4 ms·

Then devalue published papers. Don’t use them as the basis for rewards. Don’t use them as the basis for policy If they are nothing more than the the starting

Then devalue published papers. Don’t use them as the basis for rewards. Don’t use them as the basis for policy If they are nothing more than the the starting conversation of scientists then we should not put much value in them. Let’s not play the have it both ways game where scientific papers are given deference and then when there is cheating just say li g that scientific papers are just a conversation starter.

tptacek 3y ago
People doing science professionally already understand the value of a paper.
concordDance 3y ago
If not using papers as a basis for policy then what? Making a committee of academics from a selection of prestigious institutions every time you have a question that needs answering?
neilv 3y ago
> * Then devalue published papers. Don’t use them as the basis for rewards.* What about the use of papers as metrics for advancing in academic careers? Career advancement could be based on market forces (e.g., productive researcher on something valued, if they're not given a sweet enough deal by one university, another university can snap them up). But how do buyers in the market get the information about how valuable a given researcher is? (Word of mouth? CV summary without pubs list? Job talks? Interviews? Twitter?)