3 ms·

So the short answer is I don't know, and I don't think there is a single answer. Different types of scholarship need different standards and processes in my eye

by avs733 8y ago

So the short answer is I don't know, and I don't think there is a single answer. Different types of scholarship need different standards and processes in my eyes. It isn't so much 'whats the alternative' to what is really a singular step as much as it is a rethink of how scholarship is performed, evaluated, rewarded, and considered. Otherwise the incentives across the playing field don't change enough to make meaningful change meaningful. What would help? My opinions... -FOSS publishing -Abandonment of journal metrics, they really serve no purpose besides trophy hunting at this point -Stronger transparency initiatives -Public review (c.f. Lim) -better journal metadata (it affects citations) -Greater shaming of misbehavior of ALL types -Elimination of stupid policies like 'issue lengths' The article either should be or should not be published...saying there isn't space in a given issue is insane given that >>90% of article access is online. -a hell of a lot of older faculty retiring out of the way of science.

avip 8y ago
The Sphenodon in the room is that the raison d'etre of the entire Academic structure is unclear. So that should be clarified first. Advancing science is one thing. Publishing as many papers as possible, breaking research into MPUs is another. Lecturing to youth completely uninterested to be taught is yet another vertical.
- avs733 8y ago
  I think you may be confusing vague with unclear... The inclarity, and multiple verticals seems more like an example of Goodhart's law than anything else. Summarized, the goal of academia is and (for most of time in whatever form it took) is to produce and disseminate new knowledge for human society. Creating new knowledge is what we now call research. Publishing papers isn't a raison d'etre...it's a metric for that. I'll note that Ernest Boyer is far more articulate on this than I am...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jcranmer 8y ago
> -Elimination of stupid policies like 'issue lengths' The article either should be or should not be published...saying there isn't space in a given issue is insane given that >>90% of article access is online. I'd prefer to keep article lengths in place. It's easy to write a lot of text (as quite a lot of high school students understand), but it's challenging--and very important--to be able to convey information in a very concise format. The process of trimming down the text to squeeze it under the page limit is very useful in getting the ideas contained in it to a more refined and easily-understood format.
- avs733 8y ago
  I meant n articles per issue more than allowing articles to be length>m. My bad for the in-clarity :) I agree, in theory, with your point. I think the unfortunate thing that is lost in most efforts at concision are lack of detail rather than fluff. Fluff is bad, but I think detail is important...especially detail on how things are situated in prior literature. As a reviewer, I have often found there to be a lot of articles using 'strategic concision' to gloss over not doing things properly, or flat our not knowing what you are doing. Saying 'we used method x' means I have to trust you did it properly...or infer from other things how well you did it. Supplementary material could be a potential route here, but I just sent an article back for the second time. The first time they did the 'we did x' and I asked for more detail. The second time they said 'we did x by doing y and z'...but y and z were very very wrong. There are places where being able to explain concepts concisely are important or a viable tactic. Journal manuscripts are (in theory) a permanent archive of new knowledge for human society and have never struck me as the place were concision is a relevant parameter.

by avs733 8y ago

avip 8y ago

The Sphenodon in the room is that the raison d'etre of the entire Academic structure is unclear. So that should be clarified first. Advancing science is one thing. Publishing as many papers as possible, breaking research into MPUs is another. Lecturing to youth completely uninterested to be taught is yet another vertical.

avs733 8y ago
I think you may be confusing vague with unclear... The inclarity, and multiple verticals seems more like an example of Goodhart's law than anything else. Summarized, the goal of academia is and (for most of time in whatever form it took) is to produce and disseminate new knowledge for human society. Creating new knowledge is what we now call research. Publishing papers isn't a raison d'etre...it's a metric for that. I'll note that Ernest Boyer is far more articulate on this than I am...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jcranmer 8y ago

> -Elimination of stupid policies like 'issue lengths' The article either should be or should not be published...saying there isn't space in a given issue is insane given that >>90% of article access is online. I'd prefer to keep article lengths in place. It's easy to write a lot of text (as quite a lot of high school students understand), but it's challenging--and very important--to be able to convey information in a very concise format. The process of trimming down the text to squeeze it under the page limit is very useful in getting the ideas contained in it to a more refined and easily-understood format.

avs733 8y ago
I meant n articles per issue more than allowing articles to be length>m. My bad for the in-clarity :) I agree, in theory, with your point. I think the unfortunate thing that is lost in most efforts at concision are lack of detail rather than fluff. Fluff is bad, but I think detail is important...especially detail on how things are situated in prior literature. As a reviewer, I have often found there to be a lot of articles using 'strategic concision' to gloss over not doing things properly, or flat our not knowing what you are doing. Saying 'we used method x' means I have to trust you did it properly...or infer from other things how well you did it. Supplementary material could be a potential route here, but I just sent an article back for the second time. The first time they did the 'we did x' and I asked for more detail. The second time they said 'we did x by doing y and z'...but y and z were very very wrong. There are places where being able to explain concepts concisely are important or a viable tactic. Journal manuscripts are (in theory) a permanent archive of new knowledge for human society and have never struck me as the place were concision is a relevant parameter.