expert in court, which also commands a hefty fee.

While this all sounds terrific and I certainly would not want to restrict anyone making money off of what they know -- all of these extra publications come at a cost. The main cost I have noted is that there are far too many studies conducted that have no practical applicability. For example, I once reviewed a study where the researchers were trying to show that a memory technique they developed improved memory abilities in patients with a certain neurological disease. How did they prove this? They showed that the patients who were taught the technique could remember one more word from a word list than those who were not taught the technique. Excuse me but….who cares? How does that translate to real life in any way? The study was grant funded and probably cost tens of thousands of dollars. All that money to shows that one group of patients could learn one more word than another. But you see, as long as another publication can be added to the ol' resume, that is really the main thing that matters to some researchers. As for me, my number one priority is to publish and present research that helps patients or the clinicians who treat them. Anything extra that comes after that goal is achieved is fine by me. Click here for the next post.