5 ms·

The problem is that looking at journal quality is the best quick way to evaluate how good a paper is, when you aren't an expert on the topic. And a lot of emplo

by lacker 4y ago

The problem is that looking at journal quality is the best quick way to evaluate how good a paper is, when you aren't an expert on the topic. And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made by people who aren't experts. Nowadays a journal provides essentially no distribution, but there's no good alternative to journals as a "stamp of quality".

elashri 4y ago
> And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made by people who aren't experts. This should be considered a flaw (bug in tech terms) not a feature. why would you take decisions about funding something or not if you are not an expert. At least you are not expert in the same field but have knowledge and it is easier for you to communicate and discuss the proposals. But getting someone who never did a real scientific research and the last time he wrote a scientific essay was when he was in college to determine which research should be funded is wrong.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > This should be considered a flaw (bug in tech terms) not a feature. why would you take decisions about funding something or not if you are not an expert. Because funding requires taking from something else -- either raising more revenue or reducing funding for any of the infinite possibilities that it could be spent on. And nobody is an expert in everything. Where a particular area of expertise does cover the choices to direct funding, it generally does. With a lot of inefficiency and corruption and incompetence thrown in of course, but politicians and bureaucrats sure didn't decide how every dollar on the JWST would be spent.
- impendia 4y ago
  I am an academic mathematician, who (like most) is an expert in a sub-subfield in my discipline. Outside my specialty I certainly have some knowledge, but I usually can't distinguish a major breakthrough from incremental progress. Meanwhile, I've been asked to evaluate hundreds of other mathematicians, on hiring committees and grant panels. Most of the applications are in specialities bordering mine, but not squarely in my area of expertise. Usually I can get a sense of what they've accomplished, but in most cases I can't reliably evaluate its depth or importance. Unfortunately, external markers of quality are needed.
Fomite 4y ago
Having just gotten extensive edits back on two papers of mine, including fixing something that I had overlooked but am glad they didn't, the role of journals is something that I think people underestimate in some fields.
stonogo 4y ago
> And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made by people who aren't experts. Where is this the case? Federally-funded research generally involves experts. When Congress ascribes budgets to research agencies, those don't come from a vacuum. There are civil servants whose jobs revolves around providing expertise to budgetary oversight. They usually have titles like "program manager."

by lacker 4y ago

elashri 4y ago

> And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made by people who aren't experts. This should be considered a flaw (bug in tech terms) not a feature. why would you take decisions about funding something or not if you are not an expert. At least you are not expert in the same field but have knowledge and it is easier for you to communicate and discuss the proposals. But getting someone who never did a real scientific research and the last time he wrote a scientific essay was when he was in college to determine which research should be funded is wrong.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> This should be considered a flaw (bug in tech terms) not a feature. why would you take decisions about funding something or not if you are not an expert. Because funding requires taking from something else -- either raising more revenue or reducing funding for any of the infinite possibilities that it could be spent on. And nobody is an expert in everything. Where a particular area of expertise does cover the choices to direct funding, it generally does. With a lot of inefficiency and corruption and incompetence thrown in of course, but politicians and bureaucrats sure didn't decide how every dollar on the JWST would be spent.
impendia 4y ago
I am an academic mathematician, who (like most) is an expert in a sub-subfield in my discipline. Outside my specialty I certainly have some knowledge, but I usually can't distinguish a major breakthrough from incremental progress. Meanwhile, I've been asked to evaluate hundreds of other mathematicians, on hiring committees and grant panels. Most of the applications are in specialities bordering mine, but not squarely in my area of expertise. Usually I can get a sense of what they've accomplished, but in most cases I can't reliably evaluate its depth or importance. Unfortunately, external markers of quality are needed.

Fomite 4y ago

Having just gotten extensive edits back on two papers of mine, including fixing something that I had overlooked but am glad they didn't, the role of journals is something that I think people underestimate in some fields.

stonogo 4y ago

> And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made by people who aren't experts. Where is this the case? Federally-funded research generally involves experts. When Congress ascribes budgets to research agencies, those don't come from a vacuum. There are civil servants whose jobs revolves around providing expertise to budgetary oversight. They usually have titles like "program manager."