Talking about moderne PhD-education in Bergen 2009

1. PhD-education in a 'publish or
perish' perspective
K. K. Haugen
Molde University College
NORWAY
The 1st. Research School Conference
NHH – Bergen, August 28-29, 2009

2. Outline
• Focus on scientific publishing as a part
of PhD-education
• Is it good?
• Does it produce better PhD’s?
• If not, why?
• What to do…..

3. ”publish or perish”
Publish or perish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Publish or perish" refers to the pressure to publish
work constantly to further or sustain a career in academia.
The competition for tenure-track faculty positions in
academia puts increasing pressure on scholars to publish
new work frequently.

4. ”publish or perish”- the origin
Origin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The phrase is thought to have originated around 1950 with,
Dr. Kimball C. Atwell III, then a geneticist at Columbia
University. Ironically, Atwood never published the phrase
himself; thus, evidence of his coining the phrase remains
anecdotal. As the story goes, Atwood had only to wait a month
before he heard it delivered in an address by a visiting lecturer,
who afterward told Atwood he heard the phrase from a participant
in Atwood's originating conversation.

5. ’Research’
• Answers to previous questions need
some notion on what research and
hence (PhD) - research education is
about
• Personally I would like:
– Research:
90% creativity
10% publishing

6. PhD’s now and before
• Now: 4 papers, published either at
conferences or (best) in scientific
journals
• Previously: A monograph totally
unpublished (just like mine finished in
1991)

7. The publishing process:
• Lengthy – a typical example (one of my relatively recent papers):
– Initial submission:
– Referee reports (2):
5/10 – 2005
10/2 – 2006 (not bad!)
– Resubmission:
– Referee reports (accept):
23/5 – 2006
22/2 – 2007 (rather bad!)
– Proofing:
– Back and forth:
11/4 – 2007
15/2 – 2008 (not typical!)
– April 2008:
≅ 3 years
:
Published! (not bad at all)
PhD scholarship 3-4 years

8. Publishing – consequences (1)
• The fact that it takes time, of course makes
up some obvious logistical problems for PhDstudents; it is perhaps better to go for a ”bad”
journal or a special issue?
• Both would normally increase acceptance
probability as well as minimize process time.
(a ”good” strategy?)

9. Publishing – consequences (2)
• Far more serious:
– Again, my sample is limited, but in my experience,
none (of more than 20 papers I have written and
published) have changed at all (as a consequence
of refereeing) related to:’
•
•
•
•
Ideas
Methodolgy
Mathematical modelling
Conclusions

10. Publishing is not creative
• Hence, I would say that the publishing
process itself is the opposite of beeing
creative. I would use words like:
– Boring
– Detailed
– Lengthy
– Tedious
– Not funny at all

11. Modern PhD’s
• 3,4 or 5 papers. Many have been through
conferences some are published, typically in
bad journals, supervisor is very often coauthor on most papers (who has done what?)
• Very few ideas, typically, one basic
mathematical model described in different
ways with small tweaks and twists in different
papers
• Is this good research? Is this a system
making good researchers? Where are the
good ideas?

12. Conclusions:
• I am very sceptical to the kind of PhDeducation we seem to observe today
• Keep creativity by minimizing publishing within PhDprogrammes.
• Let PhD-students take chances, risk something, and
even fail.
• Be extremely careful with supervisor co-authorship.
• ”Publish or perish” comes soon enough – after the PhDdefence.
• Let the ”young” (and still) creative students be creative
while they (still) have the potential.