3 ms·

Academia's emphasis on reputation isn't only problematic with respect to the adoption of open access. It also impedes the dissemination of important results th

Academia's emphasis on reputation isn't only problematic with respect to the adoption of open access. It also impedes the dissemination of important results that come out of less prestigious labs. I've often felt like science in particular would benefit from a sort of embargo period, during which time pseudonymous authorship would be obligatory, and after which researchers could collect their due credit. Too much focus is given to "rockstar" PIs and their labs rather than the substance of their findings. An interesting historical example of this was an early breakthrough in interpreting genetic code by Marshall Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei [1], both of whom were considered unremarkable and largely ignored by more established geneticists at the time of their discovery, who were fixated on finding a hypothetical "delimiter" between genetic instructions coded in DNA. This, however, is a digression for another day. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirenberg_and_Matthaei_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirenberg_and_Matthaei_experim...

mmierz 9y ago
> I've often felt like science in particular would benefit from a sort of embargo period, during which time pseudonymous authorship would be obligatory, and after which researchers could collect their due credit. Too much focus is given to "rockstar" PIs and their labs rather than the substance of their findings. I don't think this would work because pre-publication work is usually not a secret, it gets promoted at conferences and seminars well before it's formally published.
- neuromantik8086 9y ago
  That's a good point- the openness that is most essential to science would probably doom any attempts at pseudonymity. Another potential way to moderate the amount of attention given to rockstars might be to establish quotas at journals based off impact factor that would ensure that early-career researchers and more obscure researchers could have a chance to be heard. That probably won't be something I'll have any hand in implementing though :)
fossuser 9y ago
I agree - even Mendel was ignored for 40 years by the researchers of his day (and his findings were only published in an obscure journal that were largely ignored until being rediscovered later). It's bad for science, which is bad for all of us.
- neuromantik8086 9y ago
  Part of the issue with Mendel was that he didn't fit the role of a scientist, and people were unable to seem as anything other than a monk. I'm not even sure if he himself would have regarded himself as a scientist- that's a gap in my knowledge that my history of science hobby has left open.
  - fossuser 9y ago
    The Gene touches on this a bit (great book in general), but Mendel was actively trying to reach out to researchers and share his findings. They just wouldn’t listen to him and didn’t care.
Vinnl 9y ago
Unfortunately pseudonymity is practically impossible: http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/10/31/the-fractured-logic-of-blinded-peer-review-in-journals/ http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/10/31/the-fractu...

mmierz 9y ago

> I've often felt like science in particular would benefit from a sort of embargo period, during which time pseudonymous authorship would be obligatory, and after which researchers could collect their due credit. Too much focus is given to "rockstar" PIs and their labs rather than the substance of their findings. I don't think this would work because pre-publication work is usually not a secret, it gets promoted at conferences and seminars well before it's formally published.

neuromantik8086 9y ago
That's a good point- the openness that is most essential to science would probably doom any attempts at pseudonymity. Another potential way to moderate the amount of attention given to rockstars might be to establish quotas at journals based off impact factor that would ensure that early-career researchers and more obscure researchers could have a chance to be heard. That probably won't be something I'll have any hand in implementing though :)

fossuser 9y ago

I agree - even Mendel was ignored for 40 years by the researchers of his day (and his findings were only published in an obscure journal that were largely ignored until being rediscovered later). It's bad for science, which is bad for all of us.

neuromantik8086 9y ago
Part of the issue with Mendel was that he didn't fit the role of a scientist, and people were unable to seem as anything other than a monk. I'm not even sure if he himself would have regarded himself as a scientist- that's a gap in my knowledge that my history of science hobby has left open.
- fossuser 9y ago
  The Gene touches on this a bit (great book in general), but Mendel was actively trying to reach out to researchers and share his findings. They just wouldn’t listen to him and didn’t care.

Vinnl 9y ago

Unfortunately pseudonymity is practically impossible: http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/10/31/the-fractured-logic-of-blinded-peer-review-in-journals/ http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/10/31/the-fractu...