The spectacle, that Debord warned us about, is undoubtedly present in Academia. Publications are a commodity. Appearing to be a good scientist matters more than actually being one. Metrics of "performance" are based on # of pubs, h index and impact factors. A🧵#AcademicTwitter
More than just mathematical naïveness, taken together, these factors contribute to and amplify the commodification of science. The "need" to publish more (& quicker) reinforces predatory publication practices - that are not exclusive to small publishers anymore. (2/n)
I don't want to be a prophet of the apocalypse, but, IMHO, what we're seeing is unsustainable. What incentives are there for starting a long-term project? E.g.: A longitudinal study with a long follow-up? A project that might take years to generate its first paper. (3/n)
In the meantime, meta-analyses spread like fire. Sloppy, overlapping, redundant, confusing Meta-analyses. Additionally, we also pay enormous amounts of $ to ensure "open access", while we review papers for free. (4/n)
We need to change urgently the way we see science and academic professionals. We need to publish LESS and BETTER papers. We need to reward good, honest, transparent WORK, not just how many papers we publish. (The end!) #science #ScienceTwitter
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
