Prolific publishing: Professional and administrative concerns

A response to Erickson, Fleuriet, and Hosman's “prolific publishing: Professional and administrative concerns”

“…This particular "straw person" is like attacking someone writing on the Lincoln Inaugural Address for not writing on the Lincoln-Douglas debates. At no point did the authors claim to do any of those things which Erickson, et al (1993) Nevertheless, there are certain problems inherent with doing these other, potential lines of research. First, how would one decide from whom they should obtain vitae?…”

“…Again, however, Erickson, et al (1993) misinterpreted Hickson, Stacks, and Amsbary (1993). Their article was about individuals who publish, not about institutions.…”

“…Erickson, et al (1993, p. 329) indicate that Hickson, Stacks, and Amsbary (1993) "conceed [sic] the limitations of their methodology noting that the data were drawn from a small pool of outlets over a short time-frame." While Hickson, Stacks, and Amsbary (1993) did concede the outlet issue [19 journals, including all of the regional journals and all of the Speech Communication Association and International Communication Association journals], the time frame was 75 years, certainly longer than the careers of the majority of those described by Erickson, et al (1993) as "legions of humiliated, former researchers wandering aimlessly about" (p. 330). Next the attack is made upon what Hickson, Stacks and Amsbary (1993) did not do.…”

“…He wrote this paper all by himself. An earlier version was presented at the convention of the Eastern Communication Association in Pittsburgh, PA, April, 1995. I n the summer, 1993, issue of the Southern Communication Journal, Erickson, Fleuriet, and Hosman (1993) attacked research on prolific scholarship in the discipline of communication. In the beginning, this author, graciously granting the "benefit of the doubt," assumed the paper was "tongue and cheek."…”

“…Most people do presume that a published article in a refereed journal has quality. On page 331, Erickson, et al (1993) write an entire paragraph on the low quality of manuscripts they received while editing the Southern Communication Journal. The presumption is that all of those manuscripts were rejected.…”