Publish or perish

[Anonymous No.11189169]

What do you think of this system? Would science advance more without it? As I see it or only promotes bad practices and a lot of rubbish information.

[Anonymous No.11189174]

>>11189169
Someone draw this but with a fifth one that's just a furry and Obama saying: "Publish...Then Perish!-"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCB9p8o7iaM

[Anonymous No.11189176]

>>11189169
If you think that capitalism is compatible with humanity-advancing innovation then you're out of your mind

[Anonymous No.11189217]

Academics was a mistake

[Anonymous No.11189224]

>>11189174
Only 4chan I find videos like this. roflmao.


>>11189176
When exactly did I mentioned anything about capitalism? But lest roll. Sure, you could argue that Publish or perish (PoP) is the product of a capitalistic system, but is the answer really so simple? Could scientists like e.g Einstein, Schrödinger developed the same quality of work under PoP?

Besides, if you want to talk about economic systems corrupting science just take a look to communism and Lysenkoism.

[Anonymous No.11189316]

It definitely encourages quantity over quality, but it's hard to imagine objective measures of scientific performance other than h-index and similar. Quantitative facts are way easier to work with than qualitative when your data set is pretty much the entirety of human knowledge, and any sort of useful statistics will involve frequency of publications and the number of recent citations as variables. Also, university deans need a way to decide which academics are worth hiring, without them having to fully understand their work (since that's impossible in most cases). So I guess we're fucked. All that's left is to do our best to expose people who abuse the system.
>>11189224
Erroneous scientific ideas can become dominant and very resistant to critics, independently of the imperant economic system -- people have won the Nobel in Medicine for lobotomies. Likewise, the socialist bloc produced just as competent scientists as the West during the entirety of its existence, especially in math and physics.
Further regarding Lysenko, correspondence between him and Stalin shows that the latter even ridiculed some of his ideas and that Lysenko managed to get as far as he did by manipulating the correct people and eventually rising to power. Censorship of Mendelian genetics was not as much a state policy as it was a personal crusade of Lysenko's, and it didn't last long. This sort of conflation between science and (corrupt) politics can happen in any system where the government has any sort of decision over which sort of research gets funding -- just look at the whole shitshow around climate and gender research in the US. Pic related is a citation from Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 97 (2004), pp. 483-498.

[Anonymous No.11189328]

>>11189176
This quote is most likely fake but still:

>Scientist talking about politics and economics as if he knew what the fuck he was talking about
>Somehow we should listen to this shit

If you're going to open your mouth to talk about complex issues such as how a society should be managed, you ought to be educated at a high level in a relevant discipline.
A biologist has no business talking about gluons
An economist has no business talking about measure theory
A theoretical phycisist has no business opening his mouth about social and economical issues.

[Anonymous No.11189381]

>>11189328
An anon has no business talking about anything

[Anonymous No.11189563]

>>11189316
Thank you Anon for taking the time for constructive discussion.

I can understand that such metrics are convenient to allocate limited resources to the 'right' people, but I still think they are very prone to abuse, not because there are 'evil corrupt scientists' out there, but because the publish or perish system pushes scientists into such behaviors so they don't lose their living and the possibility to keep doing research. Hell, even such a thing as salami slicing their work might become status quo because of the insane amount of things you have to keep publishing just to remain relevant (i.e to get your grant money). This could lead not only to an obfuscation of information and insights into a mountain of unnecessaryly numerous articles, but also to a replication crisis if scientists see themselves obliged to lie just to not get fucked (just see what happened to psychology).

As for the Soviet thing, interesting information.

[El Arcón No.11189599]

>>11189563
"corrupt scientist" is an oxymoron, neh? If you're not doing the scientific method, then you aren't one.

[Anonymous No.11189636]

>>11189169
>Woe is me, I have a prestigious job in academics and I don't need to produce anything of value to society to get my taxpayer funded far-above-median income and massive cradle to grave benefits package

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class
•Chapter XIV: The Higher Learning as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture:
Education (academic, technical, religious) is a form of conspicuous leisure, because it does not directly contribute to the economy of society. Therefore, high-status, ceremonial symbols of book-learning, such as the gown and mortar-board-cap of the university graduate educated in abstract subjects (science, mathematics, philosophy, etc.) are greatly respected, whereas certificates, low-status, ceremonial symbols of practical schooling (technology, manufacturing, etc.) are not greatly respected to the same degree, because the contemporary university is a leisure-class institution.

[Anonymous No.11189668]

>>11189599
none of them are doing the scientific method, the peer review system is a way of enforcing social order, not a way of assuring the honesty of the authors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

[El Arcón No.11189693]

>>11189668
I permaban them from the social order then.

[Anonymous No.11189700]

>>11189693
Not possible, not when they have such awesome hair and cheekbones

[Anonymous No.11189707]

>>11189169
Either produce fewer scientists or fund more places for them to work.

[El Arcón No.11189709]

>>11189700
I was not talking about banning Bogoff. I do believe, for some reason based 100% on unaccountable meme propaganda, that Bogoff respects the method.

[Anonymous No.11189745]

>>11189668
>>11189700
Based and bogpilled

[Anonymous No.11189881]

>>11189381
Based

[Anonymous No.11190218]

>>11189668
This is true.
Reviewers force you to cite their own papers some times.

[Anonymous No.11190261]

>>11189169
Get out of the rat race and become /FINANCEPILLED/

[Anonymous No.11190288]

>paying hundreds per journal per customer per year
>where the journal does literally nothing other than publish other people's publicly-financed papers
>without giving them royalties over sales
>often with laughable peer-reviewing
>in the age of the fucking Internet
Doing research is the cuckest life choice you can ever make. Literally the only field where piracy has no moral negative whatsoever compared to legally buying materials.

[Anonymous No.11190305]

>>11189169
>Capitalism is mainstream

>oh look, science and education are fucking shit now

Really makes you think, isn't it? Capitalism is a fucking plague

[Anonymous No.11190325]

>>11189176

Back to rebbit, nigger