每两天发表一篇学术成果的教授

这位赌博研究专家将高产出量归功于协作与勤勉

十月 22, 2020
Mark Griffiths professor of behavioural addiction at Nottingham Trent University

点击阅读英文原文


今年内每两天发表一篇同行评审期刊论文的马克·格里菲斯(Mark Griffiths),并不是那些因新冠危机导致学术产出下降的研究人士中的一员。

根据Scopus数据库的记录,这位英国最多产的心理学家、诺丁汉特伦特大学(Nottingham Trent University)行为成瘾研究的杰出教授,在2020年迄今已有161次学术发表,包括论文、书籍、会议论文集和信函,这使他的教研职业出版物总数达到864篇。

即便是这个令人印象深刻的数字也可能低估了他的实际产出:谷歌学术搜索(Google Scholar)至少将1200份出版物归属于他的名下,使其获得了约8万次引用,其中过去5年就有5万次引用。

那么,当许多社会心理学家高兴地每年发表一两篇文章时,格里菲斯教授是如何产出数量如此惊人的成果呢?他告诉泰晤士高等教育,拥有庞大的科研合作伙伴网络是主要原因之一——据Scopus显示,其论文合著者总数为898。

他解释说:“我的合著者绝大多数来自我的博士生。我通常带8到10名博士生,而某些(前学生)也成为了多产的科研人士。”

格里菲斯教授坚持认为他“对发表的每篇论文有智力贡献”,并且经常参与研究项目的设计、监督和手稿的批评审阅。

虽然学术出版方接受而且爱思唯尔的贡献者角色分类(CRediT)系统也正式认可这类贡献,但教授通过批判审阅文稿而获得署名权的议题也可能引起争议。对格里菲斯教授而言,他的投入意义重大。他说:“我有时在一篇论文的初稿上能花5到6个小时,而有些论文要进行多达10次重新起草。”

他说:“每天都有人发给我一篇论文,说‘希望能在此署上您的名字’,但我告诉他们不行。除非我有智力上的贡献,否则我不会在一篇论文中署上我的名字。”

但是,鉴于这种审阅角色涉及大量工作,要怎么做才能发表这么多篇文章?格里菲斯教授说:“答案是我从来没有过每周工作37个小时,通常我每周工作50至60个小时。”

他补充说:“我所有的教学工作被压缩至一个月,从一月到二月中,所以我得以继续与想要的研究者协作。”他说,在还是一名年轻讲师时,他曾经在1992年全年只发表过一篇论文。

“如果教学占用了大量时间,你就没办法发表太多成果,但一旦你招募到一些优秀的博士生,工作将变得更容易。”

格里菲斯教授最频繁的合作者包括匈牙利《行为成瘾杂志》(Journal of Behavioral Addictions)的编辑索特·德米特洛维克斯(Zsolt Demetrovics),他与该杂志发表了101次。牛津大学发展神经心理学教授多萝西·毕晓普(Dorothy Bishop)的一篇博文指出,格里菲斯教授是过去5年内该期刊13%论文(384篇文章中的51篇)的合著者,这促使该期刊出版方声明这些论文已经过独立审阅并且没有获得特殊优待。

格里菲斯教授则认为,高产出版的真正问题在于科研界惯例,因为研究小组和实验室负责人通常将自己的名字加到论文上,从而使他们每年可以增加数百个作者署名。

他说:“根据经验,你至少应当完成5%的工作(以获得作者署名),所以当看到有论文署上2000位作者的名字时,我不敢相信,但这就是学术出版道德的真实故事。”

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

本文由Liu Jing为泰晤士高等教育翻译。

Please login or register to read this article.

