This is my point, actually. I'm not expert enough in the issue to believe strongly that I'm right -- but this is my intuition. I don't really care if the extra funding goes toward projects, etc. I just want to see people have to optimize less to get up the next level in the pyramid, so that they can push their work in better alignment with 'pure science' rather than maximizing chances of publication within 2-3 years (especially strong pressure on the postdocs). Something like a 5:1 ratio, rather than 73:1 (or whatever the real number is), seems better to me.
Yet: so far, it's what we've got. It works pretty well.
Agreed. I just don't like miscellaneous calls for 'increased science funding'. That just expands the pyramid, fat base and all. I would like the pyramid to be shaped more like an imperial battle cruiser [1].
In any fucked up system, one should look first to the incentives, right? Which takes us to the journal system itself. To me it seems hopelessly outdated, at least in some areas. So here's a thought experiment:
Science (especially now) seems to be largely about gathering data, doing a simulation, or inventing a method (to either gather or analyze data). The data-gathering papers would be more useful as commits to a giant database in the sky, the simulation papers to a giant VCS, and the methods to a giant wiki. Indeed, within the labs I've seen, something like this is in place internally.
It would free up the journals to publish articles about the interpretation of analysis results, and reviews of larger bodies evidence to compile them into deeper theories - which rightly belong in journals. Peer-review would be done by upvoting (!) So what would PhDs be optimizing for? Commits x Votes.
Yep, I just suggested that academia should be redone in the image of HN (I'm probably not the first).
This is my point, actually. I'm not expert enough in the issue to believe strongly that I'm right -- but this is my intuition. I don't really care if the extra funding goes toward projects, etc. I just want to see people have to optimize less to get up the next level in the pyramid, so that they can push their work in better alignment with 'pure science' rather than maximizing chances of publication within 2-3 years (especially strong pressure on the postdocs). Something like a 5:1 ratio, rather than 73:1 (or whatever the real number is), seems better to me.
Yet: so far, it's what we've got. It works pretty well.
Agreed. I just don't like miscellaneous calls for 'increased science funding'. That just expands the pyramid, fat base and all. I would like the pyramid to be shaped more like an imperial battle cruiser [1].
[1] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:Executor_prototype.jpg