The All-In Publication Policy

Abstract

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.

Reviewers’ scores do not predict impact: bibliometric analysis of the proceedings of the human–robot interaction conference

“…It can therefore be argued that the filtering function of the peer review process is barely working. Instead it would be better to focus the review process on helping authors to improve their paper following the "All-In Publication Policy" (Bartneck 2010).…”

The consequences of competition: simulating the effects of research grant allocation strategies

“…Only very few are able to maintain a consistently high publication records over longer periods of time (Ioannidis et al, 2014). In part this could be due to the lack of the papers' quality, but it has also been pointed out that the review process in itself is faulty and that (almost) every paper that is written gets published eventually Bartneck (2010).…”

“…Carayol and Mireille (2004) showed that such passive researchers significantly decrease the productivity of research labs. This competition has reached a level at which considerable negative side effects start to emerge (Bartneck, 2010). Not only do the members of academia suffer from enormous stress (Herbert et al, 2014), job insecurity and lack of career perspectives, the funding system as it operates right now might not be the most efficient.…”