The motivations to publish a paper in a journal are myriad and vary amongst and within authors over time. Intense personal satisfaction is achieved when the publication represents the culmination of a long project which may have been both physically and mentally challenging. In many circumstances publication is associated with tangible external rewards to the author, and those associated with them. These rewards quickly and easily become a pressure to publish further articles, with the clinicians' or scientists' merit judged on their publication rates. While it is not the intent of this editorial to discuss the pros and cons of assimilating factors of quality and quantity when judging a publication track record, I do note that the most common and easily identified measure is the number of publications. The larger the number the better, with the CVs of job and grant applicants scanned for the number of publications, particularly noting the publication rate in recent years - often with little critical appraisal of earlier work apart from the absolute number. In the same vein, speakers are introduced with the accolade of "published over ... papers."
展开▼
