“Scientific publishing is not primarily about communication. It’s a way of keeping score.”
Discuss.
Richard P Grant
Scientist, poet, gadfly
Creator and sustainer of
Occam's Typewriteremail: rpgrant at gmail.com
twitter: @rpg7twit
home: rg-d.com-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- rpg on A Long December
- Henry on A Long December
- Our House | Confessions of a (former) Lab Rat on Three Little Birds
- rpg on We need medicine
- Henry on We need medicine
- rpg on Sweet home Alabama
- Henry Gee on Sweet home Alabama
- rpg on Sweet home Alabama
- Austin Elliott on Sweet home Alabama
- rpg on The Times They Are A-Changin’
Archives
-
Buy me a coffee:
Categories
- A momentary lapse of reason
- Art
- Birds
- Careers
- Don't try this at home
- ethics
- F1000
- Friday afternoon
- Funding
- Gardening
- Guest posts
- Homeopathy
- Ill-considered rants
- Internet
- Lab ratting
- Literature
- London
- Magirism
- Me
- meta
- Music
- Nature
- Nonsense
- Office life
- Offspring
- Penguins
- People
- Personal
- Photography
- Politics
- Public Engagement
- Rants
- Science
- Science is Vital
- Science-less Sunday
- Scio11
- Shooting
- Shopping lists
- Silliness
- Talks
- The stupid, it burns
- Uncategorized
- Video
- wank
- War stories
- wibbling
- Work
- you
Meta
Where’s this from?
It’s not really keeping score, it’s more the competition itself.
Oh, look, this comment is longer than the blog post.
That’s the next question: who do you think said it?
And was that my shortest blog post ever?
Isn’t keeping score a form of communication?
Fifteen-love.
In it’s current form, probably.
Nothing wrong with keeping score. How are you suppose to know when you win otherwise? 😉
I think I said that. If I didn’t, I should have done.
You will, Henry. You will/
/Wilde
If ‘score’ is another way to say ‘personal impact for career purposes’, then it’s undoubtedly true.
(tries to say something non-lewd about Dr Magnanti and ‘scoring’)
(fails)
Yes.
What…, pardon, listen that…
Hey! I have the monopoly on surrealism here!
Not according to my banana you don’t.
That’s because it’s a fish.
I agree (and I cannot keep up with you guys and all your witty comments!).
…with very small values for “witty”, in some cases.
Also, I thought scientific publishing was all about the Impact Factor(TM).
*runs
Feynman?
15 love is not a score on the impact factor. Please provide a number (in)accurate to three decimal places.
Article-level metrics is where it’s out now, Winty. And they’re meaningless to three decimal places.
*runs faster
If scientific publication is the way we communicate best, the world are doomed.
If science communication is a means of keeping score, then are librarians equivalent to people who play the football pools ?
Ha ha! More like betting on the Grand National, only without any form knowledge.
This reminds me of the propositions attached to Dutch PhD theses. The “discuss!” is implied there.
Care to expand, Bart, for the sake of those of us not familiar with that?
Every Dutch PhD thesis is supplemented with 10-12 propositions, inserted on a leaflet easily detachable (or already detached) from the book itself.
Every university has a slightly different set of rules governing them, but the basics are approximately like this:
4 propositions summarising the main arguments from the thesis
4 propositions highlighting one’s familiarity with the field
4 propositions showing the ability to critically engage academia
One can image that the last 4 leave a lot of room for creative interpretation. So creative, that a few newspapers have/used to have a weekly section of “the best propositions of last week’s PhD theses”.
I have grabbed my own thesis off the shelf and looked up the propositions, to provide an example:
1. Because of its newly acquired large-scale character, its rapid ascent in the hierarchy of sciences, its interdisciplinary character, its prominent coexistence inside and outside of academia and its interwoven technical and normative nature, present nutrition science is a prime candidate for the scientific study of contemporary, large-scale research practices. This thesis (Chapter 1).
2. [Sensitisation] represents the reciprocity science studies so actively seek and ensures that science studies are relevant to their audience: the scientists who live, work and act inside research practices. This thesis (Chapter 2).
3. Interdisciplinary practice has resulted in a complex epistemological topography of ‘wetness’, ‘dryness’ and ‘moistness’ accompanied by the concepts, objects and methods that constitute each three. This thesis (Chapter 4).
4. Problems are situated, as are the concepts that belong to, or are employed by, such problems. This thesis (Chapter 6).
5. To decide what is healthy you have to decide what healthy is. Industry representative I003 in this thesis (Chapter 3).
6. [E]ach practitioner should do what he or she does best, while remain willing to learn from others about the blind spots of his or her knowledge projects. Klaus Hoeyer; in: “Ethics wars”: Reflections on the antagonism between bioethicists and social science observers of biomedicine. Human Studies 29(2): 203-220 (2006).
7. Travel makes your science better. _James D. Watson; in: Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. New York, Knopf (2007). _
8. Verfechter verschiedener Stile können einander schätzen, ja sogar zusammenarbeiten, wenn sie wissen, daß Ursache der Unterschiede eine andere Denkweise und nicht böser Wille ist. Ludwik Fleck; in: Krise in der Wissenschaft. Zu einer freien und menschlichen Wissenschaft. Erfahrung und Tatsache. L. Fleck, L. Schäfer and T. Schnelle. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp: 175-181 (19831960).
9. Health consists of having the same diseases as one’s neighbours. Quentin Crisp.
10. Een proefschrift kent ten minste een draagtijd van 48 maanden, hetgeen vraagt om een corresponderend zwangerschapsverlof.
