Read on Twitter
๐ฆ๐น๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฑ๐ผ๐๐ป ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ...
The pace of science has always been fast (for a given time) but the pace now seems inconsistent with "good science".
How can we slow it down (at all career stages) to promote better and more important science?
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="๐งต" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">
The pace of science has always been fast (for a given time) but the pace now seems inconsistent with "good science".
How can we slow it down (at all career stages) to promote better and more important science?
2) The purpose of a PhD is not to publish a bunch of papers. It& #39;s to learn the science in your area, including statistics, computation, etc.
So the goal should be to send for publication 1 paper by the time one graduates. This also makes sure that students learn about publishing.
So the goal should be to send for publication 1 paper by the time one graduates. This also makes sure that students learn about publishing.
3) The purpose of a postdoc is not to publish a bunch of papers. Is to learn to carry out research in more depth and independence than was possible in the PhD. A postdoc should learn to publish papers too, so they should strive to publish 1-2 high quality papers.
4) The purpose of tenure track is not to publish a bunch of papers. It& #39;s to learn to be an independent scientist with one& #39;s own research program. One should learn how to publish 2-4 independent quality papers and learn about acquiring grants.
5) A tenured faculty should be able to secure funding for their research if their area "requires" it. They should be able to continue publishing at a regular rate with the emphasis being on quality papers, not numbers.
6) So how can we slow down science? It seems impossible given that the existing arms-race situation only ratchets things up.
So although I think slowing down is important to *improve the quality of the science we do*, I& #39;m not optimistic.
So although I think slowing down is important to *improve the quality of the science we do*, I& #39;m not optimistic.
7) But it could start by senior faculty encouraging changes at the lower levels. How, I& #39;m not sure. If program A promotes "slower science", will their graduates be at a disadvantage?
8) But imo at least we need to recognize that the rat race that we& #39;ve created needs addressing.
9) In the end, we& #39;re not doing better science, we& #39;re doing poor science (on average; of course there& #39;s good science too). We train graduate students to "just produce" instead of learning how to learn, which should be the goal of PhD training.
10) ๐๐ผ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ธ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ& #39;๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฎ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐น๐ผ๐ ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ?
Please share your ideas below to provide further feedback.
thanks
Please share your ideas below to provide further feedback.
thanks
