Elite Group of Researchers Rule Scientific Publishing 123
sciencehabit writes Publishing is one of the most ballyhooed metrics of scientific careers, and every researcher hates to have a gap in that part of his or her CV. Here's some consolation: A new study finds that very few scientists—fewer than 1%—manage to publish a paper every year. But these 150,608 scientists dominate the research journals, having their names on 41% of all papers. Among the most highly cited work, this elite group can be found among the co-authors of 87% of papers. Students, meanwhile, may spend years on research that yields only one or a few papers. "[I]n these cases, the research system may be exploiting the work of millions of young scientists," the authors conclude.
Re:What the fuck are they supposed to do? (Score:4, Funny)
What's the problem with being good at what you do? So there are 1% of researchers who are really fucking good at what they do. They aren't just good, they are REALLY FUCKING GOOD. They are top 1% good. They are THE BEST IN THE WORLD. So why should we be surprised that they have such an impact?
They are getting 99% of the academic tail, too.
Re:What the fuck are they supposed to do? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What the fuck are they supposed to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's almost literally impossible for someone to actually put in all of the work required to publish hundreds of papers during their career. A paper might typically take six months of gruelling, full-time work. Instead of actually doing the work, what a lot of scientists do is they bring in a lot of students and act as project supervisors, as it says in the article: "Many of these prolific scientists are likely the heads of laboratories or research groups; they bring in funding, supervise research, and add their names to the numerous papers that result." In other words, they drop in for maybe half an hour every two weeks or so to get an 'update' (without really understanding anything), throw around some bs pieces of 'advice' (which everyone ignores) and then leave.
Re:What the fuck are they supposed to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
...what a lot of scientists do is they bring in a lot of students and act as project supervisors, as it says in the article: "Many of these prolific scientists are likely the heads of laboratories or research groups; they bring in funding, supervise research, and add their names to the numerous papers that result."..
But bringing in funding is in fact the bulk of the 'scientific' work. To bring in funding you must have a good research idea, a detailed research plan, the political nous to persuade others that it is worth spending money on, and then the management ability to make sure your ideas are followed through by the post-docs and students that you recruit to follow the plan. Of course you should get your name on the resulting publication.
Re: (Score:2)
Funding is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for research to take place. It's only the first step.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew at least one professor when I was in graduate school that brought in plenty of money without any of the requirements you stated above.
It's possible that the 1% the article references are extremely brilliant and deserved to be named on that many papers. I would be willing to bet that a significant fraction of that 1% are not and are just putting their names on their students papers due to tradition, hubris, or both.
Probably not any more. Funding is now far more competative and funders want to see much more evidence of value for money than they did even a few years ago.
Not that simple (Score:3)
Also hard to distinguish the ones who do what they are supposed to do (show their grad students how to write and submit papers, introduce them to other leaders) from the ones who take credit and then dump
Re:Just an opinion... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and a negative one at that.
Could it ever possibly be that these scientists who "dominate" the scientific publishing are actually worthy of such a thing?
Indeed. And besides, compared to the star system in Hollywood, for example, this is downright democratic.
The intellectual penury that comes with serving with a leader in a given field seems to be gladly endured by most young researchers. This story ignores the fact that, although the senior researcher's name may be at the top of the paper, the junior researcher's name is right there below it.
It's a bit like an actor accepting a lesser credit in order to appear in a bigger film.
Re:Just an opinion... (Score:5, Interesting)
The intellectual penury that comes with serving with a leader in a given field seems to be gladly endured by most young researchers. This story ignores the fact that, although the senior researcher's name may be at the top of the paper, the junior researcher's name is right there below it.
Actually, in many of the sciences (mathematics and parts of physics are notable exceptions, where authors tend to be listed alphabetically) it is usually the graduate student or postdoc who did most of the work who is the first author on the paper. The senior researcher - a principal investigator who actually has the academic appointment, who may have secured the funding, and who is ultimately responsible for the lab - is generally listed as the last author on the manuscript. ("Middle" authorship has the least cachet by far.)
Broadly speaking, young scientists and trainees want to accumulate as many first-author papers as possible, to demonstrate their scientific productivity. Faculty members - senior scientists - want to accumulate last-author papers, to demonstrate that their labs are productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Physics is the same: First and often 2nd author did 90% of the work, then comes people who contributed a little, and finally the supervisor/advisor.
