3 ms·
The rot has set in relatively lately, but is getting exponentially worse. Probably still in the 1990's or even early 2000's (depending on the field) an academic
by jampekka 3y ago
The rot has set in relatively lately, but is getting exponentially worse. Probably still in the 1990's or even early 2000's (depending on the field) an academic could have had a fine career publishing (a good paper) every few years. Or write a (good) book or two in their whole career.
I did my PhD under a professor who was very respected and influential in his field. He published quite rarely, although he had piles of manuscripts that would have passed review but he didn't find them worthy. And refused to have his name on his lab's papers if he didn't feel like he contributed enough (nowadays many/most professors who won't even read the paper require them to be added as an author).
In the current system he would have no chance in academia. He said so himself. As has Peter Higgs: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-...
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThe professor sounds like a man of class. As I was reading the article I got to the part where the whistleblowers accused zlokovic of pressuring them to change data. If you changed data then you're also responsible. Every one of those whistleblowers should have refused.
- jampekka 3y agoIn my experience a lot of older professors are like this, likely because it wasn't yet about counting papers for them to get their tenures (other games were involved for sure). I agree they should have refused. I hope I would in their situation.