4 ms·

Who supplies the grant money? They should have a motivation to end fraud.

Maken 2y ago
The ones in charge are usually more concerned about shielding themselves from fraud accusations than actually preventing fraud. Relying on widely accepted yet flawed rankings allows them to redirect any fingers pointing at them. Nobody was ever fired for following JCR impact factor.
cess11 2y ago
Why? They answer to people outside of academia, who doesn't care and don't understand, and will be happy with seeing a notice in the press about 'another 5 million to Alzheimer's research' regardless of whether it goes into a dead end or something worthwhile. This turned into a huge setback for Alzheimer's research specifically. Politicians and their ilk poured money into 'amyloid research' so to get money that's what you had to do, even though it was rather early on pretty well known among researchers that it wasn't a fruitful way forward.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  In some level they care. Everyone wants the press to write about them "X funded research cures Alzheimer". But the feedback cycles for that are long. In the short term a fraud provides at least as much good press as a genuinely great researcher, probably more. It's hard to try some new metric if it might take two decades to show that it lead to better long-term outcomes
  - cess11 2y ago
    Could you show some examples of such breakthroughs where the bureaucrats signing off grants are mentioned?
jpeloquin 2y ago
Grant applications are primarily judged on the perceived strength of the research plan. The reviewers work in the same field as the applicant and are expected to judge the proposal on its merits. Citation count is therefore already not a major factor in whether a grant is awarded or not, at least in engineering. Citation counts are considered by promotion committees though. In this case, committee members are often from different fields and have less ability to judge the quality of the applicants' work for themselves. None of the above matters in this particular case though—the problem is that Corchado was the only candidate on the ballot: "… taking advantage of the strange surprise resignation of the previous rector, and presenting himself as the only candidate. He received the support of 6.5% of the 33,000 university members who were called to vote, with half of the faculty voting blank as a sign of protest. "

The ones in charge are usually more concerned about shielding themselves from fraud accusations than actually preventing fraud. Relying on widely accepted yet flawed rankings allows them to redirect any fingers pointing at them. Nobody was ever fired for following JCR impact factor.

cess11 2y ago

Why? They answer to people outside of academia, who doesn't care and don't understand, and will be happy with seeing a notice in the press about 'another 5 million to Alzheimer's research' regardless of whether it goes into a dead end or something worthwhile. This turned into a huge setback for Alzheimer's research specifically. Politicians and their ilk poured money into 'amyloid research' so to get money that's what you had to do, even though it was rather early on pretty well known among researchers that it wasn't a fruitful way forward.

wongarsu 2y ago
In some level they care. Everyone wants the press to write about them "X funded research cures Alzheimer". But the feedback cycles for that are long. In the short term a fraud provides at least as much good press as a genuinely great researcher, probably more. It's hard to try some new metric if it might take two decades to show that it lead to better long-term outcomes
- cess11 2y ago
  Could you show some examples of such breakthroughs where the bureaucrats signing off grants are mentioned?

jpeloquin 2y ago

Grant applications are primarily judged on the perceived strength of the research plan. The reviewers work in the same field as the applicant and are expected to judge the proposal on its merits. Citation count is therefore already not a major factor in whether a grant is awarded or not, at least in engineering. Citation counts are considered by promotion committees though. In this case, committee members are often from different fields and have less ability to judge the quality of the applicants' work for themselves. None of the above matters in this particular case though—the problem is that Corchado was the only candidate on the ballot: "… taking advantage of the strange surprise resignation of the previous rector, and presenting himself as the only candidate. He received the support of 6.5% of the 33,000 university members who were called to vote, with half of the faculty voting blank as a sign of protest. "