4 ms·
prioritizing concerns ... impact factors Rest assured that researchers don't prioritise this because we want to, it's because society decided (by voting) that
by mafribe 10y ago
prioritizing concerns ... impact factors
Rest assured that researchers don't prioritise this because we want to, it's because society decided (by voting) that we have to if we want any sort of career progression, funding for students etc.
- dlemire 10y agoWho is this society you refer to? When did it vote anything regarding impact factors? To a very good first approximation, academics are assessed by other academics.
- mafribe 10y agoWhen did it vote It's a shorthand for saying the government that was voted in by the people. Although in reality that is also a major simplification, because funding requirements are typically written by administrators in concert with lobbyists, and then waved through by uninterested parliamentarians. academics are assessed by other academics Yes, but the narrative those other academics have to provide has changed. It is now important to show non-academic impact. It is also highly helpful to have industry funding. There are additional requirements that didn't exist in the past, like gender, ethnic and national quota. There is Goodhart's law, and scientists develop ways of hacking this system, but there is no free lunch, and the effort that goes into successful bids for funding is major now. I close with a link to a successful request for research funding from 1921: https://dirnagl.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/warburg-dfg.jpg https://dirnagl.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/warburg-dfg.jpg https://dirnagl.com/2014/01/14/otto-warburgs-research-grant/ https://dirnagl.com/2014/01/14/otto-warburgs-research-grant/
- return0 10y agoI 'm with the parent in this one. The journal situation is ridiculous. Scientists have complete control over it - the uber-vast majority of voters know nothing about journals. And it's also ridiculously easy for each and every scientist to effect change: just publish your results in open journals.
- mafribe 10y agoI agree, it's a social construct. In my corner of science, publication in open journals and conferences is the norm. That's because a couple years ago senior researchers got together and said "let everything be open". This is orthogonal to what I'm whining about.
- fdej 10y agoWell, the senior scientists who sit in evaluation committees and on editorial boards have some control over it. In many fields, only publications in "top" journals matter. If two persons then apply for the same job or grant and one has a paper in Nature while the other has a paper in Bob's Open Journal, the committee will go with the Nature paper every time.
- hilop 10y agoThe senior scientists evaluation committees are quite happy with the status quo and dont want to lose their power in their fiefdom. Search Bing for [PNAS Fiske]
- js8 10y ago> Scientists have complete control over it Social science has shown that a group of people can follow some rule even if all members disagree privately. This happens because there is social status, peer pressure and incomplete information, and so people tend to think that the others agree with the status quo. I think because it seems so counter-intuitive you're ignoring this empirical observation. Scientists simply, believe it or not, don't have "complete control" over the situation.
- return0 10y agoYou are referring to the academic microcosm, but the OP said that scientists act so because "the wider public" voted for them to do so. It's true that the insiders of the academic bubble are living the tragedy of their commons.
- cowsandmilk 10y ago