HN Gopher Feed (2017-08-25) - page 1 of 10
What do you get if you publish a paper in a highly-ranked journal?
83 points by ilamonthttp://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/08/25/publish...
s0rce - 6 hours ago
I published in Science and Nature during my PhD and other than some
prestige and help getting a fellowship I never received any sort of
direct payout. I don't think my supervisor got anything directly
either, definitely helped future grant applications, however.
cryoshon - 5 hours ago
>I published in Science and Nature during my PhDyou have my
admiration twice, then.it doesn't count for much from me to you,
i know.but improving the human body of knowledge is, in a wide
sense, its own reward.
projectramo - 3 hours ago
When I was in grad school, you were sent to the front of the line
when applying for tenure track positions. (If you got a paper or
two into those two publications).However, people still had to
like you in the interview and job talk.
s0rce - 3 hours ago
I applied, gave up, just didn't feel like it was all worth it
in the end and now work in industry.
subroutine - 3 hours ago
I'm assuming these were not 1st author publications. If you
have a 1st author Nature and a 1st author Science paper
during grad school, Universities should be rolling out the
Ultimatt - 2 hours ago
So? The actual career is still not worth it. That what you
just said is true is almost the worst part about it!
subroutine - 2 hours ago
Not worth it in what regard?
s0rce - 2 hours ago
They were both first author, details are on my very out of
date website link in my profile if you are interested.
Definitely no red carpet rolling out, not sure if you are
in academia but those days have passed. Could I possibly
have done another postdoc and managed a faculty position
somewhere in the USA, probably, was it worth it to me,
nope. Felt like I failed for a while, its hard to escape
from the academia cult.
subroutine - 1 hours ago
Whoa. Well first congrats, that is a triumphant feat for
a grad student.I am truly surprised your faculty search
wasnt more fruitful, given there is hardly much more you
could have done other than maybe secure a K99 grant.Why
do you suspect your cv was not top-tier competetive? I
ask because yes, I am in Academia and from my experience
(including being on faculty search committees) suggests
you would have at least been invited to job talks.
notyourday - 5 hours ago
Paper copy of the journal. Authors go absolutely apoplectic if they
don't get the paper copy mailed to them.[Source: Pillow talk]
s0rce - 3 hours ago
I ordered extra hard-copies for my mom and grandmother, I think
they cared more about the papers in Nature/Science then anyone
sndean - 2 hours ago
Yeah, I was 2nd author on a Nature paper. The only person that
cared was my mom.
xioxox - 2 hours ago
I didn't get one for a first-author Science paper, but got them
for co-authored Nature papers.
notyourday - 2 hours ago
I am pretty sure that means production editor messed up or
someone else in your department got your copy.
asdffdsa321 - 1 hours ago
An interview at google?
icelancer - 1 hours ago
I live in this field now. I refuse to publish in so-called "highly-
ranked journals" that take 3-6 months to find peers to review and
referee your work, drag their feet, and basically amount to a
ridiculous group of cronies that guard the gates of "science."I've
talked about it before on HN but I will only publish to open access
and open data (most important) journals that require all data be
scrubbed of PII and published alongside the paper for replication
purposes. I highly favor journals that not only allow, but
encourage replication (yes, many elite journals cite "novelty" as a
top factor regarding publication decisions... embarrassing).Science
should be freely available, open access, open data, and replicable.
Otherwise it isn't science. It's primarily garbage that exists to
advance the careers and egos of a select few.
avip - 31 minutes ago
Don't forget code! "we then used our in-house untested code,
developed by an undergrad we scrapped from Biology, to normalize
the results. The code is comfortably not attached"
osrec - 1 hours ago
Completely agree with you. I find it especially annoying when
research funded by tax payers' money is not made freely
bantersaurus - 5 hours ago
amelius - 1 hours ago
So I suppose it's often better to turn your idea into a company
abfan1127 - 5 hours ago
moh_maya - 5 hours ago
1) For assistant professors, a better chance of tenure2) Grants!3)
becomes easier to attract good postdocs, which helps you publish
good papers faster, which helps...4) Grad students
kazinator - 5 hours ago
If your roommate is Shelly Cooper, you get a sticker!Possibly one
depicting a kitten which says, "me-wow!"
joshvm - 6 hours ago
Certainly not directly, but in most universities publication output
is the main driver for salary negotation (and advancement on tenure
track). Most places will put you on a standard scale which
increments each year, and having a top tier publication may be
enough to negotiate a bump of a couple of rungs (worth a thousand
or two pa in the UK).I would imagine the same applies to most jobs
- rather than an on-the-spot bonus, if you published in a
prestigious journal as part of your job, it would be strong grounds
for some compensation at your next review.
vixen99 - 5 hours ago
A lot of action on SciHub
paulpauper - 5 hours ago
It means a lot of status and prestige on Reddit and other 'smart'
communities, especially if the paper is in a STEM subject. Outside
of academia and offline, very little.
neurothrow - 4 hours ago
A scientist once apologized for being a jerk to me at a meeting the
previous year, after research that I presented there was published
in a highly-ranked journal. Oddly, I didn't even remember the
incident in question, but the change in opinion, apparently just
because of the publication venue has stuck with me for a long time.
jstandard - 1 hours ago
How does intellectual property work for published research based on
approaches developed while consulting for a company?For example,
let's say you develop a novel modeling methodology for a company
who hired you. You'd like to publish the methodology and give
conference talks on it. Since you're hired, your work and the
methodology would belong to the company as their asset.Are there
certain types of licenses applicable here? How about in the case of
the article where researchers are compensated for presenting a talk
on that methodology?
