It’s all too common in the USA that scientists must pay hundreds of dollars to have their research published. But imagine getting paid to publish instead of paying to publish. This would be a dream for American academics. In other countries, getting paid to publish isn’t a dream. Rather it’s a beautiful reality.
For two weeks, I have been part of a team from the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU in South Africa to interview nanotechnology scientists. Our goal is to learn about nanotechnology research in the country and how that research will help the poor. In several of the interviews we discussed South Africa’s publication subsidy program in which the South African government gives the host institutions of the author about 85,000 rand or about US$13,000 for each publication1. The institution can decide whether the money is passed along to the individual researcher or if it keeps the money. The choice to remunerate scientists varies across the country. One top ranked university in South Africa does not pass the subsidy to the researchers. Rather the department uses the money to fund conferences and other research activities. Other universities, pass along part of the money (sometimes as much as $2,000) to the researcher. South Africa began such a policy in order to help its scientific capabilities. The country wants to become a world-class scientific center and as a result they implemented a remuneration subsidy program to encourage research.
I have known that such policies existed, but I’ve never had the opportunity to talk with scientists about the effects of the program. Everyone has an opinion about publication remuneration. Some say the policy will boost scientific productivity while others say the policy will incentivize scholars to publish a greater number of poorer quality articles or forgo collaboration (since the incentives get distributed amongst the authors). There are several articles that describe the debate in depth, so I won’t go into much detail here (see bibliography at the end for some article). However it’s safe to say that the debate is lively, especially in developing countries.
After discussing the issues with scientist, I reflected on how such a program would affect my life. If I received $2,000 whenever I published an article, would I become more productive? In the US academic system there is already a heavy burden to publish. The “publish or perish” nature of academia is well known in the ivory tower of academia. However, receiving $2,000 would give me an extra incentive to publish and make my life as a graduate student a little easier.
Overall I’m against scientists getting directly paid to publish articles. I think the negative affects of the policy outweigh any uptick in research productivity. Getting paid per article will cause researchers to publish more low quality articles and it will encourage scientists to lie about results in order to publish. Science already has enough bad incentives to publish a lot of low quality work and getting paid to publish will make it worse. Moreover scientific fields have different penchants to publish. Remuneration strategies will unfairly reward particular disciplines that have high publication counts.
I recognize that countries are desperate to increase their scientific productivity and publication remuneration is an easy policy to encourage publications. However, rather than paying scientists to publish, countries can implement other policies like increasing research funding, decreasing teaching loads and increasing academics base salary to compete with industry. These policies will increase research productivity and attract top talent to the country. If science policy officials think creatively they can help their country become scientifically competitive without compromising scientific integrity.
1According to a 2008 article “Alternatives to the Publication Subsidy for Research Funding”
About the Author: Thomas Woodson is a Ph.D. Student in Science & Technology Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy and a member of the team from the CNS Thematic Research Cluster on Equity, Equality, and Responsibility researching how nanotechnology research and development in South Africa can benefit the poor.
For two weeks, I have been part of a team from the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU in South Africa to interview nanotechnology scientists. Our goal is to learn about nanotechnology research in the country and how that research will help the poor. In several of the interviews we discussed South Africa’s publication subsidy program in which the South African government gives the host institutions of the author about 85,000 rand or about US$13,000 for each publication1. The institution can decide whether the money is passed along to the individual researcher or if it keeps the money. The choice to remunerate scientists varies across the country. One top ranked university in South Africa does not pass the subsidy to the researchers. Rather the department uses the money to fund conferences and other research activities. Other universities, pass along part of the money (sometimes as much as $2,000) to the researcher. South Africa began such a policy in order to help its scientific capabilities. The country wants to become a world-class scientific center and as a result they implemented a remuneration subsidy program to encourage research.
I have known that such policies existed, but I’ve never had the opportunity to talk with scientists about the effects of the program. Everyone has an opinion about publication remuneration. Some say the policy will boost scientific productivity while others say the policy will incentivize scholars to publish a greater number of poorer quality articles or forgo collaboration (since the incentives get distributed amongst the authors). There are several articles that describe the debate in depth, so I won’t go into much detail here (see bibliography at the end for some article). However it’s safe to say that the debate is lively, especially in developing countries.
After discussing the issues with scientist, I reflected on how such a program would affect my life. If I received $2,000 whenever I published an article, would I become more productive? In the US academic system there is already a heavy burden to publish. The “publish or perish” nature of academia is well known in the ivory tower of academia. However, receiving $2,000 would give me an extra incentive to publish and make my life as a graduate student a little easier.
Overall I’m against scientists getting directly paid to publish articles. I think the negative affects of the policy outweigh any uptick in research productivity. Getting paid per article will cause researchers to publish more low quality articles and it will encourage scientists to lie about results in order to publish. Science already has enough bad incentives to publish a lot of low quality work and getting paid to publish will make it worse. Moreover scientific fields have different penchants to publish. Remuneration strategies will unfairly reward particular disciplines that have high publication counts.
I recognize that countries are desperate to increase their scientific productivity and publication remuneration is an easy policy to encourage publications. However, rather than paying scientists to publish, countries can implement other policies like increasing research funding, decreasing teaching loads and increasing academics base salary to compete with industry. These policies will increase research productivity and attract top talent to the country. If science policy officials think creatively they can help their country become scientifically competitive without compromising scientific integrity.
1According to a 2008 article “Alternatives to the Publication Subsidy for Research Funding”
Find out more:
Academy of Science of South Africa. 2006. Report on a Strategic Approach to Research Publishing in South Africa. Science. Pretoria.
Kahn, Michael. 2011. A Bibliometric Analysis of South Africaʼs Scientific Outputs- Some Trends and Implications. South African Journal Of Science 107, no. 1/2. doi:10.4102/sajs.v107i1/2.406.
Vaughan, C. L. (2008). Alternatives to the Publication Subsidy for Research Funding. South African Journal Of Science, 104(March/April), 91-96.
Academy of Science of South Africa. 2006. Report on a Strategic Approach to Research Publishing in South Africa. Science. Pretoria.
Kahn, Michael. 2011. A Bibliometric Analysis of South Africaʼs Scientific Outputs- Some Trends and Implications. South African Journal Of Science 107, no. 1/2. doi:10.4102/sajs.v107i1/2.406.
Vaughan, C. L. (2008). Alternatives to the Publication Subsidy for Research Funding. South African Journal Of Science, 104(March/April), 91-96.
About the Author: Thomas Woodson is a Ph.D. Student in Science & Technology Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy and a member of the team from the CNS Thematic Research Cluster on Equity, Equality, and Responsibility researching how nanotechnology research and development in South Africa can benefit the poor.
