4 ms·
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 pub
by 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 agoI 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 agoExactly. 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.