7 ms·

holy moly. It sounds like you don't want to release your code because someone else might find a bug that you missed (and that might have a "deleterious" effect

by plg 14y ago

holy moly. It sounds like you don't want to release your code because someone else might find a bug that you missed (and that might have a "deleterious" effect on your journal articles). You would rather leave potentially incorrect work standing than have a bug corrected? What the f*ck has happened to science.

dantheman 14y ago
Yeah, this is what make me fed up with academia -- it's no longer really about the work. I like Feynman's quote "It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated." [1] [1] http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html
nagrom 14y ago
What the fuck has happened to science. This is fairly standard in the science industry (I use the term deliberately). I get rated (in nuclear and particle physics) on how many papers I've published, what indictions of recognition I get from my peers and at which conferences I've been invited to speak. Short of something like a Millennium Prize or a Nobel (one-in-a-million, and both still very political), there are almost no direct rewards to accuracy or importance. Academics tend not to be the people with the most understanding or the best direct insight - they're the people with the most friends on committees and who do the most fashionable things (usually badly). And so they appoint new academics who are a little bit worse than them (no point in opening yourself to competition - instead bring in people who are going to be grateful to you!) and the cycle continues.
- michaelbarton 14y ago
  I strongly agree with your statement. I am the author of the original post. I removed a sentence stating that job search committees care about the number of publications and citations more than they do about if your software is well documented and has a good command line interface. I feel as a post doc I am in a vulnerable career position and I always have to think about how 'will this lead to a publication' before anything else.
  - plg 14y ago
    I can identify with that... for better or for worse, the currency of academic (at least research-based academia in north america) today is publications in high impact peer-reviewed journals. Period. If there are exceptions they are exceedingly rare. The most sickening part of it all is that who are the ones who perpetuate this system? It is us (other academics).
    - michaelbarton 14y ago
      Exactly. There are more and more scientists entering the job market every year making funding more and more competitive. I feel like it's not enough to be good anymore you have to be really good to get funding. What can we do to change it? I love research. Having almost 10 years of experience but still earning less than if I had gone straight into industry after a masters degree wears you down though. I think ultimately it is because scientists add little of value to society in the short term. An MD who has a comparable number of years of education can expect to earn 10X that of an equivalent scientist because they value immediately.
- mgillett 14y ago
  This is what turns me off so much from academia. Is this really that typical at most universities? I know that there's always been a large emphasis placed on publishing in high-impact journals (and often), but isn't the open publishing movement beginning to have an effect, albiet rather small?
  - nagrom 14y ago
    Not that I have seen. In fact, in my experience, even publications are not all that important! In the UK and Germany both it seems to be 30% of what you know, 60% of who you know and 10% luck.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
eswangren 14y ago
Agreed. OP, what is your goal here; to be a scientist, or just play one on TV? If your software is potentially producing the wrong result because of a bug then, well... it's a good thing that was found, no?
Xcelerate 14y ago
Whoa, hold on there! No need to swear. > It sounds like you don't want to release your code because someone else might find a bug that you missed I already said at the end of my post that I decided to release my code. Everyone will be able to see it. > You would rather leave potentially incorrect work standing than have a bug corrected? Of course not. You missed the whole point of my post. My point was "Here's a situation in science that needs fixing". "People are hesitant to fix it because...". "I'm going to personally work towards a solution." Let me ask: what incentive does any scientist have at all to publish their code? You're not going to make money off of it. It's in an obscure niche so you're not going to be world-famous with it. You may get citations to your work, but you're just making yourself vulnerable to having your reputation destroyed because of a bug that nullified all of your articles' results. This is why nobody wants to do it. I'm not saying it's right; I'm saying that it's the status quo. Most big scientific packages are funded by the DOE, NSF, and others. That's likely the only reason they are even out there.
- plg 14y ago
  "What incentive does any scientist have at all to publish their code?" holy moly x 2 How about that it represents a fuller account of what you did and how you did it? (bugs or no bugs). Isn't scientific publishing supposed to be about reporting what you did as accurately as possible so that others can (1) understand and (2) replicate? BTW the * in my f*ck from above stands for "ra", what did you think it stood for?
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    Alright, I'm going to play devil's advocate since you're obviously not getting the point. > How about that it represents a fuller account of what you did and how you did it? So what? Journals never require your code to be submitted. It's not going to increase your article's chance of acceptance. And nobody asks for your code anyway. Why should I publish it if it's not going to bring me any benefits? > Isn't scientific publishing supposed to be about reporting what you did as accurately as possible so that others can (1) understand and (2) replicate? In an idealized world, yes. But nobody else does it so why should I?

