3 ms·

Sadly with 15 years in the academia spent in three different fields of science (at multiple universities in roles that support dozens of researchers) - I found

Sadly with 15 years in the academia spent in three different fields of science (at multiple universities in roles that support dozens of researchers) - I found it to be the norm. Time and again I am surprised just how bad it is and that with time it is getting worse, more people are writing more and more research papers that are worse than ever before. It is a race with very strange incentives this is the world where a Nature paper makes your career but publishing nonsense has no negative effect (in fact there is a positive one, you now have more publications padding your resume). You have to go out of your way like manufacture data and get caught to experience any negative consequence. Doing sloppy work is the norm. I wish it weren't true and it could be that the problem is my perception. As for the comparison with the industry: you can always go and try to work for a different company that does things your way, but guess what, science is all the same. You'll get the same reviewers, same grant application process, same publication process, same ranking methods no matter where you work etc. You are stuck with the system and you can't reform it.

_delirium 13y ago
On the latter point, I haven't found that to be the case in CS. Sub-fields of CS work completely differently. Some are entirely based around journals, some conferences, some a hybrid. Some are very large, some small. Some are based mainly on theoretical work, others mainly empirical. The empirical ones differ completely on what empirical work looks like: does it mean systems and data, does it mean field work, does it mean psych-style user studies, does it mean longitudinal case studies? Some subfields value big budgets, big systems, and big data, others value mathematics, algorithms, and proofs. European, Asian, Australian, and US institutions also differ considerably inside each of those subfields.

_delirium 13y ago

On the latter point, I haven't found that to be the case in CS. Sub-fields of CS work completely differently. Some are entirely based around journals, some conferences, some a hybrid. Some are very large, some small. Some are based mainly on theoretical work, others mainly empirical. The empirical ones differ completely on what empirical work looks like: does it mean systems and data, does it mean field work, does it mean psych-style user studies, does it mean longitudinal case studies? Some subfields value big budgets, big systems, and big data, others value mathematics, algorithms, and proofs. European, Asian, Australian, and US institutions also differ considerably inside each of those subfields.