7 ms·

You don't strike me as someone who has hired a lot of faculty members... If you're hiring in your own field (which you should), you don't have to read the paper

You don't strike me as someone who has hired a lot of faculty members... If you're hiring in your own field (which you should), you don't have to read the papers. You're already familiar with most of them, and judging by the venue their published in, you also know their "level", so to speak. As for open review ... You also don't strike me as someone who has reviewed a lot of papers. I've served on several program committees, and reviewed hundreds of papers. I'm happy with blind reviews.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
That you're struck that this is someone who "doesn't hire faculty members" is exactly the best thing. The academy is so corrupt it should be "shattered into a million pieces and scattered into the wind". H Index ego, P hacking, lazy lies because "no one tries to reproduce", citation cartels, institutionalized systemic academic dishonesty/plagiarism at the highest levels (presidents of top universities and likely their underlings), "reviewer #2", etc. It's all bunk, and most of it is designed to take bright-eyed Ph.D's and grind their soul to bits before they can realize that they can both out-earn and out-produce (in an objective sense) most of their professors by simply leaving the academy. Being ineligible for tenure should be a badge of honor, as the whole system should be abolished and the world would be far better for it - particularly, science would advance far faster. Far more of HN needs to read Paul Feyerabend and actually internalize what "epistemological anarchism" means. The academy does not hold any particularly valid claim to being closer to observing "objective truth" than anyone else. The allegory of the cave/divided line (the primary justifications for a lot of academic wankery) was one of the original lies made by a nascent and authoritarian philosopher class. We should have abandoned these ideas long ago. Oh, and if you leave the STEM fields, the academy goes into full on "charlatan" mode. I go into most social sciences and find a wasteland of footnotes on Foucault and Lacan. That Situationalist International was so successful that the academy is still choked by an obsession with french fashionable nonsense is an indictment of the whole of the academy in the west. It's all intellectually bankrupt.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
godelski 2y ago
You sound like review 2: speaks from authority and gives criticism with little substance. > You're already familiar with most of them In what way? Their prestige? If I went about outsourcing my opinions of people to others I'd hold many criminals and objectional people in high regard while also looking down at many great men. Even if this works 80% of the time you trust *but verify*. Have some actual confidence in yourself. Stop outsourcing your intellectualism. > I've served on several program committees Then maybe stop complaining and start critiquing. You speak with an air of authority and that we should trust you but give no actual reason why. Use your experience and expertise to educate us. Don't just say I'm wrong, say why I'm wrong. Convince me you're right not through ethos, but logos. This is what everyone hates about review 2. Don't become him. I believe you've also missed the substance of what I originally suggested. You're so caught up in the standard way you injected it into my comment without even noticing. You forgot the point all of this. It to climb the ladder of academia, get grants, and all that. It is about advancing science and moving humanity forward. The way to measure this isn't meaningful at our disposal. You can't measure this by citations or indices, by publications or venues. Again, they can be a signal (I'm not saying to throw out the baby with the bath water), but I don't believe you're naive enough to not be aware of how frequent progress is made by those who fail on those measures, how frequent it comes from a dark horse. This should be enough to suggest that there's more to it than what we usually consider. Academia has always been about challenging the status quo, even if it is just to verify. The problem with academia is it's created to give refuge to those who want to spend their lives dreaming but has become so structured you can only dream a certain way. I get why. It's hard to differentiate useless pipe dreams from those that push us forward. But in creating the structure to prevent people from taking a free ride you created the monster you tried to stop. Only now it has more power. So don't just wave your hands dismissing, elaborate. Be academic not arrogant.
- JohnKemeny 2y ago
  >> You're already familiar with most of them > In what way? Their prestige? In the sense that I've read most of their papers, I've even reviewed several of them. I've literally just handed in a report for an expert committee to hire a new faculty member, and I had read papers from all applicants that were relevant and reviewed for more than half of them. >> I've served on several program committees > Then maybe stop complaining and start critiquing. I'm not complaining about anything. I just tried to lay out my point of view. And yes, I'm aware of the painful measures that citations and impact factors are, but, like any other HN reader, I'm aware of Goodhart's law. My point is that we're (I'm) not using citations or publication points to rank researchers. We know them.
