3 ms·

Magazines and newspapers that literally nobody is reading eventually go bankrupt. The system has ways to keep that in check. Not so in academia, which is immune

Magazines and newspapers that literally nobody is reading eventually go bankrupt. The system has ways to keep that in check. Not so in academia, which is immune to market forces.

jvanderbot 6y ago
.. because it is subsidized for public good, my friend (I argue). Also, I said the journals are the product, not the articles. And every journal issue gets readers, and the number of readers is market-inducing, but many articles in those journals do not (at least not yet).
- thu2111 6y ago
  If the papers are crap and nobody reads them it's not the public good, it's just waste. As for journals, those are paid for mostly by universities, which are themselves funded by governments. Really, academia is just an entirely parallel economy to the real one, but it's a closed loop planned economy in which the ultimate end goal of making technology people like is subverted to artificial targets like quantity of papers published.
  - Delk 6y ago
    I'd argue the ultimate goal of academia and academic research isn't making technology. That's based on a very narrow view of academia (focusing entirely on engineering and the sciences with immediate technological applicability), and on the premise that we want only technological gadgets rather than understanding as and end goal. The primary end goal of academic research should be to understand and find answers to interesting questions, not to build applications. The applications are a good secondary goal, but not the only one. You may or may not want to support that first goal, but that shouldn't distort the goal of academic research into just a technology factory. Of course that doesn't mean a lot of research isn't crap. But you also have to remember that research that is novel, broadly interesting and high quality is a lot harder to do than yet another application. I also agree that the quantity of papers published shouldn't be a target. I think almost everybody agrees on that. (FWIW, I'm not in academia.)
  - jvanderbot 6y ago
    This isn't universally true. Industry has significant contributions to conferences. And industry can borrow much from academia, just on a 10-20 year delay and with significant down-selection. Academic / industry crossover and revolving doors are a very healthy thing ... see self driving cars. Not to compound the discussion, but industry-government-academic partnerships are all over the place doing real good, including again the self-driving car examples (DARPA->Academics->Industry->...?)

Magazines and newspapers that literally nobody is reading eventually go bankrupt. The system has ways to keep that in check. Not so in academia, which is immune to market forces.

jvanderbot 6y ago

.. because it is subsidized for public good, my friend (I argue). Also, I said the journals are the product, not the articles. And every journal issue gets readers, and the number of readers is market-inducing, but many articles in those journals do not (at least not yet).

thu2111 6y ago
If the papers are crap and nobody reads them it's not the public good, it's just waste. As for journals, those are paid for mostly by universities, which are themselves funded by governments. Really, academia is just an entirely parallel economy to the real one, but it's a closed loop planned economy in which the ultimate end goal of making technology people like is subverted to artificial targets like quantity of papers published.
- Delk 6y ago
  I'd argue the ultimate goal of academia and academic research isn't making technology. That's based on a very narrow view of academia (focusing entirely on engineering and the sciences with immediate technological applicability), and on the premise that we want only technological gadgets rather than understanding as and end goal. The primary end goal of academic research should be to understand and find answers to interesting questions, not to build applications. The applications are a good secondary goal, but not the only one. You may or may not want to support that first goal, but that shouldn't distort the goal of academic research into just a technology factory. Of course that doesn't mean a lot of research isn't crap. But you also have to remember that research that is novel, broadly interesting and high quality is a lot harder to do than yet another application. I also agree that the quantity of papers published shouldn't be a target. I think almost everybody agrees on that. (FWIW, I'm not in academia.)
- jvanderbot 6y ago
  This isn't universally true. Industry has significant contributions to conferences. And industry can borrow much from academia, just on a 10-20 year delay and with significant down-selection. Academic / industry crossover and revolving doors are a very healthy thing ... see self driving cars. Not to compound the discussion, but industry-government-academic partnerships are all over the place doing real good, including again the self-driving car examples (DARPA->Academics->Industry->...?)