3 ms·

> if you (1) are good at generating ideas I have been joking with my former boss (who is a professor) about how easy it is to come up with good ideas. We each

> if you (1) are good at generating ideas I have been joking with my former boss (who is a professor) about how easy it is to come up with good ideas. We each have five to six One Billion Dollar ideas before breakfast, and another 1-2 while in the shower! /s Coming up with ideas is _ridicolously_ easy, executing on them is the hard part. If you're a seasoned researcher, it shouldn't be hard to guess at the "meta" of your field, you're probably aware of promising ideas discussed among your colleagues. What if you faked results, proving one of these ideas? And the bar for cheating is _suprisingly_ low. I'm not a researcher myself, but I've experienced how my work is torn apart in peer review. But if you're dealing with data, apparently no one makes sure to actually check it before approval.[0][1] [0] https://youtu.be/d2Tm3Yx4HWI?t=846 https://youtu.be/d2Tm3Yx4HWI?t=846 (analysis on the original data from the Francesca Gino scandal, which already looks suspicious without statistical analysis) [1] https://youtu.be/KsSuhP60qnI https://youtu.be/KsSuhP60qnI (faked data from the Hendrik Schoen scandal at Bell Labs, as long as you make outrageous claims no one can verify, you can continue to publish in top journals)

Al-Khwarizmi 3y ago
I suppose this is heavily discipline-specific. In my specific subfield of CS, the execution is often a Python program or bunch of scripts that can be (and often are) coded by an undergrad if given enough guidance on what exactly is wanted. And then of course the way of presenting it in the paper, choosing which data to show, etc. but cheating doesn't help much there. The hard part in my view is coming up with what Python program should be written (i.e. coming up with a relevant algorithm, experiment, evaluation methodology, etc.). I can see how in other fields, e.g. biomedical, execution could be more challenging and ideas more plentiful. Anyway, I don't think ideas (read: good ones, because obviously anyone can have nonsense ideas) can be a commodity in any field. It is quite widely accepted that, e.g., when applying for an ERC grant (the highest-regarded individual research grants in Europe), having a good idea is as important as the CV if not more. This wouldn't be the case if coming up with good ideas were so trivial.
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  > having a good idea is as important as the CV if not more I don't know about the acceptance criteria for ERC grants, but from the peer reviews I've read from one of my professors papers it feels like there's a bias towards accepting novelty of all else. My joke with ideas was meant more general, i.e. that you can have a few billion dollar ideas, but executing on them is much harder (due to lack of funds, time or skill). Additionally, depending on the demand of the field I can imagine it being easier to obtain funding for resarch. Imagine being in machine learning right now lol. I wasn't talking about grant acceptance though, but purely what kind of ideas can get you published and what data you have to fake in order to get there. In the case of Francesca Gino it doesn't sound like her fraudulent resarch was so costly that she would have to have applied for large grants in order to conduct it.

Al-Khwarizmi 3y ago

I suppose this is heavily discipline-specific. In my specific subfield of CS, the execution is often a Python program or bunch of scripts that can be (and often are) coded by an undergrad if given enough guidance on what exactly is wanted. And then of course the way of presenting it in the paper, choosing which data to show, etc. but cheating doesn't help much there. The hard part in my view is coming up with what Python program should be written (i.e. coming up with a relevant algorithm, experiment, evaluation methodology, etc.). I can see how in other fields, e.g. biomedical, execution could be more challenging and ideas more plentiful. Anyway, I don't think ideas (read: good ones, because obviously anyone can have nonsense ideas) can be a commodity in any field. It is quite widely accepted that, e.g., when applying for an ERC grant (the highest-regarded individual research grants in Europe), having a good idea is as important as the CV if not more. This wouldn't be the case if coming up with good ideas were so trivial.

awesomeMilou 3y ago
> having a good idea is as important as the CV if not more I don't know about the acceptance criteria for ERC grants, but from the peer reviews I've read from one of my professors papers it feels like there's a bias towards accepting novelty of all else. My joke with ideas was meant more general, i.e. that you can have a few billion dollar ideas, but executing on them is much harder (due to lack of funds, time or skill). Additionally, depending on the demand of the field I can imagine it being easier to obtain funding for resarch. Imagine being in machine learning right now lol. I wasn't talking about grant acceptance though, but purely what kind of ideas can get you published and what data you have to fake in order to get there. In the case of Francesca Gino it doesn't sound like her fraudulent resarch was so costly that she would have to have applied for large grants in order to conduct it.