by plg 14y ago

dantheman 14y ago

Yeah, this is what make me fed up with academia -- it's no longer really about the work. I like Feynman's quote "It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated." [1] [1] http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

nagrom 14y ago

What the fuck has happened to science. This is fairly standard in the science industry (I use the term deliberately). I get rated (in nuclear and particle physics) on how many papers I've published, what indictions of recognition I get from my peers and at which conferences I've been invited to speak. Short of something like a Millennium Prize or a Nobel (one-in-a-million, and both still very political), there are almost no direct rewards to accuracy or importance. Academics tend not to be the people with the most understanding or the best direct insight - they're the people with the most friends on committees and who do the most fashionable things (usually badly). And so they appoint new academics who are a little bit worse than them (no point in opening yourself to competition - instead bring in people who are going to be grateful to you!) and the cycle continues.

michaelbarton 14y ago
I strongly agree with your statement. I am the author of the original post. I removed a sentence stating that job search committees care about the number of publications and citations more than they do about if your software is well documented and has a good command line interface. I feel as a post doc I am in a vulnerable career position and I always have to think about how 'will this lead to a publication' before anything else.
- plg 14y ago
  I can identify with that... for better or for worse, the currency of academic (at least research-based academia in north america) today is publications in high impact peer-reviewed journals. Period. If there are exceptions they are exceedingly rare. The most sickening part of it all is that who are the ones who perpetuate this system? It is us (other academics).
  - michaelbarton 14y ago
    Exactly. There are more and more scientists entering the job market every year making funding more and more competitive. I feel like it's not enough to be good anymore you have to be really good to get funding. What can we do to change it? I love research. Having almost 10 years of experience but still earning less than if I had gone straight into industry after a masters degree wears you down though. I think ultimately it is because scientists add little of value to society in the short term. An MD who has a comparable number of years of education can expect to earn 10X that of an equivalent scientist because they value immediately.
mgillett 14y ago
This is what turns me off so much from academia. Is this really that typical at most universities? I know that there's always been a large emphasis placed on publishing in high-impact journals (and often), but isn't the open publishing movement beginning to have an effect, albiet rather small?
- nagrom 14y ago
  Not that I have seen. In fact, in my experience, even publications are not all that important! In the UK and Germany both it seems to be 30% of what you know, 60% of who you know and 10% luck.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

eswangren 14y ago

Agreed. OP, what is your goal here; to be a scientist, or just play one on TV? If your software is potentially producing the wrong result because of a bug then, well... it's a good thing that was found, no?

Xcelerate 14y ago

Whoa, hold on there! No need to swear. > It sounds like you don't want to release your code because someone else might find a bug that you missed I already said at the end of my post that I decided to release my code. Everyone will be able to see it. > You would rather leave potentially incorrect work standing than have a bug corrected? Of course not. You missed the whole point of my post. My point was "Here's a situation in science that needs fixing". "People are hesitant to fix it because...". "I'm going to personally work towards a solution." Let me ask: what incentive does any scientist have at all to publish their code? You're not going to make money off of it. It's in an obscure niche so you're not going to be world-famous with it. You may get citations to your work, but you're just making yourself vulnerable to having your reputation destroyed because of a bug that nullified all of your articles' results. This is why nobody wants to do it. I'm not saying it's right; I'm saying that it's the status quo. Most big scientific packages are funded by the DOE, NSF, and others. That's likely the only reason they are even out there.

plg 14y ago
"What incentive does any scientist have at all to publish their code?" holy moly x 2 How about that it represents a fuller account of what you did and how you did it? (bugs or no bugs). Isn't scientific publishing supposed to be about reporting what you did as accurately as possible so that others can (1) understand and (2) replicate? BTW the * in my f*ck from above stands for "ra", what did you think it stood for?
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  Alright, I'm going to play devil's advocate since you're obviously not getting the point. > How about that it represents a fuller account of what you did and how you did it? So what? Journals never require your code to be submitted. It's not going to increase your article's chance of acceptance. And nobody asks for your code anyway. Why should I publish it if it's not going to bring me any benefits? > Isn't scientific publishing supposed to be about reporting what you did as accurately as possible so that others can (1) understand and (2) replicate? In an idealized world, yes. But nobody else does it so why should I?