3 ms·
A research institution can produce bad researchers (Harvard, UC, and Google included), so we can't go with this suggestion either, instead we'd need reputation
by ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
A research institution can produce bad researchers (Harvard, UC, and Google included), so we can't go with this suggestion either, instead we'd need reputation for each individual researcher in the world.
how many such reputations can you keep track of and gauge trust along?
and how is reputation gauged if peers don't review work?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> A research institution can produce bad researchers (Harvard, UC, and Google included), so we can't go with this suggestion either Why not? The same is true of an individual researcher. But if they do, it damages their reputation, so they have an incentive to not. The same as the institution.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago> Why not? because it can produce bad researchers, and thus cannot be trusted to indicate good vs. bad researchers thus, it is a bad proxy for trust of individual researchers >The same is true of an individual researcher individual researchers are not research institutions, so the same literally cannot be true: one employs the other, the inverse is not true > if they do, it damages their reputation, so they have an incentive to not empirically speaking, they objectively do, and their reputation is not damaged, and thus above proposition about reputation and incentives does not appear to be true enough to stop it from happening recall the topic is how to gauge individual researcher reputation in the first place. Either we do it on an individual basis or a group/heuristic basis, and of the latter, research publications are a better proxy than what school one went to, but the former is better than both