However, some conference papers in my field (accelerator physics) have a different scheme of author sorting: First listed is the corresponding author, i.e. the person who actually wrote the paper and did most of the work. Then comes the rest of the people in his/her institution, listed alphabetically. Then comes the rest of the people, sorted first by institutio
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.phdcomics.com/comic... [phdcomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just an opinion... (Score:5, Informative)
Given how relatively time-consuming research is(and how negative results, however valid, tend to have difficulty moving papers), it would be...surprising... to hear that one percent of the scientists are co-authoring 41 percent of the papers on sheer productivity.
Actually, not so surprising, depending on how the analysis is done. And it also depends a lot on how you want to measure "sheer productivity". A supervisor who helps design the experiment, interpret the data, write the paper, and communicate with journal editors probably spends fewer hours than the trainee (grad student or postdoc) who actually does all the bench work--but that doesn't mean that the supervisor hasn't earned an authorship credit.
If Alice, Bob, Carol, Dave, and Elsa are all graduate students in Dr. Frink's lab, and each of those students publishes two papers over the course of their PhD programs, then all of those students are going to be authors on 2 papers each, and Frink will be an author on 10 papers. Dr. Frink is 1 out of 6 scientists - a bit less than 17% - but is on 100% of the papers. If you have a big lab in a relatively hot (or well-funded) field, then your name is going to be on a lot of papers.
And papers these days - especially the high-impact, widely-read, highly-cited papers - tend to have a longer list of authors. If you look at the table of contents [sciencemag.org] for the most recent issue of Science, the two Research Articles have 26 and 12 authors. Out of the dozen or so Reports, one has 4 authors, two have 5, all the rest have more. Speaking personally and anecdotally, my last three manuscripts (in the biomedical sciences) had 8, 3, and 7 authors.
Going back to "1% of scientists are on 45% of papers"--well, if those are all six-author papers, then that top 1% is only responsible for a 7.5% share (45 divided by 6) of the "output". Given that there is a very long tail of authors who only have 1, 2, or 3 authorships in their lifetime (the majority of PhD graduates never end up conducting research as university faculty; there just aren't enough jobs), I am willing to believe that there is a small fraction of productive, top scientists whose names are on a disproportionately large share of papers.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in CS, they are not. They often do not even recognize fraud and fabrications their name is on. These people hold scientific progress back by maintaining the status-quo and squashing anybody that has good ideas, lest they be recognized for the frauds they are. Yes, I have run into this repeatedly and I know what I am talking about. In one case, it was to blatant, that the remaining 3 "dominant" authors (first was the PhD student) even issues a paper basically admitting fraud, but only after their s
Re: When misbehavior isn't punished (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But exactly that is not what gets rewarded. What gets rewarded is reporting of positive results (real or faked does not matter). What a non-corrupt scientific community would do is that you can publish negative results just as well and with just as much prestige gained that positive ones. One reason why there is almost no progress anymore in CS research is that too many people waste their time trying things that others have failed at before but did not publish, because publishing negative results i
Re: (Score:2)
Very much so, I completely agree. That your posting is down-modded just demonstrates the point: These sorry excuses for human beings are everywhere these days. The incentives pretty much ensure that "publishing artists" get all the desirable academic positions, and actual researchers leave the system in disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
>You know, like smart and dedicated workers earning larger salaries.
this is a myth. intellegence and dedication never earned anyone a larger salary. finding a position that pays more does.
speaking of research scentists, did you know they make next to no
Re: (Score:3)
I just did some googling and it seems here in the UK a full time gabage collector would make about £12K per year (though it's paid hourly and in practice it may be difficult to find full time work).
I'm just about to start a postdoc position on just under £30K per year.
Kinda minimizes "consensus", doesn't it? (Score:1)
And since when does "consensus" mean anything in science?
Well, outside of subjects where it's heresy to even attempt to falsify any claims, anyway...
Re:Kinda minimizes "consensus", doesn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Consensus is something the vast majority (of experts in a field, in this case) agree on. For instance, there is consensus among biologists that the organisms of today evolved from organisms that existed in the past.
