Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 157 posts

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#141

Post by tokinonagare »

derbOac wrote: post #126
version_five wrote: post #9

I did my PhD in a group with ~20 students and postdocs including many co-supervised with some other department. The prof in charge of the group had his name on > 90% of the papers we published, I believe justifiably. He would have read all of them, and written sections where appropriate, and had a hand in directing and organizing the research as well as challenging the results and strengthening the presentation of th…

I'm glad you felt comfortable with that situation, but not all are like that. Sometimes the involvement is very nominal and unnecessary and there can be unintentional side effects that aren't always obvious, in a form of "attribution manipulation." I can think of situations where a researcher is basically "joining" projects whenever possible to attach their name to it in a form of branding. When a junior person comes…

Thanks for putting some realism in the thread. I've been a PhD student and the involvement of the lab head ranged from actually giving some research direction to doing jack shit depending on the paper and the people leading them. It was very obvious once when he green-lighted one of my paper for submission yet wanted to changed half of it when I made an internal presentation about it a week later.

I challenged the thing one time to an intermediate supervisor (who where at least really contributing a bit) and I got bullshit excuses like "he's securing funding", "running the lab"... well at least not for my project since it costed nothing and I came with my own funding. At this point the toilet cleaning lady was contributing more to the paper because of how she allowed me to work in a clean environment.

So I'm not surprised by Japan being over-represented like mentioned in the article. My lab explicit policy was "quantity over quality" written in a presentation given to new student. I know have a mental, logarithmic curve of contributions from authors: first made 90% of the work, second 9% and the following authors share the last 1%.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#142

Post by tokinonagare »

dahinds wrote: post #114
londons_explore wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A paper is only a few pages long usually. A read of a paper takes perhaps half an hour. And in that time, you might even be able to check some references, make a few edits, or drop an email to someone to gather some more results for a figure or two. Doing this once a week seems very reasonable.

A close reading of a scientific paper of any consequence does not take half an hour. These days a published paper may typically be only a few pages but it isn't at all uncommon for the paper to be accompanied by 20-50 pages of supplementary text. When I'm asked to review a paper it takes me the better part of a day, at least. If I were a senior author on that paper that would be the bare minimum that I'd consider an…

It really depends on the field. @londons_explore is right that a lot of papers in some fields can be read in half an hour, or an hour, and sent back with feedback.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#143

Post by culebron21 »

wrp wrote: post #137
culebron21 wrote: post #102

I've read a huge book [1] of a broad research on universities in different countries, and this is what the book told. Science metrics, when used to determine scientific significance by government officials, become abused. This law was articulated back in 1920s, if I remember correctly. And this is one of the cases. Science was not like this until quite recently -- citation metrics were first used in the 1980s by neol…

That book is a massive sociological study of academic Sociology. There is no detailed summary in English, but the PDF of the review is online. I just ran it through Google Translate. ( https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/folder/0mbqwfls21/192... )

Well, they made a goal to show how careers work in academia. Sure, from the point of view of a sociologist researcher, but it's not much different from other sciences.

And in every section (France, USA, UK, Germany, Russia) they explain how promotion works, how selection of researchers works, what the managers or professors pay attention to, and so on. So this works as an explanation of internals of entire academia.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#144

Post by rolph »

screature2 wrote: post #133
NegativeLatency wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about credits compared to authors is that credits generally have a title/role/position associated with the name. (A grip does a very different job than a costume designer, but with a paper they're all just authors which has a different meaning than say "research director")

For scientific papers, depending on the field, order of listing actually is some indication of role. I think the convention in bio research is 1st author is the primary creator of the experiment and paper while last author is the lab PI. Per this science.org column, that seems typical across a number of scientific disciplines. https://www.science.org/content/article/how-navigate-authors... .

yes this has been, and continues to be the case from my perspective, for at least the last 50 years.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#146

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #121
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what incident you are talking about but, from the context, I have no doubt that it is something inconsequential that social media made a big deal about just to have some reason to be outraged at Ioannidis, with whom they were already outraged.

The commenting on personal appearance took place in a peer-reviewed article in which he was sole author. Read the link.

The linked article is 6,848 words, not counting the embedded tweets. Given the low-level content in the first couple paragraphs, and the constant quoting of tweets, I have no reason to read it. Social media is uniformly bullshit and I'm not in the habit of wasting my time with it.

If you would like to send me a link, or other reference, to the "peer reviewed article" in which "the commenting on personal appearance took place" please feel welcome to do so.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#147

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

UncleMeat wrote: post #112
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what incident you are talking about but, from the context, I have no doubt that it is something inconsequential that social media made a big deal about just to have some reason to be outraged at Ioannidis, with whom they were already outraged.

I didn't say you should be outraged. Feel what you want to feel. I list this example where he definitely did more than "his job as a scientist."

To clarify, I didn't say you said I should be outraged. I said that social media made a big deal of something in order for them (its users) to be outraged. That's what social media is all about, yes?

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#148

Post by [deleted] »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #101
UncleMeat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, he also decided it was appropriate to insult the physical appearance of grad students on twitter who disagreed with him. He definitely didn't come out of covid looking fully dispassionate.

Passion is fine and great in all endeavors. Not being able to acknowledge when you are wrong in small or large is the problem. And it's a problem for both passionate and dispassionate people. One of the earlier researchers on psychopaths was Hervey M. Cleckley. In his book on the topic The Mask of Sanity one of his vignettes of, I believe, "incomplete manifestation of psychopathology" was of a psychologist who gave p…

[deleted]

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#149

Post by anonymouskimmer »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #146
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenting on personal appearance took place in a peer-reviewed article in which he was sole author. Read the link.

The linked article is 6,848 words, not counting the embedded tweets. Given the low-level content in the first couple paragraphs, and the constant quoting of tweets, I have no reason to read it. Social media is uniformly bullshit and I'm not in the habit of wasting my time with it. If you would like to send me a link, or other reference, to the "peer reviewed article" in which "the commenting on personal appearance to…

Search the original article ( https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j... ) for this text: "This is how Prof. Ioannidis responded in his new paper."

From what I can gather from the published journal article it appears that if these paragraphs of ad hominems were in it they did not survive the review process: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

Unfortunately I don't know how to find the pre-publication submission.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#150

Post by anonymouskimmer »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #146
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenting on personal appearance took place in a peer-reviewed article in which he was sole author. Read the link.

The linked article is 6,848 words, not counting the embedded tweets. Given the low-level content in the first couple paragraphs, and the constant quoting of tweets, I have no reason to read it. Social media is uniformly bullshit and I'm not in the habit of wasting my time with it. If you would like to send me a link, or other reference, to the "peer reviewed article" in which "the commenting on personal appearance to…

Here we go: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

From the Supporting Information: [Correction added on 5 January 2022 after first online publication: Information including ad hominem comments directed by the author at people critiquing his work was removed by the author from the appendix in Supporting Information during copy editing between Accepted Article and Version of Record versions of this article. For more information about Wiley policy on changes to Accepted Articles please refer to https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.htm...

Post reply on HN