3 ms·

Berkeley Lab employs both authors of this paper. Berkeley Lab, and this research, gets its funding from the US Department of Energy. One of the authors is a p

Berkeley Lab employs both authors of this paper. Berkeley Lab, and this research, gets its funding from the US Department of Energy. One of the authors is a pretty high-level manager, of the sort who drives strategic planning there. It's safe to say the institution is associated with this research. I do personally regard national lab affiliation to be a meaningful quality signal -- at least strong enough that if I'm interested in the topic I'll read the actual paper, which isn't something I can say for a lot of stuff coming out of certain universities lately. Another good reason to note the institution is that this is a demonstration that DOE Office of Science research funding is generating results.

dotgov 4y ago
The DOE Office of Science funding is generating papers as results. If my interpretation is correct, the technology discussed is _potentially_ useful. To me the downside of marketing results aggressively to justify one’s funding is that the quality signal can become inversely correlated. Is this valuable research or is someone who knows to play the DOE game inflating a metric to secure their next round of funding and/or expand their turf? Does this negatively impact researchers who do not have access to a comparable marketing apparatus?
- stonogo 4y ago
  They clearly describe having built an experimental device and outline expectations for improvement of the process. All technology is "potentially useful," until someone uses it. As far as "marketing," the labs are contractually required by the government to do this. Average 'impact rating' and so forth are part of the performance evaluations. As far as "playing the DOE game," there are a lot of voices in the critical path of getting significant funding from the Office of Science, many of them generally healthily skeptical. I'm not aware of very many charlatans achieving high-level management positions or controlling significant funding.

dotgov 4y ago

The DOE Office of Science funding is generating papers as results. If my interpretation is correct, the technology discussed is _potentially_ useful. To me the downside of marketing results aggressively to justify one’s funding is that the quality signal can become inversely correlated. Is this valuable research or is someone who knows to play the DOE game inflating a metric to secure their next round of funding and/or expand their turf? Does this negatively impact researchers who do not have access to a comparable marketing apparatus?

stonogo 4y ago
They clearly describe having built an experimental device and outline expectations for improvement of the process. All technology is "potentially useful," until someone uses it. As far as "marketing," the labs are contractually required by the government to do this. Average 'impact rating' and so forth are part of the performance evaluations. As far as "playing the DOE game," there are a lot of voices in the critical path of getting significant funding from the Office of Science, many of them generally healthily skeptical. I'm not aware of very many charlatans achieving high-level management positions or controlling significant funding.