Falsifying claims is the worst thing a scientist can do. Once they're caught their career is over. That's why it's news when it happens but you never see a politician or CEO caught lying making the news since it happens all the time
This is a non-news article. Of course the top x% of anything are
Re: (Score:1)
Some economists at Harvard got busted publishing fake crap that support hokey rightwing anti-tax ideology and nothing happened, they just said "oops, gosh, we just made a mistake using Excel" and it blew over. The lamest part is it was published in a supposedly peer reviewed journal yet their fraud was only exposed by an undergrad a public university. I have a lot of respect for physical sciences but these "human sciences" like economics and psychology are full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Most likely "peer reviewers" only checked that the paper is consistent with "economics" (or whatever the specific "science" in question is). How often do the
Re: (Score:1)
All over the news [wikipedia.org]. The previous poster got some of the details wrong, but I can understand his anger even if this study was not peer-reviewed and thus not an ample representation of science.
Re: (Score:2)
This a misunderstanding of the the term "falsify". Unfortunately, there are two well-understood meanings [oxforddictionaries.com] for the word:
In the sciences, we use the second meaning of the word a lot. It is considered a good thing. We propose an idea, or make a claim, then find ways to test the idea/claim. A useful idea in science is
How about that. (Score:1)
.... “In many disciplines, doctoral students may be enrolled in high numbers, offering a cheap workforce,” ....
Well, yeah.
College is expensive. You need experience.
And in the US, I wonder how many are foreign who are stuck in those positions.
And a cheap workforce flies in the face of there being a shortage of scientists.
Re:result of the lab/funding system (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This is likely to also result in all sorts of politics being attached to getting funding. At best only a subset of possible research areas, which happen to be PC, will get funding. At worst getting the "wrong" results means it then becomes even more difficult to attract grants.
Such a situation can easily lead to "research" which is either poor, even pseudo, science. Since there can be
Re: (Score:2)
Reality here is, it is pretty much the same as wikipedia. You need to have sufficient spare time to be heavily involved in the peer review process. This in turn means you have sufficient spare time to write papers and of course sufficient support in the form of contributors, lowly paid ones in regards to science papers and of course free ones with regard to wikipedia. Getting to the top peer review and article contribution process requires a lot of effort, whether scientific or wikipedia and the social con
Re:result of the lab/funding system (Score:5, Interesting)
I would even argue that as long as the students who did most of the work have their name listed as first author, there is nothing wrong with this arrangement. I dropped out of my master's program after the first semester because I was being pushed to publish, but wasn't being plugged into any research existing programs. Every "unique" idea that I thought of turned out to have already been studied exhaustively back in the 70's or earlier. All the favorite students in the grad program were people who ignored this inconvientent fact and managed to get rehashed bullshit accepted into conferences.
Several years later I went back to school at a large state U that plugged me into the work they were doing, showed me what the state of the art was and where there were gaps that hadn't been researched in detail. Without building off the ideas of my advisor I would have never been able to do meaningfull research that progressed the state of the art, and would have had nothing worth publishing. He deserved to have his name on my papers.
Re:result of the lab/funding system (Score:4, Interesting)
Having a good supervisor is extremely important. The arrangement where your supervisor is a person who is knowledgable, up-to-date, and respected in their field, and draws on his years of experience to guide your through work and train you as a scientist, is the ideal on which the supervisor-student relationship is based on. A person like that more than deserves to have their name on the work you do while under their tutelage.
But going by what I've seen, such a relationship is, sadly, rare. A lot of students are victims of supervisors who either "don't care" or have been effectively outside their field of study for so long (with all the grant-writing) that they have simply no clue about research anymore. Your first experience seems to be the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Every "unique" idea that I thought of turned out to have already been studied exhaustively back in the 70's or earlier. All the favorite students in the grad program were people who ignored this inconvientent fact and managed to get rehashed bullshit accepted into conferences.
I suppose that's one way to accomplish the unglamorous task of checking, or refining, the work of earlier scientists.
not a funding issue (Score:3)
you talk as if the problem in TFA is a funding issue...
there needs to be more public funding of research for sure, and bigger budgets for state universities...yes all true
however, you're giving these professors in TFA a free pass and blameshifting
TFA is about **THE TOP PUBLISHERS** not just the highest PhD in each department...
to call this a funding issue is to miss the root cause: the professors themselves
it's out of control in academia...really it is become awful...narcissistic tenured prof's staying on 2
No sh*t (Score:4, Insightful)
Junior guys in [field] aren't as well known as senior guys and do most of the grunt work.
Film at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Or equivalently "Graduate students are being exploited."
Re: (Score:2)
That sound you heard is my point going over your head. (Hint: Being the lowest level grunt in a field is not "being exploited".)
flawed methodology (Score:5, Insightful)
There they found only 150,000 published every of those years.
