The problem with #3 is that evluation of candidates is usually based on
administrative criteria rather than scientific standards. I find it
particularly disheartening that workshop presentations are now often
published as primaries, when they should be a way to present work in
progress to colleagues. The emphasis on primary publications not only leads
to a superfluity of papers, but also damages the research process.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "(Candan Soykan)" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: quinta-feira, 22 de Julho de 2010 16:53
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fixing peer review - elegant new proposal and
petition
There are several ways to address this issue (and I doubt that my list is
exhaustive):
1) Increase the number of jobs/grants for ecologists;
2) Decrease the number of ecologist we train so as not to exceed the
number
of jobs/grants that are available;
or
3) Change the way we evaluate candidates to better reflect the quality of
the work they have done, rather then just reward output per se.
In my opinion, option #1 is largely out of the hands of researchers;
moreover, if the amount of funding did increase, there is always the risk
that the number of ecologist we train would as well, leading to no net
gain.
I have seen certain individuals refrain from taking students, fulfilling
the second option above, but getting a whole community of ecologists to do
it seems problematic (who would decide how many students each researcher
can
train?). The third option seems the most realistic, but will require a
shift in the way we evaluate research productivity. Moreover, it brings
with it risks as well - counting pubs is, at the very least, objective,
whereas who is to evaluate the quality of the work done by an applicant?