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

相关文章

年轻科学家们的职业受作者排序的影响,因此纷争在所难免。由大到小地排列作者的贡献是为了确保每人都得到应得的认可。但这样就能相安无事了吗?顺带一提,本文的第一作者是杰克·格洛弗(Jack Grove)

1月 30日

Reader's comments (26)

Please can you explain why you have published this article mid-way through one of the most stressful semesters on record, and what you hoped to achieve by writing about 50-60 hour work weeks without critique.
Agree with this comment. There is no acknowledgement of the context we are in now, in terms of COVID-19 and increased stress and demands on academics. Neither is there any depth or discussion about the impact of existing inequalities faced by women and BME academics who don't have the luxury of being in control of their work timetables/demands and are less likely to be awarded grants that would give them the time to write manuscripts. These inequalities have been exacerbated by COVID-19.
Most of us have spent our careers working 50+ hours a week and cannot (and indeed should not) produce so many papers. I remember when I was a PhD student, papers were only written when there was something worthwhile to say. Luckily, I am near the end of my career so a few papers a year is sufficient to keep me off the "unsatisfactory" list. In many fields, work takes a long time and so a rate of production such as that described is not possible.
Couldn't agree more. I know an academic who unfortunately never stops working, but the difference is she devotes this time to her students, to running her programmes, and to trying keep her head just above water. As someone else suggests below, being a personal publishing mill just feeds the metrics machines and is hardly something to aspire to. The article headline could be 'Is this what we have come to?'
Whilst Elsevier have adopted the Contributor Roles Taxonomy in their journals, and were contributors to the development of the system, it should correctly be attributed to the Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI) who co-ordinated the input from many researchers, editors and publishers from across the world. https://casrai.org/credit/ https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210 Given this article covers authorship issues, it would be good if you could correct this misattribution!
>Professor Griffiths, who is director of NTU’s International Gaming Unit, insisted that he >had “made an intellectual contribution to every refereed paper I’ve published” and was >often involved in the design of research projects, oversight and the critical review of >manuscripts. Of course he insists, he can't just say his work does not value. My comment is that he can say whatever he likes to say, but, with such numbers, I simply do not believe he could make an intellectual contribution to every refereed paper including his name. Perhaps (perhaps) he could "review" all manuscripts (IMHO how critically it does review not really matters, as - at his merit - his collaborators might have learned and/or shortly discussed with him before writing how to write the paper), unless journal papers in his field are extended abstracts or less (anyway, at a rate of more than 100 papers / year, also in such a case, it is IMHO quite unlikely that he could make an intellectual contribution to every paper). Concerning the nasty sentence about the ethic problem to be in science (For his part, Professor Griffiths felt that the real problem in hyper-prolific publishing lay in the sciences, where research group and laboratory leaders routinely add their names to papers, allowing them to clock up hundreds of authorial credits a year): besides noting that he himself seems to be considering his field not being science, I wonder how many times a connector not perfectly plugged (or a similar low-level issue) could waste months of his productive time. The very question, only implicitly raised by this article, is: is he better than his colleagues? Do we really need to rank everybody at the level of one list with no equals?
Having watched senior academics being automatically named as co-authors, even if they had no involvement with either the research or writing the paper on projects I'd had a direct input to, with the First Author being told to remove acknowledgements for myself and others by said senior academics as "it dilutes the value" (to them), I too doubt the numbers.
Listing a case study of an academic who publishes 1-2 papers per day at the sacrifice of work-life balance - I am not sure whether this example is supposed to be a role model (i.e., what to do) or a negative role model (i.e., what not to do). I was once in a session where an academic who had excellent student feedback was telling the audience how he spent almost 24/7 handling student questions (even on weekends and in the middle of the night). And when asked about time for research and work-life balance, his answer was that he was at the stage of his career where these were not important to him. Once again, not sure whether that was a positive or negative role model for academics for student engagement and feedback.... Strange how some of these examples are selected.
Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction - You couldn't make it up
;-)
This is prolific, but can it be possible? Does the Prof pay for his papers ? BC here in Nigeria you pay much to get your papers published.
