4 ms·

It doesn’t sound natural at all for a wealthy institution to use money to hide fundamental weaknesses of its researchers(namely the ability to articulate their

It doesn’t sound natural at all for a wealthy institution to use money to hide fundamental weaknesses of its researchers(namely the ability to articulate their own research to their peers) when a less wealthy institution cannot afford to do so.

zucker42 5y ago
Yeah, that's the way the commenter I responded to wants me to view it, but I'm skeptical of that way of looking at it. I view it as specialization, where two people each utilizing their strengths can accomplish more together than they would by simply aggregating their separate products. Why would I demand that someone who excels at research must necessarily be a fantastic writer, and why would I exclude a person who can make meaningful contributions to human knowledge but nonetheless needs help communicating? If results are freely shared (which is why open-access is so important!) science is not a competition because "less wealthy" and "wealthy" institutions but rather a collaborative process working toward shared goals.
- ebiester 5y ago
  I don't think it's cheating at all. These editors not only copy edit, but also engage with your work. It's a fantastic service that reduces time and increases quality - what's not to like? However, when two Ph.D graduates are going up for a job, and the Harvard candidate has an additional paper or ten on the same or less effort, he has a leg up on the job market, and this may obscure the best researcher for the job. The committee is often not taking institutional inequities in account when looking for the best candidate. While science is not a competition, the academic market for jobs has devolved into one.
RHSeeger 5y ago
If you look at it as the university itself generating the research output (university labs, editors, and other resources), then much more natural. It makes sense that a university with more money would be able to produce more research.

zucker42 5y ago

Yeah, that's the way the commenter I responded to wants me to view it, but I'm skeptical of that way of looking at it. I view it as specialization, where two people each utilizing their strengths can accomplish more together than they would by simply aggregating their separate products. Why would I demand that someone who excels at research must necessarily be a fantastic writer, and why would I exclude a person who can make meaningful contributions to human knowledge but nonetheless needs help communicating? If results are freely shared (which is why open-access is so important!) science is not a competition because "less wealthy" and "wealthy" institutions but rather a collaborative process working toward shared goals.

ebiester 5y ago
I don't think it's cheating at all. These editors not only copy edit, but also engage with your work. It's a fantastic service that reduces time and increases quality - what's not to like? However, when two Ph.D graduates are going up for a job, and the Harvard candidate has an additional paper or ten on the same or less effort, he has a leg up on the job market, and this may obscure the best researcher for the job. The committee is often not taking institutional inequities in account when looking for the best candidate. While science is not a competition, the academic market for jobs has devolved into one.

RHSeeger 5y ago

If you look at it as the university itself generating the research output (university labs, editors, and other resources), then much more natural. It makes sense that a university with more money would be able to produce more research.