almostgotcaught 2y ago
> I'm happy with blind reviews. Of course you're happy as the reviewer. I would be too if I could criticize completely anonymously and have it counted. Me as the reviewee? Not so much. I always thought it was funny: in the US, it's a fundamental right that you should not be criticized anonymously (6th amendment). Ostensibly this is to prevent laundered dictatorial rule. And in academia it's the norm lol. Makes you wonder doesn't it.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > Of course you're happy as the reviewer. I would be too if I could criticize completely anonymously and have it counted. Me as the reviewee? Not so much. I would support double blind reviews in both roles. I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate a manuscript on the authors line up. I think it’s irrelevant and encourages arse-kissing to get big names on papers and reviewers that are too deferential or combative just because of their personal history with one of the authors. I don’t think it is healthy or productive, even when I am one of the authors. What is your perspective, why would you not like it?
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. > What is your perspective, why would you not like it? Authors should be hidden from reviewers. Reviewers should be made known to authors. Why? When some reviewer dings me because he/she doesn't understand a fundamental concept, or some technical detail, or because I didn't cite their work, I should be able to have some/any recourse. Right now these people are completely shielded by anonymity.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      > Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. Jurors are anonymous when it’s needed, for the same reasons voting is secret: to avoid coercion, blackmail, and retribution. We should want to keep reviewers anonymous for the same reasons. Prosecutors and judges are not, of course. And I don’t need to ask myself, all of this is obvious. > Authors should be hidden from reviewers. So we…half agree? As I said, think it would be much healthier to have double blind reviews, because what’s being reviewed is the work and not the authors. > Why? When some reviewer dings me because he/she doesn't understand a fundamental concept, or some technical detail, or because I didn't cite their work, I should be able to have some/any recourse. Right now these people are completely shielded by anonymity. And for good reasons. When I reviewed a paper from a big lab as a post-doc, it would have been impossible to do it properly if I had to fear the professor’s retaliation. Anonymity is a shield to avoid direct confrontation. Rogue or stubborn reviewers are why we need more than one of them and editor discretion. The editors are not stupid, they know these patterns.
fraserphysics 2y ago
I too have served on faculty search committees and reviewed scores of papers. Many members of the committees only counted publications. I read some papers and commented on them without much effect.
beedeebeedee 2y ago
> If you're hiring in your own field (which you should), you don't have to read the papers. You're already familiar with most of them, and judging by the venue their published in, you also know their "level", so to speak. You're judging by reputation rather than substance. That opens up the possibility of manipulating reputation to achieve career goals instead of doing the hard work.
- Ar-Curunir 2y ago
  Unsurprisingly, in the vast majority of cases, substance and reputation tend to be at least loosely correlated, at least in academia. There are high-profile exceptions, but they are only high-profile because they are indeed exceptional.
  - beedeebeedee 2y ago
    Perhaps, but it not only deviates from the practice of science but creates the very conditions that science has been developed to overcome- i.e., social status is accepted as the driver of research rather than the pursuit of knowledge. It might be considered ok for financial institutions to make decisions on who to fund or partner with based on status signals, but it is galling to think that is how our scientific institutions work. That practice seems as scientific as scientology.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > You're judging by reputation rather than substance. Is there an alternative, though? When hiring someone we use their degrees, experience and credentials, all of which are indirect ways of estimating competence. We cannot realistically expect people to know all about someone’s career when interviewing them, it’s not realistic. It’s the same thing for careers evolution. HR people don’t have time or skills to know about the science, and good scientists already spend way too much time reviewing articles or grant proposals, and sitting in various boards and panels. There is no need for more administrative work. I don’t think the current systems are ideal, but I think improving it would by fixing incentives would be more efficient (and that’s not only for scientists, it’s the same for any major organisation or company).