From time to time such 'busy bees' pop up in the metrics. Usually it later turns out that the content of the papers is either faked or such persons press everyone in their surrounding to put him (rarely her) on the authors list. Anyway, even mere correction reading of the manuscripts would probably take more time, so something seems to be flawed.
As an expert in gambling studies this professor probably knows all about the ill effects of gaming (the system) as well as the obsession with high scores and other addictive cues of the (neoliberal) machine. Well done mate. You are the workaholic hero celebrated by the likes of this rag and its dehumanising ideology. What an example you set, not.
I have published several articles with professor Griffiths. He contributed in large part to all of them. If he is guilty of anything it is underestimating how many hours he works in an average week. Mark has a very serious and constantly painful spinal injury that means he writes constantly at home to take his mind off the pain. Those writing childish and unprofessional, anti-academic, jealous nonsense in this comments section are not to be totally blamed for their ignorance about that. Because he doesn't tell people. The man is a hero and role model to many. Is he a workaholic? I think he would beat most folk in a debate on that question. He prefers work over more painkillers.
The reference to health-related issues, which everyone I hope will have a great deal of empathy for and which was not mentioned in the article, is not a convincing defence of the working practices and habits illustrated by the article itself (to which the professor must have consented). It does not address the substantive concerns raised by most posts (some tongue-in-cheek, I grant you that). This has nothing to do with jealousy or childishness but is an expression of annoyance, concern and exasperation felt by many academics for how this article (and similar articles in THE) celebrates excessive publication and workloads by senior academics as well as their use of junior academics (especially PhD students); irrespective of whether this is true for Prof Griffith personally. It also generalises one publication model across disciplines; that of the professors' field, where multiple co-authorships and teamwork seems to be common; where papers that would be judged as a mere extended abstract/lab report in other disciplines seem to count as a full article etc. It also normalises quantity as a measure of success and good scholarship in academia. The article suggests that it is perfectly normal (or even desirable) to publish and possible to substantively contribute to that many peer reviewed articles. Continuously working 50-60 hours is not healthy for any person, with or without a medical condition. It should not be celebrated but pitied really. Whether you like it or not, by authorising this piece Prof Griffith has inadvertently become the poster boy of everything that is wrong and toxic about today's UK academia. If you go public like that, you need to live with the consequences of a backlash, even if it seems childish to you. Again, all this has nothing to do with the medical problems that Prof Griffith is facing and for which I wish him all the best.
Professor Griffiths has been awarded the title and promotion "Distinguished Professor" by the Nottingham Trent University in no small part, but by no means entirely, for his prolific output. Whatever many of us may think about the toxic nature of the Managerialist University and its promotion and facilitation by the THE, he has done nothing that warrants the personal attacks and ignorant innuendos in these comments. He has made the choice to carve out his career within the university that has employed him for decades. Mark does not have to tell journalists about his medical condition. I have no doubt he will be put out that I have let the cat out of the bag about that here. He might well be the poster boy for metrics we don't approve of. What you don't know is that he regularly sticks his neck on the line to defend more "junior" colleagues who have suffered injustices at the hands of others. But the university will not put him up on a poster for that will it? What you dislike about his output - the degree of it - also represents, article by article, a published record of his support of so many colleagues and other academics (but not you personally of course). I can't go into detail here but I know of at least a dozen cases where he has saved others from demotion by supporting them through the peer review process and enabling them to fulfil their potential in ticking the boxes required by bone head bot managerialists. He is not the enemy you think. Real life is far mote complex than an article in THE about a real person.
Exploiting our PhD students, are we?
Toxic jealousy by the ignorant, unfortunately fuelled in the comments on this THE article by many of those on the receiving end of the bone headed target bots of the #CultOfManagerialism . What those bullied and troll bullying bitter folk don't see is many of Mark's articles are evidence of his untrumpeted help to such downtrodden academics by assisting them in hitting the publication targets imposed on them by managers who can't wrote, can't research, can't bring in research funding outside the university and can't even manage. If that is exploiting others then it is the kind of exploitation that coined the ancient philosophical question: "If you can't be exploited, what use are you?"