Of course not all of those 15 million have been working in research for 16 years. Most graduate/PhD students are in research for 5 years and then they need to find another job.
Actually most people at my company were author or co-author of a paper at some point, and we only published because of some grants that required it.
So if you take out the people who really only have a couple of publications, or published for a small period of time, the picture will be completely different.
Take into account that you need people who's career actually span the 1996-2011 period (which filters out probably like 30% of people genuinely having a successfull academic career), and they actually paint a realistic picture of who the profs are or research leads.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a concept in your post that doesn't quite come across as clearly as it should:
People who are very successful academic scientists are only publishing for a few years, because they're able to go get significantly better jobs outside of academia.
The 1% of folks who are publishing for 16 years strait are very good at getting grants and publishing papers, but have failed during that 16 years to do anything sufficiently interesting or important to distract them from the academic grind for even one year.
How is this news? (Score:3)
I'm surprised the "dominating group" is that large. There aren't a ton of _senior_ scientist out there (i.e. professors or researchers with the funding for graduate students and postdocs), and those are the people whose names appear most frequently. A senior scientist will probably have been doing research for years, have lots of projects going on at once, have many students and postdocs, have a number of collaborators, and the senior scientist's name will go on every paper produced by that group (even if it's as a middle author -- which means next to nothing). New guys will often want to collaborate with the big names, which means the big names get on even more papers. If you're working on your own (i.e. you don't have the funding to hire others), then you won't publish as frequently.
What did you expect? Why is this an issue?
Sincerely,
A graduate student who has been working on a project for two years (and who should be working on a paper)
Giving credit to the bosses (Score:1)
Probably every student will have the name of their professor on their paper. And almost every researcher will have the name of their manager or even the name of the director of their research institute on their paper. At least this is how it was while I was working at a research institute. The bosses will almost every time end up getting named as co-authors on every publication.
On the other hand, the bosses will have to study and approve so many research papers that they will be short on time to write their
Re: (Score:2)
Probably every student will have the name of their professor on their paper. And almost every researcher will have the name of their manager or even the name of the director of their research institute on their paper. At least this is how it was while I was working at a research institute. The bosses will almost every time end up getting named as co-authors on every publication.
On the other hand, the bosses will have to study and approve so many research papers that they will be short on time to write their own papers. Getting named as co-author will be their consolation in return.
This may still happen, but I think it's gotten much rarer, and I've seen little or none of it. Most of the better journals frown heavily on it and some even require that you list who did what. For university research, the professor leading the project is usually last author. The student or post-doc who did all the work is first. Second (if not alphabetical) might go to someone who did a similar amount of work to #1, but didn't write the paper (or you might even see a footnote that "author 1 and author 2
Re: (Score:1)
I do not see it as a problem at all. I find it is rather a positive sign and one should focus less on the names on a paper, but more on the content of it. When the bosses are listed as co-authors then because there was a cooperation that benefited all. If bosses are being reduced to "admin" then this can be a sign of too little or no involvement into the research that is going on. So it is rather good to see it happening.
You get this kind of problem with many social networks. If this is a network of scienti
As a grad student, it is utterly depressing (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing that you could be putting in 70-80 hours a week, and potentially stumble across some major discovery (imagine: cure a kind of cancer discovery). That discovery would be published by your boss, who, adding to his life's work, would cumulatively take most of the public credit for the work. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter if you had some amazing insight or designed the actual experiment to solve the problem.
Look at Nobel laureates and their age and their contributions. How many nameless people enabled them to win that award?
All you can hope for is that you publish a couple papers in top journals that will enable to you to get a solid job in industry, or jump onto the tenure track treadmill, so that one day you can be in a position of exploiting others' work and creativity, potentially in a field completely unrelated to your PhD.
The young have no power to change, and the old have no reason to give up their advantageous position.
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing then that the old retire & die, and the young get old then, right?
That old geezer has been successful enough at writing the grant aplications,, hobnobbing an developing his or her reputation, thus securing the $ that pays for the lab and equipment you're using, etc. Might as well bitch about the univerity or organization you're working at taking a commercial interest in any patentable/commercializable ideas you may come up with from "your" hard work and research too.
Waaahh.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, no sense of history there.
No, the senior guys today did not have it as hard as the junior ones do now. Not even close. Most of the senior researchers today got their jobs during the education boom in the 80s-90s, back when it was normal for every PhD to end up with a job in academia. Now it's more like 1 in 10, and that's after a longer PhD, several postdocs and more pressure during the tenure track.