Der_Einzige 2y ago

That you're struck that this is someone who "doesn't hire faculty members" is exactly the best thing. The academy is so corrupt it should be "shattered into a million pieces and scattered into the wind". H Index ego, P hacking, lazy lies because "no one tries to reproduce", citation cartels, institutionalized systemic academic dishonesty/plagiarism at the highest levels (presidents of top universities and likely their underlings), "reviewer #2", etc. It's all bunk, and most of it is designed to take bright-eyed Ph.D's and grind their soul to bits before they can realize that they can both out-earn and out-produce (in an objective sense) most of their professors by simply leaving the academy. Being ineligible for tenure should be a badge of honor, as the whole system should be abolished and the world would be far better for it - particularly, science would advance far faster. Far more of HN needs to read Paul Feyerabend and actually internalize what "epistemological anarchism" means. The academy does not hold any particularly valid claim to being closer to observing "objective truth" than anyone else. The allegory of the cave/divided line (the primary justifications for a lot of academic wankery) was one of the original lies made by a nascent and authoritarian philosopher class. We should have abandoned these ideas long ago. Oh, and if you leave the STEM fields, the academy goes into full on "charlatan" mode. I go into most social sciences and find a wasteland of footnotes on Foucault and Lacan. That Situationalist International was so successful that the academy is still choked by an obsession with french fashionable nonsense is an indictment of the whole of the academy in the west. It's all intellectually bankrupt.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

godelski 2y ago

You sound like review 2: speaks from authority and gives criticism with little substance. > You're already familiar with most of them In what way? Their prestige? If I went about outsourcing my opinions of people to others I'd hold many criminals and objectional people in high regard while also looking down at many great men. Even if this works 80% of the time you trust *but verify*. Have some actual confidence in yourself. Stop outsourcing your intellectualism. > I've served on several program committees Then maybe stop complaining and start critiquing. You speak with an air of authority and that we should trust you but give no actual reason why. Use your experience and expertise to educate us. Don't just say I'm wrong, say why I'm wrong. Convince me you're right not through ethos, but logos. This is what everyone hates about review 2. Don't become him. I believe you've also missed the substance of what I originally suggested. You're so caught up in the standard way you injected it into my comment without even noticing. You forgot the point all of this. It to climb the ladder of academia, get grants, and all that. It is about advancing science and moving humanity forward. The way to measure this isn't meaningful at our disposal. You can't measure this by citations or indices, by publications or venues. Again, they can be a signal (I'm not saying to throw out the baby with the bath water), but I don't believe you're naive enough to not be aware of how frequent progress is made by those who fail on those measures, how frequent it comes from a dark horse. This should be enough to suggest that there's more to it than what we usually consider. Academia has always been about challenging the status quo, even if it is just to verify. The problem with academia is it's created to give refuge to those who want to spend their lives dreaming but has become so structured you can only dream a certain way. I get why. It's hard to differentiate useless pipe dreams from those that push us forward. But in creating the structure to prevent people from taking a free ride you created the monster you tried to stop. Only now it has more power. So don't just wave your hands dismissing, elaborate. Be academic not arrogant.

