5 ms·

Because that's not how you get funded. Your funding/tenure, etc are related to where you publish, how often you publish, etc. It's a systemic issue, a system

by bbgm 17y ago

Because that's not how you get funded. Your funding/tenure, etc are related to where you publish, how often you publish, etc. It's a systemic issue, a system designed for a different era which just does not translate to today's science

azanar 17y ago
The system needs to be redesigned, yet there is very little catalyst for it to be redesigned. People are still more motivated to turn their interests inward, to things like funding, publication lists, tenure, etc. The system is designed to reward those who selfishly work to maintain the status quo. This isn't me passing judgement on these people, just a realization that they are only doing what provides them with the greatest incentives. In a similar situation, I might do the same. But it is also a realization that this isn't just a shallow local minimum. The lifestyle and security of many researcher are tightly coupled to getting funding out of this system, and thus is tightly coupled to following the rules of the system. Either some external force is going to have to shove this system aside, or the members of the community are going to have to collectively accept the pain of a governing body seeing the writing on the wall and attempting to regain control. With the system as entrenched as this, it would have to be a coup of epic proportions to unseat it. The only other option I can see is this system remaining in perpetuity. I noted above that being in a similar position, I'd probably work this system the same way most everyone else does. I might provide the usual excuses as well: family, food, survival, lifestyle, etc. I don't know, because normally it takes a person being put under considerable pressure before they decide what is truly valuable to them, and to what degree they are willing to sacrifice one goal for another. I took a third option while going through my undergraduate years; I decided to not even get involved. I am not saying this as a sanctimonious thumbing-of-my-nose at those who did; these people have my respect for being able to work around the flaws and not be driven mad by them. The allure of being able to work on interesting problems with smart people tempted me toward working to get involved in research, but the glimpses I caught of the politics, mechanisms and incentives chased me away. My significant other at the time was involved in a research effort in computer vision, and the amount of inanity she tolerated, and even in some cases manufactured, killed the desire for me. Since then, I've been told by a number of people I have the mind and personality for research work. Even if that were true, I know I don't have the personality for all the bullshit that comes with it. My philosophy on this is the same that jwz suggests for people thinking of working at a public company: "sometimes the only way to win is not to play."
JulianMorrison 17y ago
So in my proposed system "publish" maps exactly to "get linked by this or that prestigious review panel". Everyone who replied me seems to have missed that. Basically, review panels become journals turned inside out. They don't host the content, but they do certify it.
- bentoner 17y ago
  But is there really a difference then? Hosting the content is a tiny proportion of the work involved in running a journal. If you're going to go through all the effort required to peer-review and certify work, why wouldn't you also throw up a website and collect the papers you certify?
  - JulianMorrison 17y ago
    A larger part is deciding what not to host, given the crazy old-fashioned notion that journals ought also to have dead-tree versions, and therefore each paper costs them quite a lot for a small print run. Why would actual science come in neat magazine-sized packets? It's obvious they must be normalizing the signal, either by floating the cutoff or just picking until the slots are full and trashing the rest. A review panel that doesn't have to pay some company to stamp ink onto wood pulp can afford to link as many, or as few good papers as arrive. And, they can afford to do this asynchronously, as soon as they arrive.
- bbgm 17y ago
  That is kind of what the Faculty of 1000 does today. Essentially picks papers regardless of source that they feel is significant. Perhaps in the future that will be the role of Science, Nature, etc with papers getting published all over the place. Of course, the whole peer review process needs an upgrade too, although I don't know if peer review as a concept is going away (nor should it)

by bbgm 17y ago

azanar 17y ago

The system needs to be redesigned, yet there is very little catalyst for it to be redesigned. People are still more motivated to turn their interests inward, to things like funding, publication lists, tenure, etc. The system is designed to reward those who selfishly work to maintain the status quo. This isn't me passing judgement on these people, just a realization that they are only doing what provides them with the greatest incentives. In a similar situation, I might do the same. But it is also a realization that this isn't just a shallow local minimum. The lifestyle and security of many researcher are tightly coupled to getting funding out of this system, and thus is tightly coupled to following the rules of the system. Either some external force is going to have to shove this system aside, or the members of the community are going to have to collectively accept the pain of a governing body seeing the writing on the wall and attempting to regain control. With the system as entrenched as this, it would have to be a coup of epic proportions to unseat it. The only other option I can see is this system remaining in perpetuity. I noted above that being in a similar position, I'd probably work this system the same way most everyone else does. I might provide the usual excuses as well: family, food, survival, lifestyle, etc. I don't know, because normally it takes a person being put under considerable pressure before they decide what is truly valuable to them, and to what degree they are willing to sacrifice one goal for another. I took a third option while going through my undergraduate years; I decided to not even get involved. I am not saying this as a sanctimonious thumbing-of-my-nose at those who did; these people have my respect for being able to work around the flaws and not be driven mad by them. The allure of being able to work on interesting problems with smart people tempted me toward working to get involved in research, but the glimpses I caught of the politics, mechanisms and incentives chased me away. My significant other at the time was involved in a research effort in computer vision, and the amount of inanity she tolerated, and even in some cases manufactured, killed the desire for me. Since then, I've been told by a number of people I have the mind and personality for research work. Even if that were true, I know I don't have the personality for all the bullshit that comes with it. My philosophy on this is the same that jwz suggests for people thinking of working at a public company: "sometimes the only way to win is not to play."

JulianMorrison 17y ago

So in my proposed system "publish" maps exactly to "get linked by this or that prestigious review panel". Everyone who replied me seems to have missed that. Basically, review panels become journals turned inside out. They don't host the content, but they do certify it.

bentoner 17y ago
But is there really a difference then? Hosting the content is a tiny proportion of the work involved in running a journal. If you're going to go through all the effort required to peer-review and certify work, why wouldn't you also throw up a website and collect the papers you certify?
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  A larger part is deciding what not to host, given the crazy old-fashioned notion that journals ought also to have dead-tree versions, and therefore each paper costs them quite a lot for a small print run. Why would actual science come in neat magazine-sized packets? It's obvious they must be normalizing the signal, either by floating the cutoff or just picking until the slots are full and trashing the rest. A review panel that doesn't have to pay some company to stamp ink onto wood pulp can afford to link as many, or as few good papers as arrive. And, they can afford to do this asynchronously, as soon as they arrive.
bbgm 17y ago
That is kind of what the Faculty of 1000 does today. Essentially picks papers regardless of source that they feel is significant. Perhaps in the future that will be the role of Science, Nature, etc with papers getting published all over the place. Of course, the whole peer review process needs an upgrade too, although I don't know if peer review as a concept is going away (nor should it)