The point at which academia has become about getting N papers in Y conferences for the sake of...counting...is the day that science has truly died.

This is not just the architecture community's problem, it's all of our problem. 1/4 https://twitter.com/tianyin_xu/status/1270014840699052033

Some examples:

Conferences that put up slides with the "top publishers" (unis/people) at that conference

Introducing faculty candidates/speakers based on their paper counts

Dept. rankings based on paper counts. 2/4

Num papers != scientific contribution.

In fact -- I say this as someone who went full bore on the paper hamster wheel -- perhaps it speaks to a lack of contribution.

Can we really make 12k meaningful scientific contributions in a subfield/yr (NeurIPS '20 submission cnt)? 3/4

If our science becomes just another paper, but makes no change on scientific thinking, products, outcomes, or real life. Why do it?

Papers are not, by definition, impactful or meaningful. They support our egos. They let us measure others. 4/4