JohnKemeny 2y ago
>> You're already familiar with most of them > In what way? Their prestige? In the sense that I've read most of their papers, I've even reviewed several of them. I've literally just handed in a report for an expert committee to hire a new faculty member, and I had read papers from all applicants that were relevant and reviewed for more than half of them. >> I've served on several program committees > Then maybe stop complaining and start critiquing. I'm not complaining about anything. I just tried to lay out my point of view. And yes, I'm aware of the painful measures that citations and impact factors are, but, like any other HN reader, I'm aware of Goodhart's law. My point is that we're (I'm) not using citations or publication points to rank researchers. We know them.

almostgotcaught 2y ago

> I'm happy with blind reviews. Of course you're happy as the reviewer. I would be too if I could criticize completely anonymously and have it counted. Me as the reviewee? Not so much. I always thought it was funny: in the US, it's a fundamental right that you should not be criticized anonymously (6th amendment). Ostensibly this is to prevent laundered dictatorial rule. And in academia it's the norm lol. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

kergonath 2y ago
> Of course you're happy as the reviewer. I would be too if I could criticize completely anonymously and have it counted. Me as the reviewee? Not so much. I would support double blind reviews in both roles. I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate a manuscript on the authors line up. I think it’s irrelevant and encourages arse-kissing to get big names on papers and reviewers that are too deferential or combative just because of their personal history with one of the authors. I don’t think it is healthy or productive, even when I am one of the authors. What is your perspective, why would you not like it?
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. > What is your perspective, why would you not like it? Authors should be hidden from reviewers. Reviewers should be made known to authors. Why? When some reviewer dings me because he/she doesn't understand a fundamental concept, or some technical detail, or because I didn't cite their work, I should be able to have some/any recourse. Right now these people are completely shielded by anonymity.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > Ask yourself why juries and prosecutors and judges and police are not anonymous but voting is. Jurors are anonymous when it’s needed, for the same reasons voting is secret: to avoid coercion, blackmail, and retribution. We should want to keep reviewers anonymous for the same reasons. Prosecutors and judges are not, of course. And I don’t need to ask myself, all of this is obvious. > Authors should be hidden from reviewers. So we…half agree? As I said, think it would be much healthier to have double blind reviews, because what’s being reviewed is the work and not the authors. > Why? When some reviewer dings me because he/she doesn't understand a fundamental concept, or some technical detail, or because I didn't cite their work, I should be able to have some/any recourse. Right now these people are completely shielded by anonymity. And for good reasons. When I reviewed a paper from a big lab as a post-doc, it would have been impossible to do it properly if I had to fear the professor’s retaliation. Anonymity is a shield to avoid direct confrontation. Rogue or stubborn reviewers are why we need more than one of them and editor discretion. The editors are not stupid, they know these patterns.

fraserphysics 2y ago

I too have served on faculty search committees and reviewed scores of papers. Many members of the committees only counted publications. I read some papers and commented on them without much effect.

beedeebeedee 2y ago

> If you're hiring in your own field (which you should), you don't have to read the papers. You're already familiar with most of them, and judging by the venue their published in, you also know their "level", so to speak. You're judging by reputation rather than substance. That opens up the possibility of manipulating reputation to achieve career goals instead of doing the hard work.

Ar-Curunir 2y ago
Unsurprisingly, in the vast majority of cases, substance and reputation tend to be at least loosely correlated, at least in academia. There are high-profile exceptions, but they are only high-profile because they are indeed exceptional.
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  Perhaps, but it not only deviates from the practice of science but creates the very conditions that science has been developed to overcome- i.e., social status is accepted as the driver of research rather than the pursuit of knowledge. It might be considered ok for financial institutions to make decisions on who to fund or partner with based on status signals, but it is galling to think that is how our scientific institutions work. That practice seems as scientific as scientology.
kergonath 2y ago
> You're judging by reputation rather than substance. Is there an alternative, though? When hiring someone we use their degrees, experience and credentials, all of which are indirect ways of estimating competence. We cannot realistically expect people to know all about someone’s career when interviewing them, it’s not realistic. It’s the same thing for careers evolution. HR people don’t have time or skills to know about the science, and good scientists already spend way too much time reviewing articles or grant proposals, and sitting in various boards and panels. There is no need for more administrative work. I don’t think the current systems are ideal, but I think improving it would by fixing incentives would be more efficient (and that’s not only for scientists, it’s the same for any major organisation or company).