I devote lots of time to developing and carrying out projects and studies whose outcomes usually turn into books. Nowadays the efficiency of a scientist or researcher is measured by the number of papers published in journals or magazines with high impact index.

Like everything in life, that system has got advantages and disadvantages, and the latter ones are too important to me. Therefore, I prefer to publish full-fledged books which will give the full picture of the work I have done. Depending on the time or the circumstances, I may also submit papers to journals for publication, but that is not my priority, as you will notice if you have a look at my CV.

I understand that the refereed journals method may be good or even necessary in some topics, but does it measure the real value of individuals and their actual quality as professionals? I believe technocracy, psychological complexes and unhealthy competitions are inherent in that way of spreading knowledge. Every individual chooses how to act and where to be - when possible, I would rather enjoy my work and the important things in life. If someone were to judge my professionalism or value as a scientist based on my number of publications, I would suggest using other criteria.

I believe we only live once

Kind regards

Toni Barber