41–49 of 49 posts
The lifetime word limit should not apply to papers publishing negative results. You may all congratulate me (financially) for solving the replication crisis.
Well, researchers already have a natural time limit: everyone will die/retire. Sensible researchers ask themselves, "Is this project worth the lifetime it will cost me?" -- I don't see why a word limit would cause a substantial change in the answers to either question.
What if it each researcher started out with a limited amount of a cryptocurrency, "pubcoin", which must be spent to be published? More would be awarded based on success (citations?).
There is a Pareto distribution in the number of papers people write, as well as the number of citations papers get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. This is a real issue in most non-engineering fields. Maybe add a “% that get a job” factor.
Also, in STEM fields.
Some people make the jump from science and mathematics to industry, but it is harder.
The article jokingly mentions that papers function as a "pubcoin" allowing you to buy various benefits. What if it each researcher started out with a limited amount of a cryptocurrency, "pubcoin", which must be spent to be published? More would be awarded based on success (citations?). There is a Pareto distribution in the number of papers people write, as well as the number of citations papers get.
That lag is enough to end a career.
Superficial, but well marketed papers(republished in spammy ways) tend to have lots of citations at first, then die off, flash-in-the-pan style. The system already over-rewards those papers.
The rare researchers that can produce really good papers and also market them get turing awards, etc.
The lifetime word limit should not apply to papers publishing negative results. You may all congratulate me (financially) for solving the replication crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had not read this before and that's a valid point, thanks for sharing. I think I would say two things to this. First, theoretically we could attack the problem from both sides. We could constrain supply in the way that med school prevents an oversupply of physicians while also increasing the total amount of resources available to those practicing science. More practically, I tend to believe that basic and translati…
The supply constraints med schools impose most certainly are not to prevent "oversupply" of doctors. Depending on who you ask, there are two main reasons they exist. One view is that there's a finite amount of doctors willing to work at academic hospitals, and thus there's a limited amount of new medical students that can be adequately trained. Another view is that medical schools collude to form a guild to better se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, in STEM fields.
There’s definitely a glut in mathematics and science PhD’s. Universities keep cutting tenure track positions and cranking out more students per professor. It doesn’t hit technology and engineering as badly, since there is a steady supply of industry jobs. Some people make the jump from science and mathematics to industry, but it is harder.