4 ms·

Unless scientists and researchers start to put the interests of collaboration and “open science” ahead of their desire to be promoted or win tenure the system w

by kia 15y ago

Unless scientists and researchers start to put the interests of collaboration and “open science” ahead of their desire to be promoted or win tenure the system will not change This is the main problem because most won't.

nickpinkston 15y ago
Yea, the real question is how to show their efforts in an open system so they can get tenure without fear of being "scooped" by being open
- markkat 15y ago
  Bingo. There is good reason to fear being scooped. It can cost you funding, and thus, your job.
  - nickpinkston 15y ago
    For sure - I wish we could find ways of seeing whose "code" was "forked" and thus whose shoulders everyone is collectively standing one - the some of that is your advances in the field right? The current system uses paper publishing (# / impact factor) as a proxy for this, but it produces a lot of perverse incentives. If we found a way to see whose concepts were being used and when - people would instead throwing out any idea they'd have hoping that it be picked up (even unknowingly) by other researchers so they can get some of the credit. If this could be done, would it fix this status / scooped problem, and is there actually a way to replicate the "fork" structure of something like GitHub? Unfortunately, science is both: 1.) hard to pull in-depth semantic data out of (I'm guessing a lot of nuance) and 2.) not formally coded like programming language.
markkat 15y ago
I absolutely would if I could do it and still get funded. I'd love to share everything openly. Just pay my bills as I do it. Currently, science is funded based on individual results. You can't blame folk for wanting to be promoted or to win tenure.
- _delirium 15y ago
  > Currently, science is funded based on individual results. Yeah, there's a direct tension between the move over the past few decades towards very competitive grant funding (10% funding rates, short grant terms, much fewer long-term, large block grants for centers), and a goal of having everyone share everything altruistically. If you purposely set up science funding so that it encourages cutthroat competition, people are going to have to behave like cutthroat competitors, and those who try not to will (on average) lose to those who do.
zbyszek 15y ago
A scientist who does not get promoted or win tenure is likely to cease being a scientist. Losing those scientists who favour change makes the system even less likely to change.

by kia 15y ago

nickpinkston 15y ago

Yea, the real question is how to show their efforts in an open system so they can get tenure without fear of being "scooped" by being open

markkat 15y ago
Bingo. There is good reason to fear being scooped. It can cost you funding, and thus, your job.
- nickpinkston 15y ago
  For sure - I wish we could find ways of seeing whose "code" was "forked" and thus whose shoulders everyone is collectively standing one - the some of that is your advances in the field right? The current system uses paper publishing (# / impact factor) as a proxy for this, but it produces a lot of perverse incentives. If we found a way to see whose concepts were being used and when - people would instead throwing out any idea they'd have hoping that it be picked up (even unknowingly) by other researchers so they can get some of the credit. If this could be done, would it fix this status / scooped problem, and is there actually a way to replicate the "fork" structure of something like GitHub? Unfortunately, science is both: 1.) hard to pull in-depth semantic data out of (I'm guessing a lot of nuance) and 2.) not formally coded like programming language.

markkat 15y ago

I absolutely would if I could do it and still get funded. I'd love to share everything openly. Just pay my bills as I do it. Currently, science is funded based on individual results. You can't blame folk for wanting to be promoted or to win tenure.

_delirium 15y ago
> Currently, science is funded based on individual results. Yeah, there's a direct tension between the move over the past few decades towards very competitive grant funding (10% funding rates, short grant terms, much fewer long-term, large block grants for centers), and a goal of having everyone share everything altruistically. If you purposely set up science funding so that it encourages cutthroat competition, people are going to have to behave like cutthroat competitors, and those who try not to will (on average) lose to those who do.

zbyszek 15y ago

A scientist who does not get promoted or win tenure is likely to cease being a scientist. Losing those scientists who favour change makes the system even less likely to change.