The All-In Publication Policy

The productivity of scientists and the quality of their papers differ enormously. Still, all papers written get published eventually and the impact factor of the publication channel is not correlated to the citations that individual papers receive. Hence it does not matter where to publish papers. Based on these two conjectures, I conclude that all papers should be published. The review process should focus on feedback that helps authors to improve their manuscripts. But we should no longer waste effort to a selection procedure. This All-In policy would decrease the number of published papers and would refocus the attention of the authors on the quality of their papers and not their quantity.

[1]  Christoph Bartneck.  What is good?: a comparison between the quality criteria used in design and science , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[2]  Colin Steele,et al.  Research Communication Costs in Australia: Emerging Opportunities and Benefits , 2006 .

[3]  Nick McKeown,et al.  ViewpointScaling the academic publication process to internet scale , 2009, CACM.

[4]  S. Ceci,et al.  Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  M Enserink.  Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection? , 2001, Science.

[6]  N. Mohaghegh,et al.  WHY THE IMPACT FACTOR OF JOURNALS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EVALUATING RESEARCH , 2005 .

[7]  David L. Kaplan.  How to fix peer review , 2005 .

[8]  D F Horrobin,et al.  The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. , 1990, JAMA.

[9]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Discovering Relevant Scientific Literature on the Web , 2000, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[10]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. , 2002, JAMA.

[11]  Per Ottar Seglen,et al.  The skewness of science , 1992 .

[12]  John Houghton,et al.  COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RESEARCH COMMUNICATION , 2009 .

[13]  Jun Hu,et al.  Scientometric analysis of the CHI proceedings , 2009, CHI.

[14]  Tony Delamothe,et al.  Open access publishing takes off , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  Jonathan Arnowitz,et al.  CHI and the practitioner dilemma , 2005, INTR.

[16]  Lisa A. Ennis.  The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  W. Glänzel,et al.  A Hirsch-type index for journals [1] , 2005 .

[18]  Alan D. Sokal,et al.  Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword , 1996 .

[19]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  ViewpointTime for computer science to grow up , 2009, Commun. ACM.

[20]  D. King.  The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.

[21]  Per O. Seglen,et al.  The Skewness of Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..