Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: John Schutkeker on 4 Sep 2006 10:49 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in news:877j0jn3bn.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org: > John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > >> In America, we have a saying - "Publish or perish," which means that, as >> long as you've satisfied all the requirements of due diligence, to >> eliminate the probablity of error, you have an ethical obligation to >> publish all important results. > > That's not at all what "publish or perish" means. That phrase is > about academic pressures, not ethical obligations. In life, etymology is trivial, compared to ethics. :P
From: John Schutkeker on 4 Sep 2006 14:09 Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in news:67cc1$44fc3af4$82a1e228$23396(a)news1.tudelft.nl: > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > >> The result of publish-and-perish is that academic publications >> suffer. It is in the researcher's interest to publish often, so he >> is tempted to publish a different article for each small advance >> rather than a single article describing his research output is one >> swell foop. (Teaching suffers too as research becomes overwhelmingly >> important, of course.) > > Very much affirmative! And I would like to add to this the content of > an old response to "JSH: At the Annals": > > http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/073c83c6b330f28c?hl=en& You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 4 Sep 2006 14:34 John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in > news:67cc1$44fc3af4$82a1e228$23396(a)news1.tudelft.nl: > >> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> >>> The result of publish-and-perish is that academic publications >>> suffer. It is in the researcher's interest to publish often, so he >>> is tempted to publish a different article for each small advance >>> rather than a single article describing his research output is one >>> swell foop. (Teaching suffers too as research becomes overwhelmingly >>> important, of course.) >> >> Very much affirmative! And I would like to add to this the content of >> an old response to "JSH: At the Annals": >> >> http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/073c83c6b330f28c?hl=en& > > You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even. Nothing to do with fatalism. The fact that administrators mistake quantity for quality is a bad thing. It pushes researchers to publish often rather than to publish well. That's not to say that there's an obvious fix. Universities want good research but administrators are ill-suited to determine research quality. So they go for the next best thing they can find: require regular publication and let the referees figure out what's worth publishing. But the system has many problems and it isn't "fatalism" to point that out. -- "[I want to] stand at the pinnacle of human achievement with no one else in all of history even close, no human being having faced what I have--and survived. Because when all is said and done, make no mistake, the simple truth is, I am better." --James S. Harris
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 15:29 On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:40:51 +0200, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: >Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > >> The result of publish-and-perish is that academic publications >> suffer. It is in the researcher's interest to publish often, so he is >> tempted to publish a different article for each small advance rather >> than a single article describing his research output is one swell >> foop. (Teaching suffers too as research becomes overwhelmingly >> important, of course.) > >Very much affirmative! And I would like to add to this the content of >an old response to "JSH: At the Annals": "JSH: At the Anals" might be more like it. >http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/073c83c6b330f28c?hl=en& ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 4 Sep 2006 15:30
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:34:29 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > >> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in >> news:67cc1$44fc3af4$82a1e228$23396(a)news1.tudelft.nl: >> >>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >>> >>>> The result of publish-and-perish is that academic publications >>>> suffer. It is in the researcher's interest to publish often, so he >>>> is tempted to publish a different article for each small advance >>>> rather than a single article describing his research output is one >>>> swell foop. (Teaching suffers too as research becomes overwhelmingly >>>> important, of course.) >>> >>> Very much affirmative! And I would like to add to this the content of >>> an old response to "JSH: At the Annals": >>> >>> http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/073c83c6b330f28c?hl=en& >> >> You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even. > >Nothing to do with fatalism. The fact that administrators mistake >quantity for quality is a bad thing. It pushes researchers to publish >often rather than to publish well. > >That's not to say that there's an obvious fix. Universities want good >research but administrators are ill-suited to determine research >quality. So they go for the next best thing they can find: require >regular publication and let the referees figure out what's worth >publishing. But the system has many problems and it isn't "fatalism" >to point that out. An academic scholastic first estate perhaps? ~v~~ |