>The mistake, in my opinion, is making the number of papers published a metric on which you determine a scientist's worth. Just like most metric-ization of soci

>The mistake, in my opinion, is making the number of papers published a metric on which you determine a scientist's worth. Just like most metric-ization of society today, it's a bad idea. Nodding intensifies It really is just a logical extension of capitalism - defining and measuring productive units so that you can optimize the means. What people fail to see time and agin is that incentivizing metrics gains is incentivizing metrics games (sorry that just came out gross and punny). It's no longer about doing good science/work/music/programming, it's about getting those numbers up so you can look good to the overseers