The old geezers do almost nothing to help research. They eat up grant money, stick their names on everyt
Re: As a grad student, it is utterly depressing (Score:1)
Who gave you the idea to work on? Who gave you advice and guidance on approach to work an experiments? Who commented on your write up? If this is all worthless, why go to grad school? Or are you just trying to collect a certificate to get a job?
Um, here's a glaring fact (Score:4, Insightful)
99% of review committees for conferences and editorial boards on journals are made up of that 1% of elite scientists. So the guys who decide which papers get published and which get crumpled and tossed into the bin are from the one who, by the way, do most of the publishing.
Having been in research for 15+ years, everyone knows that it's one big collusion of people promoting each other and excluding the rest. *Everyone* knows this. If a researcher pretends not to understand this or dismisses it then he's bullshitting you. Yes. It is depressing. Oh, and while I was actively publishing I was in the 1%...
Re: (Score:3)
Having been in research for 15+ years, everyone knows that it's one big collusion of people promoting each other and excluding the rest. *Everyone* knows this. If a researcher pretends not to understand this or dismisses it then he's bullshitting you.
Totally. That's why that Einstein guy never got to publish. Goddamn Newtonians had it out for him, and I don't have to tell you the kind of grip they have on the community!
Yes. It is depressing. Oh, and while I was actively publishing I was in the 1%...
Oh, wow, me too! I mostly wrote about Heisenberg flux matrix compensators. Weren't you the guy who kept publishing about the time cube?
Re: (Score:3)
Totally... BS. You're using a counterexample that is a complete outlier in every way. It's like saying dropping out of college is a good thing, look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs...
Academic publishing would be a much fairer process of reviews would be truly double blind, and if there were a severe penalty for breaking the rules. In the absence of that, people win Nobel prizes and will continue to do so. But that's because those people are outliers, not because the system is sane.
Re: (Score:1)
Academic publishing would be a much fairer process of reviews would be truly double blind, and if there were a severe penalty for breaking the rules. In the absence of that, people win Nobel prizes and will continue to do so. But that's because those people are outliers, not because the system is sane.
Outstanding papers for the most part will continue to be published. That's not the issue. The problem is that the overwhelming portion of submitted papers are not seminal papers, and it's these papers that are subjected to the defects in the review process, including the following:
(1) Not all reviewers are equally competent for their assigned papers.
(2) Not all reviewers are equally committed to spending the minimum amount of time needed for a thorough review. I have seen reviews submitted by well-known
Re: (Score:2)
Option 6: Submitted papers really aren't that good.
Especially in subjects with a lot of politicisation in the popular press, it is a common tactic for third-rate or worse researchers to go crying about the establishment suppressing their papers; a closer look often turns out that these papers are in fact very shoddy work.
Re: (Score:1)
It might not always be as bad as you might think (and the way gwstuff put it does leave some open to the imagination). I do not get the feeling that I am being actively discriminated against because of my name (although, having peer reviewers that I've personally met and clicked with would of course help). What I have noticed though, is that scientists react very strongly to criticism of their work, and I've had people try to suppress my publications essentially on the basis that we showed previous work to
Re: (Score:2)
Which can create a sort of positive feedback when it comes to citation. There will also be people who will take the amount of citations as being a measure of "quaility". Even when what they actually have is a "circular argument".
Then there's the issue of what happens if someone, especially an "outsider", discovers a problem with the origin
Re: (Score:1)
Goddamn Newtonians had it out for him, ...
Interesting that you should mention Newton. Depending who you believe, Robert Hooke wanted credit for Newton's work on gravitation. But then after Hooke died Newton became President of the Royal Society and got some revenge (on Hooke's reputation).
degrassi (Score:2)
Parasite elite (Score:2)
Elite scientists? In that 1% group we will find heads of labs that sign the papers of any of their underlying. They also file patents and have stocks in statups. This kind of "elite" is the parasite kind.
Now I find no way to find in publication data who are the really exceptional scientists. We would have to look at paper quality to tell that.
