“Publish or perish” Is it true?
Simply explained, the “Publish or Perish” syndrome is faced by many researchers and academia all over world. It is true that publishing research findings is an important part of any researcher’s work as it involves the recognition of their work thus determining their career. However, we must not forget that not being able to publish does not mean perishing.
Protecting ones research finding is also equally important. A professor from NUS once said, “Patents are necessary to protect your innovations, as they give you the exclusive right to exploit them.” The process of protecting your intellectual property (IP) is as important as publishing the findings. A simple rule of thumb for IP protection is that when filing a patent, the claim must not be disclosed orally or written to the public. This includes prior use of any inventions.
The next question that pops into our minds will be, “Can I still publish my findings after filing a patent?” The answer is yes. A researcher can safely disclose his or her findings without the loss of patent protection for the subject matter in the application.
Therefore, “Publish or Perish” is not necessarily true. Successful innovation should always be carefully protected to fully benefit mankind.
Image: Flickr/USPTO@Alexandria
regardless of whether the researcher chooses to publish, many of the works belong more to the research company than to the researcher. So effectively, do these researchers actually have the say in patenting or publishing?
Furthermore, despite most researchers knowing the importance and the possibility of patenting as a means to protect their works, how does the system work? especially, are there red tapes such that it takes forever and ever to get the patent? what happens when the patent expires?
Oh yes… The crippled patent system. And some patents are over generalized. This may then stifle future innovations. But I digress… I’m not part of the IP industry but I believe the researchers simply HAVE to publish. This is one of the ways that their performance is being measured, is it not?
Most of the researchers have their performance based on the number of papers published and they are always coming out with new ideas for their research project. They do patent their research but most of the time, they patent it for research which will lead to commercializing it for the market.
yeah. I understand the fact that they simply HAVE to publish. not just research scientist, but also the professors in the schools.. thats the way they are ‘graded’. I guess they just have to work with the system and get the best that they can (even though the system is, sadly, crippled).
Regarding about IP leading subsequently to commercialization, I believe thats only with respect to ‘product’ research? Alot of things like economics etc simply do not fetch as much interest?
And the fact remains that mere IDEAS cannot be patented. I think only those that have commercial value can be protected?
it is apparent that in order for an intellectual creation to be protected under the laws of IP, the creation has to be more or less a tangible item such as an invention, a design or a trade mark. Thus, a theory when written down is protectable by copyright. However, the point to note is that the concept behind the theory is not protectable under any aspect of IP unless you consider it as a form of trade secret. Please note that even though the theory may not be protected, the by products of the theory may be protectable such as a book written based on the theory, there would be copyright protection of the book.
The above comment is a reply from IPOS when I pose the question to them on their feedback channel.
The above comment is a reply from IPOS when I pose the question to them on their feedback channel.