undefined

points

[-]

It's a little more complicated than that. If all you're interested in disovery, you can wander off into rabbit holes or disappear into areas that are only interesting to you. Publishability is useful because it gives you useful external feedback into whether a community thinks what you're doing is "worth discovering". Like any metric, you can find yourself gaming it (intentionally or unintentionally) and it has a slew of other failure modes. Still, you can prize discovery and also care about what other people think.

by throw949494994 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

You could also argue the opposite:

The aim of many scientists is discovery, publishing is a side chore to survive and to get funding. Automate paperwork and you get more time for discovering.

by _alternator_3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Seems to me that both perspectives are true, and the relative importance of the metric incentive vs the discovery incentive varies. But the metrics and rewards are critical to the perpetuation of the scientific discovery system; its really hard to disentangle.

by skeledrew3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Well the paperwork is automatable, and things are being automated. But still there're the findings that the article points to: it's leading to far more publishing (and ladder-climbing) than novel discoveries.

by Ekaros1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I wouldn't even be certain about being well known. I would guess there is lot of pressure to stay employed or get the next funding. So optimising for this is the new goal and lot of publications and citations are metrics that help with that.

by DrewADesign3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

You’re overgeneralizing a smidgeon.

by skeledrew3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Speaking from experience and conversations.

by DrewADesign2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

So am I. I worked in academia for a couple of decades.

by skeledrew2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

OK cool so you have a far larger sample size than I to generalize from. Can you explain then what're the root cause(s) of the findings in that article?

by analog313 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Do you know any scientists?

Disclosure: Physicist.

by skeledrew3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I do, and through conversations have learned that they enjoy what they do and publish patents (they're PhD in industry), but ultimately what they seek is "fame and glory" (literal quote).

I was also in academics myself up to the Master's level (research track), and personally had to deal with the politics of getting support for what I wanted to work on; that experience helped to discourage me from going on to a PhD, as I'd rather have proper leeway to work on what I really prefer and take avenues I find interesting.

by cliglot1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> but ultimately what they seek is "fame and glory" (literal quote).

lol how old are these people? You have better chance at fame and glory if you started a stupid YouTube channel.

by analog312 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Oddly enough my experience is the opposite. I live in an academic town, and many of my neighbors are scientists. They view the "fame and glory" as something that maybe someone else has a chance of achieving, but not a realistic pursuit for themselves. Pursuit of funding (which now includes suing the Federal Government) is at best stressful drudgework for them.

I work in industry. In that case, nobody who meets me would ever know that I have patents. I would consider them to be a useful add-on for my resume should I ever need one, but it doesn't define me. And what my employer chooses to fund is a matter between consenting adults.

by skeledrew6 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

> They view the "fame and glory" as something that maybe someone else has a chance of achieving, but not a realistic pursuit for themselves.

This was also my default thinking, but we really see more and more "nerds" getting into the spotlight. It could be a kind of self-fulfilling situation though: the ones working for that fame make the choices that get them there, such as opting to do research that's more "palatable" to those holding the purse strings, and so have the support to gain and maintain presence. Those who would rather blaze their own path generally get left in obscurity (unless they find something truly game-changing), even if it turns out they're more than the former group.

by goldenarm4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

100% agree. You could make the same argument for Hollywood : funding & revenue was always the goal, and we've been producing slop before AI was even a thing