3 ms·

I think that the expectation that "ground-breaking" discoveries in science should follow some linear or predictable timetable is not reasonable. Is the time per

I think that the expectation that "ground-breaking" discoveries in science should follow some linear or predictable timetable is not reasonable. Is the time period between "ground-breaking" discoveries supposed to be every 5 years, every 10 years? The volume of papers has increased significantly, and publish or perish kinda stinks, but it's not just an issue of funding, but some (many?) researchers publish and exaggerate about the importance and difficulty of their research to receive an "I am smart" badge on social media. Although, despite this increase in volume of crap tier papers, the article seems to think it's not correlated: "Declines in disruptiveness are also not attributable to changing publication, citation or authorship practices..."

derbOac 4y ago
What you're pointing to is far more insidious than I think is usually recognized. People can point to incentive structures like grants etc, and to the implications in terms of the meaning of metrics etc but the real harm is in how it shifts mental focus and attention collectively. It's not ok to let minor things or things you think are obvious go anymore to focus on bigger picture issues, that might be "riskier" but nonobvious. The way that plays out too is incredibly dependent on your institutional social environment etc. So much of this is difficult to easily quantify in ways that can be easily studied. I loved this paper for example, but it's easy for me to think of papers in my own field that would look "disruptive" in terms of citation networks but are really the same content. There's these weird shifts I've seen happen in reading old literature and during my career, where big shifts in who is being cited will happen for quixotic social reasons. Usually it's basically politics or ignorance of big parts of a field, who will get introduced to an idea by a particular author or group. Lots of chaotic citation patterns and feedback loops. Add in shifts in what's motivating grant and paper topics and it really damages authentic scientific discourse. So much is driven by looking like a brilliant scientist and not by scientific progress. People aren't dumb either and they are very very good at looking like brilliant scientists.
- ctchocula 4y ago
  Higgs, who hypothesized the Higgs boson back in the 70s, has only published 2-3 papers in the decades since. Before it was announced that he won the Nobel prize, his University was deciding between forcing him out or gambling on him potentially winning the Nobel prize which would bring more reknown to the department. He has commented recently saying if he were a young, freshly minted PhD today he would not have gotten tenure with his publication record. That seems insane to me and a bitter critique of today's incentive structures created by the funding system we have that rewards incremental work over real breakthroughs.
  - goodcanadian 4y ago
    This reminds me of a comment from an academic nearing retirement that I heard second-hand. It was something to the effect that applicants for Assistant Professor (or Lecturer) positions have CVs that are as good as or better than what applications for tenure looked like 20-30 years ago.

derbOac 4y ago

What you're pointing to is far more insidious than I think is usually recognized. People can point to incentive structures like grants etc, and to the implications in terms of the meaning of metrics etc but the real harm is in how it shifts mental focus and attention collectively. It's not ok to let minor things or things you think are obvious go anymore to focus on bigger picture issues, that might be "riskier" but nonobvious. The way that plays out too is incredibly dependent on your institutional social environment etc. So much of this is difficult to easily quantify in ways that can be easily studied. I loved this paper for example, but it's easy for me to think of papers in my own field that would look "disruptive" in terms of citation networks but are really the same content. There's these weird shifts I've seen happen in reading old literature and during my career, where big shifts in who is being cited will happen for quixotic social reasons. Usually it's basically politics or ignorance of big parts of a field, who will get introduced to an idea by a particular author or group. Lots of chaotic citation patterns and feedback loops. Add in shifts in what's motivating grant and paper topics and it really damages authentic scientific discourse. So much is driven by looking like a brilliant scientist and not by scientific progress. People aren't dumb either and they are very very good at looking like brilliant scientists.

ctchocula 4y ago
Higgs, who hypothesized the Higgs boson back in the 70s, has only published 2-3 papers in the decades since. Before it was announced that he won the Nobel prize, his University was deciding between forcing him out or gambling on him potentially winning the Nobel prize which would bring more reknown to the department. He has commented recently saying if he were a young, freshly minted PhD today he would not have gotten tenure with his publication record. That seems insane to me and a bitter critique of today's incentive structures created by the funding system we have that rewards incremental work over real breakthroughs.
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  This reminds me of a comment from an academic nearing retirement that I heard second-hand. It was something to the effect that applicants for Assistant Professor (or Lecturer) positions have CVs that are as good as or better than what applications for tenure looked like 20-30 years ago.