3 ms·

I've read that before 2003, the whole of humanity has published as many scientific papers as from 2003 to 2016. So what happened around 2000? Who has turned th

I've read that before 2003, the whole of humanity has published as many scientific papers as from 2003 to 2016. So what happened around 2000? Who has turned the scientific mission into a blind competition for superficial metrics? So many people in science I meet (apart from the few who benefited from this system, and therefore were selected by it) are frustrated by publishing for the sake of publishing (not science) and the bad incentives this system creates. Who has thought that these superficial metrics would improve anything about science and why?

sgillen 6y ago
I think it’s mostly a numbers game, more PhDs, roughly the same number of research position. This means most scientists don’t know most other scientists in their field, and so the metrics people use to select become more important. That and the increased competition, means a bigger rat race, more pressure to publish, etc.
lrnStats 6y ago
My guess is the education bubble. Loans are subsidized, universities have bigger budgets and want more studies done.
nitrogen 6y ago
With any exponential growth curve, you can point to some semi-recent point on the curve and say 50% is on the right side of that point. If the population is growing exponentially (it is), and the percentage of the population in academia is consistent or growing (that I'm not sure), then you could reasonably expect the quantity of research to be growing exponentially as well. Maybe it's just a curve with a doubling period of 13 years.
amcoastal 6y ago
I imagine the internet has done a lot to increase the speed of research, communication, and writing. I imagine it also speeds up peer review and has expanded the amount of available places to publish your work. I agree though, it would be nice to spend more time sciencing and less time writing about it.
fock 6y ago
0) the internet has made citing (and the expectations on knowing everything) so much easier. 1) China entered the game en force 2) everyone else has to step up 3) companies entered the market 4) in some areas, an arxiv (which is good) full of errors/hand-waving gets some 100 citations. Peer-reviewed work not.
BaronSamedi 6y ago
Academia is not unique in this regard. Superficial metrics have been introduced into many fields with similar results. Warnings about the danger of metrics have been ignored. Campbell's law: "The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor." (1979)

sgillen 6y ago

I think it’s mostly a numbers game, more PhDs, roughly the same number of research position. This means most scientists don’t know most other scientists in their field, and so the metrics people use to select become more important. That and the increased competition, means a bigger rat race, more pressure to publish, etc.

lrnStats 6y ago

My guess is the education bubble. Loans are subsidized, universities have bigger budgets and want more studies done.

nitrogen 6y ago

With any exponential growth curve, you can point to some semi-recent point on the curve and say 50% is on the right side of that point. If the population is growing exponentially (it is), and the percentage of the population in academia is consistent or growing (that I'm not sure), then you could reasonably expect the quantity of research to be growing exponentially as well. Maybe it's just a curve with a doubling period of 13 years.

amcoastal 6y ago

I imagine the internet has done a lot to increase the speed of research, communication, and writing. I imagine it also speeds up peer review and has expanded the amount of available places to publish your work. I agree though, it would be nice to spend more time sciencing and less time writing about it.

fock 6y ago

0) the internet has made citing (and the expectations on knowing everything) so much easier. 1) China entered the game en force 2) everyone else has to step up 3) companies entered the market 4) in some areas, an arxiv (which is good) full of errors/hand-waving gets some 100 citations. Peer-reviewed work not.

BaronSamedi 6y ago

Academia is not unique in this regard. Superficial metrics have been introduced into many fields with similar results. Warnings about the danger of metrics have been ignored. Campbell's law: "The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor." (1979)