icelancer - 46 minutes ago
>>How does intellectual property work for published research
based on approaches developed while consulting for a company?This
is negotiable upfront for industrial research positions. You
should always review your IP contract inside your job offer
packet and battle HR/management hard on the rights to the IP and
compensation surrounding it. Most boilerplate language assigns
all IP rights to the company you work for with a maximum of $1
consideration paid for your work (to satisfy contract law if it
is ever argued in a court), with acknowledgements or minor credit
to you in the official documentation.Needless to say, you
shouldn't blindly agree to that unless your base salary is
commensurate with such a loss of control and future rights of
Vinnl - 4 hours ago
In addition to providing more incentive for manipulation of result
and flashy research, it also rewards researchers not for the
contents of their research, but for where they manage to get it
published. Especially the "top tier" journals place emphasis on
noteworthiness, disincentivising e.g. replication studies, and
often with a higher number of retractions .It also means that
the position of the traditional, subscription-based journals are
cemented more, even though many funders are also aiming to
transition to open access publishing.So overall, I guess I'm not
that enthusiastic about this. https://www.nature.com/news/why-
knolan - 5 hours ago
You'll get asked to review more papers.
robotresearcher - 4 hours ago
Suggest a title change, since almost none of the comments address
the contents of the article.E.g. "Large cash bounties paid for
highly-ranked journal articles in China and other Asian and middle
eastern countries".Most comments are answering the question by
stating the traditional reward. The article is about how very
different rewards are appearing.
joe_the_user - 1 hours ago
Well then let me bite on the question of the problem with such
high payouts."The next question is whether there?s anything wrong
with this idea, and if so, what. It makes me uncomfortable, but
that?s not the appropriate measure. As long as the journals
themselves keep up their editorial standards, the main effect
would seem to be that their editorial staffs must get an awful
lot of China-derived manuscripts whose authors are hoping to get
lucky."Well, I'd offer that this analysis ignores how science has
historically worked.Essentially, science has involved something
like a "club" of individuals who can be trusted to make a sincere
effort to find the true. Certainly, the use of exact instruments
and the theoretical reproducibility of experiments were important
but also dealing with individuals are reliable, systematic and
trustworthy was an important thing.Which is to say that science
journals aren't designed to filter out articles which are wholly
fraudulent, a tissue of lies cleverly created to mimic an actual
scientific breakthrough. With a clever enough person, naturally,
there is no way to see fraud from the article, one would have to
lab at the laboratory, attempt to reproduce the experiment and
so-forth (and reproducibility was the key historically, most
experiments weren't actually reproduced and no journal is going
to maintain a lab to reproduce submitted articles - except
perhaps in CS where a program might submittable).And there you
have it. The lab coated scientist is a movie character but be
scientist, as least once, was more than to engage in some
activities. It was to be part of the "broad march of progress"
where the lesser-scientist still helped move things forward by
small, honest iterations of basic research (and this "club"
arguably was disproportionately and unfairly white, male and
first-world but every process has its weaknesses).A move which
makes the pursuit of science a purely adversarial affair, by
consigning poor performs to absolute poverty and giving fairly
vast rewards to good performs is going to break the club
everywhere.And the implications of the end of science as an
idealist pursuit vary from field to field. Fraud in CS or math
might be impossible or might be rendered impossible with suitable
measures. But in social sciences or other fields, things could
get nasty indeed.
Retric - 1 hours ago
In practice math papers are basically arguments for something.
It's possible to make a bad faith argument by ignoring that A
does not imply B and just hopping nobody notices. You can even
structure thing to be intentionally misleading.Honestly, I
suspect people fudge thing in math more than you might think.
quickben - 4 hours ago
If you are not planning a career in academia, wouldnt it be better
to patent it?Just wondering...
KGIII - 4 hours ago
Not everything can be patented and some folks have ethical
concerns about keeping research open. Not to mention, you pretty
much have to publish once you get into grad school.If you're
going for your Ph.D. then your goal is to further the art.
santaclaus - 4 hours ago
They aren't mutually exclusive. As a researcher/engineer,
whenever we publish in a top tier journal the company usually
files for patents on the main contribution too.
PeterisP - 3 hours ago
Most research is not patentable.Technical development and design
that results in some "method and apparatus" to do a particular
thing is patentable, but the research required before that R&D
that leads to understand how stuff works and what might work is
not patentable. And that's not speaking about less technical
fields of science where nothing is patentable, or computer
science which is not patentable in much of the world (software
patents aren't valid in EU and other places).Also, patenting is
expensive. Especially because you need to file a patent in
multiple major markets, you need multiple different patent
lawyers, if you're outside of USA then filing a patent in USA is
a bit of a hassle, and just for USA+main EU countries gets quite
costly quick - so that's a reason not to patent things unless you
have a clear picture that some product is going to violate that
patent and thus it'll become valuable.
santaclaus - 1 hours ago
> Most research is not patentable.In my experience, the lawyers
just chuck 'A System for' in front of the paper's title and
open the firehose at the patent office. Lots of ridiculous
stuff gets through...
Animats - 3 hours ago
25 free reprint copies?
efficax - 5 hours ago
In addition to the prestige and career boost, you get a a really
swell awesome feeling and get to be a permanent part of the
encylopedia of knowledge. You're in libraries now!
moh_maya - 5 hours ago
That happens if you publish in any indexed journals. Perhaps more
people will see your name if you publish in a higher profile
journal, but that is also not a certainly (though highly
upvotinglurker - 5 hours ago
Many libraries only have online subscriptions to these journals
azag0 - 4 hours ago
In chemical physics, many of the most influential papers (tens of
thousands of citations) have been published in The Journal of
Chemical Physics, an absolutely non-flashy publication with
impact factor ~3 and a myriad of uninteresting papers.