4 ms·
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 pe
by 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 agoI 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.