Publish or perish?
Following on from Gualtiero’s earlier post about the options that graduate students have for getting feedback about their work, I’m curious to hear what the readers of Brains think about the importance of publishing as a graduate student. The opinion here at Rutgers seems to be split between those who think that (ceteris paribus) it’s desirable to publish as much as possible, and those who think that graduate students should not make it a priority to publish, for fear that their name might become associated with mediocre or good-but-quotidian work (the motivating idea here being that it is “better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”).
Although my general question here has nothing in particular to do with the content of this blog, my (initial, uninformed) impression is that for those of us working at the intersection of philosophy and empirical disciplines (cogsci, neuroscience), the scientific credo of “publish or perish” might be slightly more relevant than for more traditionally oriented philosophy students. Thoughts?