Around 900 contributions in the field - giving HPTLC a voice!
Why HPTLC, I have been asked by many scientists since 2007 (giving me a polite hint to change the scientific focus from a weak chromatographic technique in terms of separation power to a more appropriate one, to sucessfully proceed in my carreer). We have separated 6 pesticides or 5 preservatives within a 40-s run, both in food matrix by nano-HPLC, already in 2007 but never published it. Why not making as many papers with our GC-MS, UPLC-MS or UHPLC-HRMS instrumentation? Knowing the potential of all the chromatographic techniques, we explore the huge underestimated potential of HPTLC (a hairline among all the published papers). In other words, since we are free to choose the means of transport, we take the subway - not the Porsche.
Controller können einem Unternehmen Schlankheitspillen verordnen, aber die Wachstumshormone kommen aus den Forschungslabors. Gert Becker, *1933
What is the true achievement of a researcher?
The evaluation should take into account
- number of authors per paper (sum of all authors divided by papers)
- average number of peer-reviewed original research papers per year
- specific system conditions (coworkers, budget)
- member of an association (honory authorships, honory citations)
- overall publication activity in the field (committment)
- area of research (mainstream, niche or exotic topic)
- life circumstances (children load or a spouse who takes off the load)...
What is the point of a careful calculation, based on some easy input numbers, but not reflecting the true quality of a scientist? The current rating system supports the ability to use the system. What if we would support the mere passion for science?
The incentives set for the scientific system promote a flood tide of papers submitted to journals. Additionally, there is a substantial increase in new journals. How can the scientific system cope with all that? Often, I get five requests a day for reviewing papers. Via peer reviewing of research studies, the submitted papers and thus published research will improve. That is the good thing, but the paper flood is the bad thing. The field of reviewers is extended to cope with the paper flood - everyone seems to be an expert nowadays. More mistakes remain in published papers as a result! More fake news!
Another flood of new journals and books bombs us with daily emails to make a contribution or to become an editor. Fact is that one gets published everything nowadays. Who takes responsiblity for the ongoing deterioration of the scientific quality and recognition (said already in 2010)? What is the benefit of degrading the scientific system? As the system is responsible for this desaster - who is the system, if not we? Each of us need to change it to the better... START.
And last, but not least: Obligatory, meaning legally binding, child care on a basis of parity is the key to gender equality. Then, all further discrimination is null and void as it will not happen anymore. The children and the society will benefit due to a lot of advantages. The transfer process will generate no extra-costs for the society. We need the willingness of both genders to start this great experiment. Start to give both genders equal chances for science as for childcare!