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.
The main argument of "Fail Academia: Keys to Dismissing Funding Metrics Over Quality Science" is that the current academic system overly prioritizes funding metrics and financial success over the intrinsic quality and impact of scientific research. The book advocates for a shift in focus towards valuing rigorous, innovative, and meaningful scientific contributions rather than merely chasing funding and financial metrics.
Funding metrics can negatively impact scientific research quality by incentivizing researchers to prioritize projects that are more likely to secure funding rather than those that are most scientifically valuable or innovative. This can lead to a focus on short-term, incremental research rather than long-term, high-risk, high-reward projects. Additionally, it can create a competitive rather than collaborative research environment, potentially stifling creativity and the sharing of knowledge.
The book proposes several alternatives to funding metrics for evaluating scientific research, including peer review by independent experts, assessments of the long-term impact and innovation of research, and the use of qualitative measures such as the significance of research findings and their potential to advance knowledge. It also suggests incorporating feedback from a broader range of stakeholders, including practitioners and the public, to provide a more holistic evaluation of research quality.
Examples of successful research projects that might have been overlooked if judged only by funding metrics include foundational scientific discoveries such as the development of the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein or the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming. These groundbreaking discoveries were not initially driven by funding incentives and might have been considered too risky or speculative to secure funding in a metrics-driven system. Their profound impact on science and society demonstrates the importance of valuing research quality over financial metrics.
Academic institutions can shift their focus from funding metrics to quality science by adopting policies that recognize and reward high-quality, innovative research regardless of its funding status. This can include revising tenure and promotion criteria to emphasize research impact and significance, providing internal funding and support for high-risk, high-reward projects, and fostering a culture that values collaboration and knowledge sharing over competition for funding. Additionally, institutions can engage in advocacy to influence funding agencies and policymakers to adopt more holistic evaluation criteria that prioritize research quality.