-----Original Message----- From: Mike Palij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:16 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: Re:[tips] Double Dipping in Conference Papers
I believe that one could develop a variety of categories into which one would classify conference presentations and the establishment of priority for empirical results is just one category. Each category can be assigned a value according to some scheme. One such scheme might focus on the significance of the scientific contributions of the presentations. Another might be whether the value that a tenure committee might assign to a particular category (e.g., empirical research report vs. presentation of a teaching innovation). Any scheme would, of course, represent some set of values which might be meaningful to one group but not another. Indeed, there may be personal reasons as well. MR: I think that with the increased emphasis on responsible research conduct practices, it is important to maintain transparency with respect to our scholarly productivity. Alerting the audience as to the newness of our presentations and the use of schemes, such as the one suggested by Mike, are steps in that direction. In response to the article posted by Chris, I can envision a simple system whereby each presentation is identified as either a 'stand-alone', a 100% repeat, or a percentage value that indicates the degree of repetition of ideas or data from previous presentations. An analogous situation occurs with journal articles, which are identical, near identical, or are x% derivatives of presentations given at conferences (sometimes with different titles). Again, to maintain transparency, we could identify those articles that are based on one or more presentations. Sure, we typically do this in the article itself, but when we list our accomplishments in our vitas, particularly for tenure review committees, there is rarely any indication as to the various forms of overlap. Of course, we may end up putting ourselves at a disadvantage if we are the only ones taking these actions. Mike wrote: As someone who might be said to have scholarly MPD and have seen the games that academics have played, I would like to say that the internet might have made things simpler. If one simply ones to communicate, one can establish a blog. If one want to make a paper/presentation available to the world, can't one just put it up on an open webpage? With even obscure journals becoming available electronically (admittedly for a fee), isn't more information becoming easier to access? If so, where is the need to make multiple presentations? Doesn't it make more sense to put the material up on a website and give people the web address? Or is there more going on than just the act of communication? MR: Yes it is more. It is a sort of placebo effect: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2008/05/13/liz-wager-training-and-the-placebo-e ffect/ Miguel --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
