The discussion centers on the challenges faced in academia, particularly the pressure to conform to funding organizations' metrics, which often do not correlate with quality scientific research. Participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of high-impact publications as a measure of "good" science and highlight the competitive nature of securing funding and tenure positions. The conversation also touches on the implications of Open Science and public outreach in hiring and promotion decisions, revealing a divide in acceptance among different scientific communities.
PREREQUISITESAcademics, researchers, graduate students, and anyone involved in the funding, publishing, or hiring processes within the scientific community will benefit from this discussion.
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.