81–90 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is funny because it’s completely opposite - economics has generally great track record and fraudulent results typically do not survive for long. Citation cartels and paper mills exist in all disciplines.
Behavioral economics is challenging this - see the fake data published in a 2012 Ariely paper and identified in 2021.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm just naive or dense, but I'm not seeing language I'd be concerned about in the article? Help me get calibrated, is there something in particular that bothers you? or just a general vibe?
> Despite working at a terrible school Literally zero need for that; none. And it's that kind of language that calls into question the authors motives. I went from "Excellent reporting here" to "This guy is emotional and not a reliable source of information" in 6 words.
Sayre's Law: Academic Politics Are So Vicious Because the Stakes Are So Small Maybe universities, tenure committees, and funding sources should stop measuring academics by vanity metrics such as H-Index and publication counts. And don't get me started on the tendency toward "minimum publishable units." That said, abusing power as an editor deserves a special place in hell...
Corporate KPI-chasing culture ruins everything. “Publish or perish” has hit such an extreme level. I imagine most academics would gladly not participate in this game if their entire livelihood didn’t depend on it
The difficulty is that nobody knows how to. My guess is that if you want good signaling, you'll need to find something that is difficult to fake. My guess are evolving benchmarks that measure many things in multiple dimensions, but benchmarks were easily gamed.
Sayre's Law: Academic Politics Are So Vicious Because the Stakes Are So Small Maybe universities, tenure committees, and funding sources should stop measuring academics by vanity metrics such as H-Index and publication counts. And don't get me started on the tendency toward "minimum publishable units." That said, abusing power as an editor deserves a special place in hell...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stakes are pretty large now. You are judged on the number of publications, positions, citations, etc. It’s not even about philosophical disagreement as much as future career
I've heard that some universities set aside $5-10 million whenever they grant someone tenure. It's a fiscally prudent accounting measure. And it's also a measure of how valuable the contract can be. (Of course one still needs to do some work soooo....)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporate KPI-chasing culture ruins everything. “Publish or perish” has hit such an extreme level. I imagine most academics would gladly not participate in this game if their entire livelihood didn’t depend on it
Institutional design needs legibility to track people's reputation at scale. The problem is that these metrics are often poor substitutes. The difficulty is that nobody knows how to. My guess is that if you want good signaling, you'll need to find something that is difficult to fake. My guess are evolving benchmarks that measure many things in multiple dimensions, but benchmarks were easily gamed.
[flagged]
Some of your comments about controversial topics are egregious enough to warrant a ban. I don't want to ban you because some other comments are substantive contributions, but we need you to avoid inflammatory, ideological comments in future.
Please take a moment to remind yourself of the guidelines – https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html – and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47951566 and marked it off topic.
I am not arguing against the facts expressed in the piece. This is not an area in which I have any expertise. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with the pithy language used. It's possible (likely, even), that the fired editors deserve the pithiness, but it's still a bit weird to read that kind of prose, in a scientific context.
Well...the reactions were ... enlightening I certainly apologize for hurting feelings. That was not my intent. I've just learned (the hard way, of course, because how else do we learn?), that using this kind of terminology, even though we may be feeling quite pithy, gives ammo to those that wish to discount us. This goes double, in my experience, for any context that prizes objectivity and articulate discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]