Albert CardonaHave we crossed the point yet where "productivity" is seen as a bad word, with negative connotations?
Stephen Royle@albertcardona where productivity = number of papers? Maybe!
It's very field dependent though. I was amused at the recent Nature piece on a guy that was vowing to do slow science and cut his output from 15 to 7 papers per year! In cell bio 1 or 2 per year is good going.
There are PIs with high paper outputs and IMO their involvement is questionable. Could they explain each one? Are they happy to vouch for the contents of each one? If there was fraud discovered in one, how would they respond?
I was more thinking on the misuse of "productivity" in corporate settings, including linkedin, where the original goal has been lost in the busyness of meeting goals and targets and measurable deliverables, particularly now with "productivity tools".
But indeed it all applies to scientific publishing. Whoever signs 50 papers a year, imagine, reading and (pretending to) writing or meaningfully contributing to one per week ...
@albertcardona ah yes. It is a bit of a bad word in that case. A shame really. I pride myself on (and value in others) productivity in the sense of getting stuff done and seeing things through to completion.
Hitsu Yonai@steveroyle @albertcardona
"Peter Higgs, the British physicist who gave his name to the Higgs boson, believes no university would employ him in today's academic system because he would not be considered "productive" enough."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system
Not the way you mean it obviously, , but publication / citation counting, or any other #BiblioBolox (© @david_colquhoun) ... "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." - Goodhart's law.
