- #1
Hornbein
- 2,071
- 1,694
Keys to failure in academia. Basically he says that it's all about conforming to the funding organizations' metrics, which don't necessarily have anything to do with good science.
At least one per failure, regardless of profession.gleem said:I wonder how many untold stories there are.
Yes, but that is hardly news. It is also not necessarily a bad thing.Hornbein said:Keys to failure in academia. Basically he says that it's all about conforming to the funding organizations' metrics, which don't necessarily have anything to do with good science.
Within this context, how do the professional communities respond the the growing emphasis on Open Science and Public Outreach? How do those charged with hiring decisions, promotion and tenure decisions, and funding decisions view and compare open publications to conventional subscription journal publications? How are junior faculty in particular protected when they openly publish their data and results? Are public outreach activities indicative of a superior candidate?f95toli said:Moreover, science is very competitive and there isn't nearly enough money to fund all ideas for research that could be done. High-impact publications etc is most definitely not a perfect metric for "good" science, but it does give some indication of how significant your work is considered to be by your peers.
Hyperfine said:At one Ivy League university in the US, junior faculty from a broad range of departments and disciplines compete for a single available tenure position.
It is rather strange. That university does not have tenure track positions. A tenured position becomes available when a faculty member with tenure leaves the university by retirement, death, or moving to another institution. At that time, all junior faculty that can be considered for tenure compete for that now open tenured slot.Office_Shredder said:Can you explain further? This sounds weird to me.
Hyperfine said:It is rather strange. That university does not have tenure track positions. A tenured position becomes available when a faculty member with tenure leaves the university by retirement, death, or moving to another institution. At that time, all junior faculty that can be considered for tenure compete for that now open tenured slot.
A physicist, a musician, a biologist, an historian compete for the same tenured position.
That is my understanding of how that system functions.
I never implied it was a secret, and certainly I could say which university it is. But what difference does it make which it is beyond being an Ivy League and thus certainly "mainstream"?Office_Shredder said:Can you just say which school this is? It doesn't seem like this is a secret that no one can know about.
Confirming your information.Hyperfine said:But what difference does it make which it is beyond being an Ivy League and thus certainly "mainstream"?
Hyperfine said:I never implied it was a secret, and certainly I could say which university it is. But what difference does it make which it is beyond being an Ivy League and thus certainly "mainstream"?
Well, in international maritime law, when two ships collide, the responsibility is, a priori, of both. I haven't seen the video; I sense it's biased. Personally think it's not worth it.Hornbein said:Keys to failure in academia. Basically he says that it's all about conforming to the funding organizations' metrics, which don't necessarily have anything to do with good science.
"Fail Academia" is a term used to describe the current state of academic research, where funding metrics such as publication numbers and grant dollars have become more important than the quality and impact of scientific research. It is important because it can lead to a decrease in the overall quality and credibility of scientific research, as well as hinder the progress of important scientific discoveries.
The focus on funding metrics can lead to researchers prioritizing quantity over quality, as they may be more concerned with publishing as many papers as possible to secure funding rather than conducting thorough and impactful research. This can also lead to a culture of "publish or perish," where researchers may feel pressure to publish quickly and frequently, even if it means sacrificing the rigor and accuracy of their work.
One consequence is the replication crisis, where many scientific studies cannot be reproduced or do not hold up to further scrutiny. This can lead to a waste of resources and time, as well as a decrease in public trust in science. Additionally, the focus on funding metrics can also discourage innovative and risky research, as researchers may be more inclined to stick to safer, more "publishable" projects.
One solution is to shift the focus from funding metrics to the quality and impact of research. This can be done by evaluating researchers based on the significance and originality of their work, rather than just the number of publications or grant dollars. It is also important for funding agencies and institutions to prioritize long-term impact and encourage collaboration and interdisciplinary research.
Scientists can play a crucial role in combating "Fail Academia" by advocating for a change in the culture of academia. This can include promoting open and transparent research practices, prioritizing quality over quantity in their own work, and speaking out against the pressure to publish at all costs. Additionally, scientists can also work towards creating a more diverse and inclusive research environment, which has been shown to lead to better quality and more impactful research.