Alex DanversDec 18, 2022
@erinnacland @academicchatter if someone is publishing one paper every 5 days or less, then we know that "publishing a paper" doesn't mean just one thing. There is no way that authors could be doing the amount of work a typical grad student does to get a publication every 5 days. Instead, they are putting their names on the publications of all the papers coming out of a lab group + a larger network of collaborators. Sometimes this involves little more than reading over & approving a draft.
Show threadAlex DanversDec 18, 2022

@erinnacland @academicchatter When we see hyperprolific authorship rising, we shouldn't think about one person, working crazy long hours.

This level of output is beyond what an individual can reasonably do. It suggests a system-level shift in how authorship is conceptualized and awarded.

There are several ways this plays out:
--It's my grant, so my name goes on the paper (even if I didn't conceptualize, analyze, or write)
--It's my lab, so my name goes on the paper (even for unfunded work)

Show threadAlex DanversDec 19, 2022
@erinnacland @academicchatter More ways people get to 5 papers / day:
--I'm a Big Name so I get invited to write many reviews / overviews that all essentially have the same content
--I'm a Big Name so I can write short opinion pieces or responses to articles that would not get published by younger / less famous authors
--I come from a discipline that has different authorship guidelines, but we lump them in together (is a history authorship the same as physics authorship?)
Show threadAlex DanversDec 19, 2022

@erinnacland @academicchatter
relevant literature shows that getting hired at a highly funded, highly prestigious university means you get more money for staff. More staff means you can spend more of your time writing.

Analyses suggest that this is causal: it's not that big name universities hire "the best"--it's that big name universities *create* "the best" by providing them with more research staff so they can get their work done.

Show threadAlex Danvers

@erinnacland @academicchatter

just to drive the point home: the fact that there are 81 scholars who publish an article every 5 days means that journal publication has now been completely gamified & the most prolific researchers are just optimizing to win the game.

This is Goodhart's law in action: publication is now more signal than noise for quality scholarship.

the question is whether the scholarly community acknowledges this & changes it's standards of assessment.

Dec 19, 2022 at 4:16amWeb
Show threadFrancis NormanDec 19, 2022
@adanvers @erinnacland @academicchatter my guess, based on past observations, will be academia trying both to replicate it and hire those who do it. Despite their narrative to the contrary many institutions are simply following the herd
Show threadPedro P. PalazzoDec 19, 2022
@adanvers @erinnacland @academicchatter I have already seen hiring committees shift to asking for an annotated list of only the most relevant publications rather than sheer numbers. However, funding agencies everywhere, like good bureaucracies, can’t seem to catch on the trend. https://nerdculture.de/@adanvers/109538402161601518
Alex Danvers (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] just to drive the point home: the fact that there are 81 scholars who publish an article every 5 days means that journal publication has now been completely gamified & the most prolific researchers are just optimizing to win the game. This is Goodhart's law in action: publication is now more signal than noise for quality scholarship. the question is whether the scholarly community acknowledges this & changes it's standards of assessment.

NerdCulture
Show threadClaudia LandwehrDec 19, 2022
@p3palazzo @adanvers @erinnacland @academicchatter
Actually, the German Research Foundation (DFG) only allows you to name your 10 most important publications (and no more) in a grant application.
Show threadMarcel HaasDec 19, 2022
@landwehr_c @p3palazzo @adanvers @erinnacland @academicchatter Which is *still* focusing on the papers of the grant PI, rather than on the team that is going to use the money for science. Science is not a solo act, yet money distribution (and awards, too) is very strongly focused on "the genius".
Show threadAlex DanversDec 19, 2022

@harcel @landwehr_c @p3palazzo @erinnacland @academicchatter
I like the idea of only allowing for the 10 most important publications, but I wonder how blind we can really be to the overall CV of the PI. It does seem like a step in the right direction.

I also agree with Marcel's point: the team is really important. However, I don't believe that the lab manager, the research assistants, the data analyst are evaluated as part of the proposal--but they are key to a grant's success.

Show threadMarcel HaasDec 19, 2022
@adanvers @landwehr_c @p3palazzo @erinnacland @academicchatter they often only get hired after the grants are awarded...
Show threadClaudia LandwehrDec 19, 2022
@adanvers @harcel @p3palazzo @erinnacland @academicchatter
My impression is that limiting the number of publications shifts the balance from renowned senior to well-published younger ones, although the process cannot be really blind of course. For many funders, a lab manager could actually be named and their CV considered unless they will only be hired from the grant money.