A simple question are the papers of any significant academic quality?? Yes they get published but what is the quality of the Journals he is publishing in ??? If they are 4* journals then the guy is a genius. If they are 1* then really they have little academic impact. Since he ended up at Nottingham Trent then may I politely suggest they are not that high a quality. One or two high quality papers per year is worth much more than 30 low quality ones. Given the time he spends on each paper then it seems to be clear he is concentrating on low quality stuff and or exploiting the work of his PhD students.
The question of worth or quality in any paper is not something that can readily be scientifically measured - unless we are taking about a bombshell breakthrough - because there may be important information in them that simply does not register with most people as important, either because they don't understand its significance or are not interested in it. Academics are increasingly promoted in the new managerialist run universities for reaching the moving targets imposed on them by bullying idiot managers who know no better. Mark has been rewarded by his university and is paid a far-far higher, plus retainer, salary at NTU than most professors get at Oxbridge or elsewhere in the UK. Moreover the Pensions of the so-called new universities (NTU is one of those) have not been wrecked as have those in the redbrick league. So Griffiths has thrived at NTU. That is unless impoverished snobbery is your motivational force? Now that we live in the newly emerging age of "The Influencer" add to that the new algorisms devised by organisations such as "Academic Influence" that use metrics as one measure of influence, then accordingly Mark is doing what he is paid to do to get his institution ranked as an influential organisation. So what does it mean to be a top "influencer" is it to have your lower star rated work read by more people - simply because it is so prolific - or is it to have you higher rated papers read by fewer people because you have written so few of them? Mark Griffiths is doing his job. It's just that he is too good at it for some people's taste because they know they can never catch him up. Finally, I have never heard a single one of Mark's co-authors complain about exploitation. Not a single one and I know a fair few of the. Have you? Writing here that he is exploiting PhD students, well with no evidence of it that's simply the equivalent of bitter minded wishful thinking Trumpesque fake news - isn't it?
Very well said Mike Sutton!
"The question of worth or quality in any paper is not something that can readily be scientifically measured". This is why everyone has the right to express an opinion about the usefulness of works supported by taxpayers. I read one Mark's paper [1], picked randomly on its Wikipedia page [2]. Bad idea. I just wasted 30 minutes of my life to learn that "heterosexual women [rate] the body odor of homosexual men as being significantly more pleasant, sexy, and preferable than the body odor of heterosexual men". Wow! And more depressing is to read that " it may also be of interest to document olfactory function among other orientation groups such as bisexuals." Yes, why not. This is a good starting point for a nice bundle of future papers: studies about how heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/asexual/transsexual men/women rate the body odor of heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/asexual/transsexual men/women (this would afford material for 100 papers). Not enough? expand the work to genders: cisgender/transgender/genderqueer/bigender/agender/pangender/genderfluid/third-gender/cross-gender (not sure if the latter is clearly defined) men/women etc. if I am not mistaken, the combinatorics between sexual orientation, sex and gender, would produce 8100 papers. [1] doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9126-3 (http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/23139/1/195885_36%20Sergeant%20PostPrint.pdf) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_D._Griffiths
Does this guy occasionally sleep ? His GS account now reports 210 papers for 2020, that is one paper every 1.4 day. By just trying a little harder, he will certainly reach the Holy Grail: one paper every day. Next step: one paper every hour.
Even if all his teaching and the service connected to his post of a director of a research unit, whatever that means in Nottingham, amounts to only 10% of his working hours, this man cannot possibly spend more than 13 hrs on average working on a given manuscript (based on the numbers given in the article). Ridiculous. For 13 hrs of serious discussion of a manuscript, I expect to see my name in the acknowledgments, not on the first page. Something must have changed dramatically over the last few decades concerning the meaning of "an effort" in academia. Just the opinion of an ocasionally grumpy emeritus. W.S. Peters
I think Dr. Mike Sutton "drmikesutton_252472" acts in the same way than Mark Griffiths. That is the reason he defends Griffiths' work. All that kind of scientist produces papers with a lack of ethics and when they are unmasked, they attack sayin "you are jealous" "you are childish" "we dont exploite ous etudents, because they do not quarrell". This only shows the lack of ethics among those "very important researchers" and the crisis of science that focus on quantity and rejects quality. So disgusting.
How many self-citations does he have?

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments