4 ms·

I'm reminded of the saying that "Publishing research without data is simply advertising, not science". Not even publishing the research means it doesn't have a

by l0b0 8y ago

I'm reminded of the saying that "Publishing research without data is simply advertising, not science". Not even publishing the research means it doesn't have a chance at advancing the state of the art. I don't understand how such research can be successful at anything other than selling a few extra copies of a software product likely to disappear within a handful of years. Unless it's implemented as the absolute killer feature of a very successful product it's very unlikely anyone will ever know there's anything novel in there.

jandrewrogers 8y ago
The research does get disseminated, just slowly. The transmission vector is contact with other people with firsthand knowledge of the research. It becomes an oral tradition, which makes it difficult to break into and is inefficient. I've come across many non-publishing research communities in various parts of computer science that continue to develop and share the state-of-the-art amongst themselves. The research isn't being lost, it is just compartmentalized. For example, there is an elegant cache replacement algorithm I learned from a database kernel engineer a decade ago, one of those algorithms that is so obvious in hindsight that you can't believe it never occurred to you. It solves a key problem with the algorithms everyone knows in literature. I've used it ever since and taught a bunch of other database kernel engineers the same algorithm. I have no idea where the person I learned it from got it, but the literature still treats it like an unsolved problem. Many engineers are using it in more and more systems, and there are a few different variants in the wild, but no one has bothered to write it down AFAICT. The salient point is that academia is not the only community that develops and defines the state-of-the-art in computer science, but at least they publish. Without an incentive for non-publishing research communities to publish, it becomes difficult for an outside academic to break into some fields because there isn't an obvious entry point.
- d-- 8y ago
  Is there a chance you can point us to a code snippet of said cache algorithm, or elaborate a bit? If it's simple and elegant in hindsight this insight might be interesting in other CS applications. Not cross sharing and reinventing wheels is a somewhat sad implication from the compartmentalization you mention.
- phoenixstrike 8y ago
  That is the whole point. You're sitting on a (claimed) solution to an unsolved problem in literature. That is antagonistic to science. Publication and collaboration is literally part of the definition of doing "research" or "science." It's not just about solving any unsolved problem out there. If you're not sharing your solution by publishing it and opening it up for examination and discussion in an established forum, it means nothing. Just think, if you had published that solution, maybe someone else would have read it and been inspired by it and thought of an even better solution, or made a connection to another unsolved problem. Or something like that. It's also very telling that you say you only work on problems that are directly relevant to a software product, and that you chose not to publish because of the time commitment. It seems you only consider the personal gains and sacrifices involved; it's intellectual masturbation. The spirit of research is about something greater than yourself. You're not a researcher, and you don't conduct research. You are a very good -- excellent -- software engineer.
- infinite8s 8y ago
  Is the issue with publishing your findings the grind of submitting to a journal and going through the standard review process? Because in that case, would just throwing up a high level overview on arxiv work for you? It sounds like you aren't adverse to sharing the results of your research if the activation energy was eliminated (or substantially reduced).

by l0b0 8y ago

jandrewrogers 8y ago

The research does get disseminated, just slowly. The transmission vector is contact with other people with firsthand knowledge of the research. It becomes an oral tradition, which makes it difficult to break into and is inefficient. I've come across many non-publishing research communities in various parts of computer science that continue to develop and share the state-of-the-art amongst themselves. The research isn't being lost, it is just compartmentalized. For example, there is an elegant cache replacement algorithm I learned from a database kernel engineer a decade ago, one of those algorithms that is so obvious in hindsight that you can't believe it never occurred to you. It solves a key problem with the algorithms everyone knows in literature. I've used it ever since and taught a bunch of other database kernel engineers the same algorithm. I have no idea where the person I learned it from got it, but the literature still treats it like an unsolved problem. Many engineers are using it in more and more systems, and there are a few different variants in the wild, but no one has bothered to write it down AFAICT. The salient point is that academia is not the only community that develops and defines the state-of-the-art in computer science, but at least they publish. Without an incentive for non-publishing research communities to publish, it becomes difficult for an outside academic to break into some fields because there isn't an obvious entry point.

d-- 8y ago
Is there a chance you can point us to a code snippet of said cache algorithm, or elaborate a bit? If it's simple and elegant in hindsight this insight might be interesting in other CS applications. Not cross sharing and reinventing wheels is a somewhat sad implication from the compartmentalization you mention.
phoenixstrike 8y ago
That is the whole point. You're sitting on a (claimed) solution to an unsolved problem in literature. That is antagonistic to science. Publication and collaboration is literally part of the definition of doing "research" or "science." It's not just about solving any unsolved problem out there. If you're not sharing your solution by publishing it and opening it up for examination and discussion in an established forum, it means nothing. Just think, if you had published that solution, maybe someone else would have read it and been inspired by it and thought of an even better solution, or made a connection to another unsolved problem. Or something like that. It's also very telling that you say you only work on problems that are directly relevant to a software product, and that you chose not to publish because of the time commitment. It seems you only consider the personal gains and sacrifices involved; it's intellectual masturbation. The spirit of research is about something greater than yourself. You're not a researcher, and you don't conduct research. You are a very good -- excellent -- software engineer.
infinite8s 8y ago
Is the issue with publishing your findings the grind of submitting to a journal and going through the standard review process? Because in that case, would just throwing up a high level overview on arxiv work for you? It sounds like you aren't adverse to sharing the results of your research if the activation energy was eliminated (or substantially reduced).