4 ms·
If it's truly misaligned incentives [ie universities are more likely to promote researchers who publish in "top" journals], then it seems like a high-powered un
by wrsh07 11y ago
If it's truly misaligned incentives [ie universities are more likely to promote researchers who publish in "top" journals], then it seems like a high-powered university needs to change their criteria for promotion. Instead of requiring publication in top journals for promo, look at other metrics for quality [I imagine this differs some from one field to another].
Imagine if every conference charged speakers for speaking, and in order to get promoted you had to speak at those conferences. It's the same thing. Except most software engineers are happy not paying to speak at conferences because their promo doesn't require it.
- ufo 11y agoIts not just the universities. At least in my country, universities are are ranked based on what journals their faculty publishes in and this affects the distribution of grants and other vital research money.
- maaku 11y agoYou get promotions and tenure for doing successful grant work that brings in money to the University. You get the best grants by publishing in Science and Nature. The government (main source of grants) shares the blame here.
- dubya 11y agoGrants are not judged by government bureaucrats, but by committees of peer researchers. (At least for NSF grants; not sure about NIH or others).
- sidrajaram 11y agoNIH too.
- maaku 11y agoWorking under the direction of a grant agency. I know, I worked at two such institutes that managed $10m/yr grant money for planetary and biological science. In this case (NASA) the selection was done based on recommendations from a peer committee, but under directions from civil servants who had the final say, and there was a definite culture of favoritism for the prestigious closed journals. It was good for the institute too -- Science and Nature publications and associated PR raised our image in the eyes of our managers at HQ in Washington.