- #1
hatsoff
- 20
- 3
I've published a dozen or so research level math papers (most with co-authors), and every single one of them is utterly pointless. I do it because that's what research mathematicians have to do in order to get and keep a professorship. Publish or perish, as the old saying goes.
I believe a lot of my colleagues secretly know this, although few will admit it openly.
This needs to change. Now. And I believe the best way to do it is for referees to reject papers unless they can be shown to have a use.
Some argue that maths which currently have no use might find some use in the future. But a moment's reflection should reveal how bad this argument is. Sure, anything is possible. So maybe some currently useless math paper might find a future application. But why think it will? Taking wild guesses is incredibly inefficient. Moreover, a lot of math has the appearance of having no hope for a future application.
I believe a lot of my colleagues secretly know this, although few will admit it openly.
This needs to change. Now. And I believe the best way to do it is for referees to reject papers unless they can be shown to have a use.
Some argue that maths which currently have no use might find some use in the future. But a moment's reflection should reveal how bad this argument is. Sure, anything is possible. So maybe some currently useless math paper might find a future application. But why think it will? Taking wild guesses is incredibly inefficient. Moreover, a lot of math has the appearance of having no hope for a future application.
Last edited by a moderator: