|
|
|
|
|
|
by j-pb
1499 days ago
|
|
|
The point of the subjective and individualized scores is to avoid that, but fair enough, if we could get academia to switch to an open funding scheme without the current paper mill incentives more power to that. I fear that the scientific community is not mature enough to do this properly and truthfully without some gamification though sadly, and funding commitees will want some kind of metric for "non-technical" people. But maybe the only solution is to pass out funding based on random lottery tickets. |
|
|
In the USA, publishing a large number of low-quality papers is at best unhelpful for getting grants. It's probably (very!) harmful.
> funding commitees will want some kind of metric for "non-technical" people.
The stakeholders within funding agencies are always technical. The external stakeholders -- congressional staff and corporate executives -- could not care less about citations/paper counts.
Based on your view of how these things work, I'm a bit curious about your background here. Have you sat on a funding committee for a public funding agency? Do you know the names of any program directors? Have you served on an academic grant review committee for your employer? If so, I'm really curious to know what field you're in, since things appear to work quite differently there.