11. De wereld is toe aan een feestdag om een wetenschappelijke verworvenheid te vieren en de universiteiten zijn de aangewezen werkgevers om het initiatief te nemen.
Ah, I realise that I need to translate numbers 8, 10 and 11….
8. From German: Those adhering to different styles can value one another – even collaborate, when they realise that the source of the difference of another way of thinking, is not devious intent.
10. From Dutch: A thesis has a gestation period of at least 48 months, which calls for corresponding pregnancy leave.
11. From Dutch: The world is ready for a formal (bank) holiday celebrating a scientific achievement. Universities are the right employers to take the initiative.
Wow. That’s brilliant, thanks.
It gets even better – there is a full online repository of the so called “final propositions” (The website is only in Dutch, but the propositions are in many languages – mostly English and Dutch).
Ew. What a nasty website.
So, do you agree with the aphorism, Richard?
I wrote it, Heather.
The thesis propositions are one of only two reasons I regret not staying in Holland for my PhD. (The fancy dress defence is the second.)
Heh. “Eten & drinken” is a section of propositions on that website.
Dutch PhD defences are famous the world over for being (a) very glamorous, and (b) not really a defence. My PhD supervisor sat on one, and the assembled multitude were horrified when she actually asked the candidate a hard question about his data, and expected an answer.
Also, don’t you get “supporters” of some kind to help you answer tricky things?
Kind of ‘Who wants to be a
millionairescientist?’You get supporters, but I don’t think they would actually know more about your PhD than you do, though?
Bart> That was funto read! Thanks!! and for the link.
Eva> I know, the dress up. I missed one part of my defense, in order for it to be “proper old school” since I had already moved out of the country to my post doc. that’s the one day a year when the doctors who have defended during the year all come together in a big ceremony with formal clothing, get their hats/bay leaf head pieces and a dimploma, and afterward trot off to the castle to have a fancy dinner with a lot of people. Oh, and there are canons shooting saluts as well. Lovely time. Too bad I couldn’t take time off and go home for the celebration….
Well then, keeping score of what? Like a tally?
I read scientific communication rather like a log of community activity. Hard to know what you or others are up to if you have to try to rely simply on grant requests and progress reports, no?
ach no Heather. Everyone talks. Papers is just a way of saying how good you are.
Have you read a paper recently? Interminable.
I read several yesterday. It was a joy to have the time to do so – not for the prose but for winkling out those little details that might mean so much one day…
You and your little winkle, Stephen.
Here’s the original, jotted down at the British Library on Tuesday afternoon:
I rather agree with Stephen. But I so often do.
I just read a jewel of a paper from cover to cover, in a completely unrelated field to mine. No, I’m not trying to get you to rope me in, I’m way overcommitted as it is.
You can’t tell me that your observation is not related to your new job and perhaps, a bit of sensory overload? Or based on a well-developed philosophy that led you to that job? Anyhow, coming from you in particular, the “aphorism” is particularly laden. I also notice a difference between your paraphrase and your original jot – and I agree more with the original.
And yes, it’s Friday finally.
Crowd-sourcing FTW. \o/
Heather, that looks rather good, thanks for the linky link. Something to read (gasp!).
Richard G – somebody keeeps asking me to read papers. And write f1000 thingies on them. I’m just sayin’.
I really, really wish I could write an f1000 review on this fine discussion of anal fistula as represented in Shakespeare, but it’s a bit old. Ah well.
Epilogue
Blame Editorial, Richard. I’m just architecting the information.
But, Richard W, you wrote a mighty fine blog post for posterity. That’s already something.
But all these moments will be lost in rain, like tears in rain.
Dutch PhD defences are famous the world over for being (a) very glamorous, and (b) not really a defence.
I sat as an Opponent on two Dutch defenses at the University of Leiden and we were quite tough on the candidates. Maybe it’s a university-specific thing? But there was a lovely velvet-robed man with a censer and a bell, so that balanced everything out.
‘Opponent’? Wow.
Australian defences are famous for not existing.
Nice try Richard
Sadly your notes do not match your quotation.
Let me introduce you to the concept of the ‘first draft’.
@ Jennifer: The Dutch PhD defenses are defenses, but not exams. That means that you do publically need to defend your thesis, regularly against opponents who ask tough questions, but you cannot fail. You can fail beforehand, if the manuscript committee decided that the thesis isn’t good enough. But once you’ve made it to the defense, you’ll make it through the defense.
But the mere fact that you cannot formally fail, does not mean that you cannot feels as if failing, when you’re not able to defend properly. The fancy dress and all the traditional ceremonial glamour makes candidates all the more nervous. This is worsened by the fact that these defenses are public and the aula is filled with dozens of colleagues, friends and family.
It all sounds much more fun that the standard “sat in an anonymous room sweating with the committee peppering you with hard questions” approach that is
popularused here. And it’s much more photogenic. 🙂Dressing up is good for the tourists, certainly.
You know, you’re getting a lot of play for this fourteen-word blog post.
You guys must really be bored.
Can I say ‘Mornington Crescent’ now, please?
No. Wintle put us in spoon.
Ah. I see. I’ll go now.
I can point you to the bus to the station, if you like.
Appreciated. Thanks.
Bart> that is most of the thing in Sweden as well. You have to be accepted (by your advisor and department chair or other important people) to be allowed to defend your thesis. And then you have an opponent from another university (usually from abroad too in order to increase the likelyhood of seeing what researchers from other countries think about it all) and then a smaller board of questioners (usually 3 or 4). THen you go on for about 3 hours.
Some would say that the opponent and “defendant” talk is really more of an open “peer to peer scientist talk” (the first for the defendant in her/his new role as an independent Dr)… I quite like that idea.