4 ms·
I agree with your overall point, in that the number of papers published != the amount of 'science' being performed, however that sort of metric might not be suc
by abcc8 4y ago
I agree with your overall point, in that the number of papers published != the amount of 'science' being performed, however that sort of metric might not be such a bad way to gauge the output of a shared resource like a telescope. For the sake of argument, if the telescope time is split up between 100 different groups, each of which submitted a proposal for which the end goal is a publication, is it not that unreasonable to assume that the publication would at least be available as a pre-print say six months after the group's observation time has ended?
- andbberger 4y agoresults might not be significant, project might not pan out for any number of reasons, projects can easily take more than 6 months. sadly, people still don't care about negative results
- nickff 4y agoThis is a good point, but if there are few (if any) publishable results coming out of a costly apparatus (and none are particularly notable), isn't that an indication that resources should be refocused to more productive projects? Resources are always limited. If you think this costly and relatively unproductive apparatus should continue to receive funding, is there any circumstance which would cause you to discontinue it in favor of something else (which is not a direct replacement)?
- andbberger 4y agonot an astrophysicist so can't comment on the science directly. cost-benefit analysis in science funding is a really difficult problem. that being said, $85M buys quite a lot of science.
- mturmon 4y agoSOFIA has been flying since 2014, so the lack of influential publications is not for lack of analysis time.