Read on Twitter
(1/n) This is a thread about these flashy journals we love and complain about, at the same time.
I was reading this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0226-5 from @NaturePhotonics (2018) (brought to my attention by @TaroniAndrea)
I was reading this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0226-5 from @NaturePhotonics (2018) (brought to my attention by @TaroniAndrea)
(2/n) There I found this sentence about the way institutions "reward academic excellence" in evaluation processes, that got me thinking:
"The key point is that in order to implement it, academia has in effect outsourced part of its quality control process to journals."
"The key point is that in order to implement it, academia has in effect outsourced part of its quality control process to journals."
(3/n) Too often, we form rapid opinions about academics, based on the reputation of the journals, rather than the content of the papers. This is of course much faster, and it works to some extent. However, this is very much like the academic version of racism.
(4/n) We are at the opposite point of MLK dream. We are judging academics not by the "content of their character", but by the flashiness of the journals.
A second point about outsourcing:
A second point about outsourcing:
(5/n) When we make judgements about the cost of publishing in flashy journals, as I made recently, we should include the alternative costs to this outsourcing. Are we ready to put the time it takes to figure out CV's in evaluation processes, when acting as external panelists?
(6/n) Are funding agencies ready to pay the working hours of such process? Shouldn't that saved cost be considered when we do our math about the cost of publishing in the flashy journals, and assumed by institutions?
(7/n) Final thought, about "skin the game" ( @nntaleb) in this context . Are we equally careful when evaluating CV to hire in our group than when we are external panelist? Don't we care more about the actual skills and attitudes than publication track record?.
8/n . At the end of the day, this tells to me that paying for the consequences of our evaluation decisions is a much better way to improve the process than establishing rules such as "X papers in Q1" (real example in Spain)
9/n. Of course, all of the above is particularly critical to judge early stage researchers. By now we all can tell that a Phys. Rev. B with 500 citations is probably worth more than a flashy journal , same year and same field, with 50 citations.
And 10/10 However, citation counting is only meaningful after 2-3 years, some times much more. Ergodicity only works in the long run (quoting with my words the paper above). Folks my age have averaged out luck. At early stage, a bad strike can put you out. And that's it.
