4 ms·

It's pretty easy to see who is a top star (because they have continuous highest-quality output), and who will never deliver anything worthwhile. The trouble is

It's pretty easy to see who is a top star (because they have continuous highest-quality output), and who will never deliver anything worthwhile. The trouble is the continuum between those two extremes. This domain is dominated by politics, endless grant applications, bureaucracy. Nobody can really tell where you belong in this continuum, maybe not even you yourself. And I also don't believe that academia is the best place to pursue your ideas anymore, anyway.

ta988 6y ago
Unfortunately for some fields it is difficult to do anything outside of a lab. And startups are not a good solution either with the incentive to make money fast that shift the incentives. I would be interested in knowing what other places you are thinking about.
- auggierose 6y ago
  Yes. I don't have a good solution either. In the end you need to somehow get the money to do what you want to do. That may be within academia or not. In my case, I am just doing freelance jobs and reserving as much time as I manage to do the research I want to do. I don't need many resources, and being able to access sci-hub helps a lot.
andi999 6y ago
Well, top stars are obvious a couple of years in their career. Or do you think they are obvious from the beginning?
- auggierose 6y ago
  I am talking about the ones where it is obvious that they are or will be doing exceptional work. That can be 10 years into their career, or at year 0 of their career. When this is not obvious, which most of the time it isn't, that's where the tough to judge continuum lies.
glitchc 6y ago
Define “highest-quality.” Is it publishing in the most prestigious journals? Obtaining the most prestigious grants? See what I did there? Ground-breaking research often doesn’t qualify for either because it’s too new and scientists on those committees don’t understand it.
- auggierose 6y ago
  It's a matter of "you know it when you see it". I doubt it can be defined properly.
N1H1L 6y ago
Is Yi Cui with an h-index close to 200 the best scientist then? Or Pulickel Ajayan? I worked with samples grown from both of them, so my opinion on them is mixed. They are drive-by shooters; they identify a hot area, publish some crappy but early papers on the topic and move on to the next hot trend. Both of them have very little to zero sustained contributions to the field. And this is, by the way, the case for most h-index superstars. Fundamental contributions are often sustained contributions over the years to a field, and the honest answer is that we can measure that only years after the science has been published.
- auggierose 6y ago
  I have no clue about your field, so I don't know. But it seems to me it is obvious to you if you want to include them in your list of top stars. Note also that I never said anything about h-index being a measure for highest-quality. Only experts in a field can say what obvious highest-quality work is.

ta988 6y ago

Unfortunately for some fields it is difficult to do anything outside of a lab. And startups are not a good solution either with the incentive to make money fast that shift the incentives. I would be interested in knowing what other places you are thinking about.

auggierose 6y ago
Yes. I don't have a good solution either. In the end you need to somehow get the money to do what you want to do. That may be within academia or not. In my case, I am just doing freelance jobs and reserving as much time as I manage to do the research I want to do. I don't need many resources, and being able to access sci-hub helps a lot.

andi999 6y ago

Well, top stars are obvious a couple of years in their career. Or do you think they are obvious from the beginning?

auggierose 6y ago
I am talking about the ones where it is obvious that they are or will be doing exceptional work. That can be 10 years into their career, or at year 0 of their career. When this is not obvious, which most of the time it isn't, that's where the tough to judge continuum lies.

glitchc 6y ago

Define “highest-quality.” Is it publishing in the most prestigious journals? Obtaining the most prestigious grants? See what I did there? Ground-breaking research often doesn’t qualify for either because it’s too new and scientists on those committees don’t understand it.

auggierose 6y ago
It's a matter of "you know it when you see it". I doubt it can be defined properly.

N1H1L 6y ago

Is Yi Cui with an h-index close to 200 the best scientist then? Or Pulickel Ajayan? I worked with samples grown from both of them, so my opinion on them is mixed. They are drive-by shooters; they identify a hot area, publish some crappy but early papers on the topic and move on to the next hot trend. Both of them have very little to zero sustained contributions to the field. And this is, by the way, the case for most h-index superstars. Fundamental contributions are often sustained contributions over the years to a field, and the honest answer is that we can measure that only years after the science has been published.

auggierose 6y ago
I have no clue about your field, so I don't know. But it seems to me it is obvious to you if you want to include them in your list of top stars. Note also that I never said anything about h-index being a measure for highest-quality. Only experts in a field can say what obvious highest-quality work is.