this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
1591 points (99.7% liked)

Science Memes

13931 readers
1718 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It immediately demonstrates a lack of both care and understanding of the scientific process.

[–] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

As someone within that community: it demonstrates the "publish or perish" mindset. Without enough publications it becomes impossible to get funding to do your research. Thus, the incentives are there for producing more publications and not better research.

Unsurprisingly, encouraging greater throughput results in greater throughput. And without proper support quality suffers. For example, a large portion of research is done by underpaid graduate students.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

...but then they should perish (not literally).

If you've got nothing to publish, is your work valuable?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 5 days ago

You might need more time to get good quality results. You might want to sleep more than 5h a day. You might even want to enjoy life.

[–] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That is the argument, but when those with more publications get more funding than those with better publications, the drive is to produce more.

Don't get me wrong, there are still good publications out there, but the incentives and pressures move the needle to the quantity side. How do you measure goodness? I dont know. But what we are doing now isn't working, which is evidenced by, well how everything is going at the moment.

Of course we could moralize it and say something like "ohh well scientists are just greedier and lazier than they used to be" but that is thought terminating and no solution can be found that way.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I totally accept that quantity shouldn't matter more than quality. I mean that's how we are where we are. I just don't think zero publishable results is a good sign either.

[–] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 days ago

No one said zero publishable results. Besides, to get to the stage of a publishing scientist (I mean a primary investigator) you have gone through a Bsc, Msc (maybe published, but definitely a thesis), phD (usually 1+ publications), post docs (at least 1 which may last between 6months and 5 years, and would be expected to publish), a probation period at a University/Research Institute or other organization (where you would be expected to publish).

So if you make it through that entire process and are incapable of publishing, the entire system failed you.