Thought of the Day
September 6, 2013
We must tread lightly when equating what represents enough work for a publication to either dollars or hours spent.
But if the standard for reasonable productivity under a grant award (such as the R01) is, say, 6+ papers, and reviewers and editors think a single pedestrian paper should contain most of what is proposed in that entire award, then someone is not playing with a full deck.
DrugMonkey 
September 6, 2013 at 5:22 pm
6+ papers sounds like a lot. I assume IF matters. I am sure it is also field dependent. I don’t think anyone in my subfield (cellular neurophysiology) can get that number of J Neurosci paper under a single award. In my opinion, it is not worth publishing anything with IF lower than 4.
LikeLike
September 6, 2013 at 5:40 pm
If it interested me enough that I did it, then the world deserves to know about it.
LikeLike
September 6, 2013 at 6:28 pm
The specifics are not necessary joatmon. You can imagine any time there is a disconnect between what is expected in terms of productivity under a given award and demands for the same amount of $$ and time go into fewer papers than this target number.
Especially when reviewers of grants and papers are being sampled from the same subfield population.
LikeLike