My experience (Score:4, Interesting)
This resonates with me (Score:2, Insightful)
I had a conversation about this with a guy at work 2 days before this article was posted. With the professor I had this was not the case, however some of the other professors at my school had this kind of attitude. Most professors\scientists write grants and spend most of their time doing that and the students do most of the work, as long as the students get credit on the paper for it and get paid (cash or stipend), it doesn't matter. If your a student and not getting paid, find something else to do. I have
Not surprising, but even this study is flawed. (Score:1)
Most of these 'researchers' who get their names on every paper are actually the managers who don't have a clue about the actual research. Their name is only there because they force the real researchers to include it in the papers. Been there, done that, quit the job.
Side effect of grant structure (Score:4, Interesting)
Grant money is given preferably to teams that already publish a lot. Even "starting grants" in the EU require a single principal investigator (PI) with a lot of well-cited publication under their belt. This can only be achieved if the PI has done their initial research in a well-heeled lab, with a well-known head of the lab who is well-connected, and so on. This encourages a pyramidal structure with a lot of grunt students at the bottom, supervised by post-docs, supervised by assistant professors, and so on. Success encourages visibility, which encourages grants, which ensures money, which ensures good grunt students can be hired, and so on.
This is not the only possible successful structure, but one of the most common. A single researcher, however brilliant, cannot usually keep up with the outpouring of landmark papers the pyramidal structure can achieve. On the other hand, if everybody does their job, meritocracy in the pyramidal structure ensures that the best grunt students get promoted to post docs, and so on, usually in a different pyramidal structure.
The big drawback of the pyramidal structure is that the prof at the top usually doesn't know exactly what is going on at the bottom, even though they put their name on most of the papers that the structure produces.
Disclaimer: I'm a tenured prof. I do have a reasonable number of students, but I work with them directly. All my students are co-supervised with at least one other prof. Occasionally I do have a few post-docs but the structure is always collaborative. This is not the standard but this works well enough also as long as there isn't any ego-driven fights in the lab. This means choosing your collaborators well. I've made a few mistakes, but so far so good.
Not surprising ... (Score:3)
This is "news" only to people who don't have a clue how research works - and usually the ones setting the publication criteria - like "you have to publish 2 journal papers per year" for an assistant professor (fresh post-doc or a PhD student), along with all the teaching load, of course. I was teaching 10 different courses (!) one semester and was still expected to actually do research half of my time and to publish those 2 journal papers.
Never mind that shepherding a journal paper through the review process and publication takes a year or two on average alone, plus you have to actually have something to publish to begin with. Even conference papers can take 6 months to publish and you must attend them as well (but nobody wants to pay for that!).
The prolific "publishers" are mostly professors that are heads of labs. They are not actually doing any of the work themselves. It is the young PhD students and post-docs who are slaving away in the lab, writing the papers and then put the name of the prof on the paper as a coauthor. It is a very common practice, basically giving a nod to the prof for paying their salary and letting them graduate. If you have a large lab with 20 PhDs who write 1-2 papers a year, that's alone 40 papers for the prof's CV annually. Then you get invited to contribute to various book chapters (again PhD students write that), you get invited lectures and what not - all that counts as publications.
The young researchers have absolutely no chance to break through in such competition where the number of publications is a criteria. You can have two very good papers but when you apply for an academic job, you have no chance against a guy with 40+ (no matter that most of them are the same thing publishes under different names or it isn't really their work). Unfortunately, that often leads to BS publications - like doing few minor changes and publishing the same work several times in different venues, publishing obvious, non-interesting "results" in minor, often in-house workshops or conferences, in the worse cases even scientific fraud and various misconduct - all for the sake of getting that number of publications up. It is only your job and chance for tenure that is at stake.
I have left university pretty much because of this - with no/not enough publications no chance to get a permanent position, but no chance to get those papers published if all you are doing is teaching teaching and more teaching (even though I love teaching). And when not teaching you are doing paperwork and trying to justify your own existence to various clueless bureaucrats every few months so that they don't cut your funding again. That's not exactly a situation where you can do research.
Ipython Notebook? (Score:1)
So, I wonder how much information is shared between scientists, peer reviewed, and never submitted to a journal? If you know the ipython notebook that is a way to do what people used to do, correspond via mail. now via web-page or e-mail. You can distribute results along with the data that were used and the programs that processed it, how your data got reduced, how the images were drafted. You guys know about this. Is the paper journal and the publishing paywalls a thing of the past?
Re:host file apk (Score:4, Insightful)
1% Elitism is EVERYWHERE.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"[C]limate change realist" hahaha, you're calling people who claim that a world-wide cabal of scientists are in a conspiracy to keep the "real truth" about global warming a secret "realists"? Best joke I've heard all week!