title: Are some categories of scientific publication more equal than others? On the ambiguous use of the label "original work".
abstract: The problem addressed here is the observation that numerous people in academia attach differential value to publication category or format rather than publication contents alone. This can be formally visible in academic tenure procedures where the record of research regularly favours an imbalance of loosely called "original work" versus "other". Such practice is a recipe for the devaluation of some of the best and fine thinking and work included in "other" publications such as reviews, perspective papers, hypotheses, editorials and correspondence. In this vein, issue is taken with the label "original" being attached to "new results" from an "individual study" alone rather than being a criterion of or expectation in any, or at least many, publications beyond individual studies or experiments.
authors.forename: Thomas C
authors.initials: TC
authors.lastname: Erren
mesh_terms: D000043:Abstracting and Indexing / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*; D055811:Journal Impact Factor; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000145:classification* / Q000592:standards*; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards*; D012586:Science; D014481:United States; D014956:Writing / Q000592:standards*