Thank you for this, this was precisely the type of piece I was hoping would arise from the Conversation.
You raise important issues. The time compression part interests me as that was the source of some criticism but that did not consider the margins I would have expected -- e.g., what happened to my 300+ students during that time or my co-authors?
The big issue -- that I don't have an answer to and in any case would be biased -- is whether this type of 'fast to market' book is a good idea. For starters, it can hardly be called scholarly in that no one, myself included, could have carefully digested what was happening to draw robust conclusions. In addition, I was quite concerned about crowding out the real research being done now and in the future. Initially, there was some talk about calling the book Pandemic Economics but I objected as I thought someone else should have the opportunity to write the book with that title -- a definitive treatment. Finally, was I the 'right' person to write a book on this subject? I have a broad background but no special expertise in epidemiology. I don't know whether that is a problem or not but it is reasonable to start with the hypothesis that it is.
You seem to claim that the scientific credit market will reward these types of activities. Actually, I have found that it does not. At least in economics and management, books are valued very little and I have seen them count for hardly anything in annual reviews of my research performance. That seems reasonable for a book on COVID which was written for public digestion rather than scholarly insight but it is still an issue.
Personally, I don't believe that this is a portend of disruptive change in academic publishing. That said, it is amazing how this crisis as diverted the research agendas of so many.
Thank you for this, this was precisely the type of piece I was hoping would arise from the Conversation.
You raise important issues. The time compression part interests me as that was the source of some criticism but that did not consider the margins I would have expected -- e.g., what happened to my 300+ students during that time or my co-authors?
The big issue -- that I don't have an answer to and in any case would be biased -- is whether this type of 'fast to market' book is a good idea. For starters, it can hardly be called scholarly in that no one, myself included, could have carefully digested what was happening to draw robust conclusions. In addition, I was quite concerned about crowding out the real research being done now and in the future. Initially, there was some talk about calling the book Pandemic Economics but I objected as I thought someone else should have the opportunity to write the book with that title -- a definitive treatment. Finally, was I the 'right' person to write a book on this subject? I have a broad background but no special expertise in epidemiology. I don't know whether that is a problem or not but it is reasonable to start with the hypothesis that it is.
You seem to claim that the scientific credit market will reward these types of activities. Actually, I have found that it does not. At least in economics and management, books are valued very little and I have seen them count for hardly anything in annual reviews of my research performance. That seems reasonable for a book on COVID which was written for public digestion rather than scholarly insight but it is still an issue.
Personally, I don't believe that this is a portend of disruptive change in academic publishing. That said, it is amazing how this crisis as diverted the research agendas of so many.