[KK7NIL]

> If the metric is publication and citation count and funding is awarded by panels of experts, how is that better than cutting out the flawed metric and continuing to award funding via panels of experts?

I agree it's not perfect but that's still several steps removed from "Billy is one of us, he should get that tenured position" and, as this article shows, it requires openly unethical behavior, which others can recognize and eventually prosecute (even if that isn't being done often enough).

It's almost like saying "well corruption happens anyways so why do we even criminalize it and have public hearings? Just skip those bits and openly auction votes instead".

[fc417fc802]

I interpreted "social fabric" to mean "panel of relevant professionals" which is what we currently have but perhaps you interpreted it differently?

I think most interviews can essentially be described as "Billy is one of us, he should get position X" if one is feeling cynical.

[KK7NIL]

> I interpreted "social fabric" to mean "panel of relevant professionals" which is what we currently have but perhaps you interpreted it differently?

That would be one way to implement his suggestion of getting rid of objective (if flawed) measures of a researcher's performance.

I agree that, inevitably, there will be a subjective human decision in there, but I argue that dropping all objective measures of performance and going just on vibes is kicking the door wide open for corruption, while it's merely cracked right now. And the exploit mentioned in this article is a very public and explicit one, which is why other researchers were so aware of it and it eventually caught up to him. If it all gets moved behind closed doors instead, it will be even harder to detect and prosecute this sort of behavior.

[ahartmetz]

I was thinking of basically "This person is good, we should hire them. Their results are going to improve our institute's reputation."