The obsession with reputation and glamour science is not about science at all. It’s not too much different than marketing or getting your band on a bill with a headliner. It is actually hurting science when there is more care given to showboating than whether the story you are writing contains a proper interpretation of the data. I see news articles everyday that take a scientific article and completely misrepresent what it’s about. The tweet is just another form of representing by building pomp. Another form of this is the preprint…it was designed to get public critical review before then sharpening it and going to a journal…but now it’s just a way to tweet out the latest whatever-it-is and get everyone’s praises. Overall there is an enormous loss of critical review…perhaps why I read Vinay’s substack?
Even as someone who has a marketing background, I have difficulty figuring out how to get people interested in what I'm writing about. Although it's not often medical in nature, I understand this desire to get people who are more popular to talk about you.
I honestly don't care about connecting with "my readers". I only care about being able to keep doing research. Whatever I do, is for that end - a sort of additional obligation I'd very happily do without if I could.
"Connecting" even betrays that you're trying to frame or market your work as if it's a product to sell; or if you are a product to sell on the job market. Which shows that while morally understandable, your perspective is sociologically unsustainable in this society: as soon as reputation becomes relevant in science, it's the survival of the fittest; market metrics oriented towards that goal of selling.
It seems to me the distinction should be made between people who are interested in the subject matter and the rigorousness of 'the science', and have a sense of responsibility, vs. those who see 'being nice' and 'asking nicely' as being the tools for 'getting ahead' and succeeding in the world.
Human nature will always be reflected in activities of human beings. Skepticism and critical thinking are absolute necessities for sorting out the good and the bad. Probably the two most important words are: who benefits?
Andre Weil reviewing a (mathematics) paper- "What is new is not interesting and what is interesting is not new". It has been my 40 year observational study (hard to do a RCT) that lack of intellectual integrity in a field is directly correlated with the amount of money involved.
I get more from reading Mad Magazine than from any medical research papers. The number one vision of medicine is how do I expose my arrogance to make myself look better when I really don't know shyt.
THAT is a very insightful comment. I would offer Exhibit A here: The “900 article CV” mentioned over and over by its owner, one of the most voluble “COVID experts” who constantly self-promotes and shamelessly so. I shall not mention his name, but he is a pathetic representative of the medical profession who was apparently a useful cardiologist at one time but now just another vitamin and supplement and bullshit hawker on the Internet. He regularly retweets junk science spewed by his equally pathetic acolytes, a sort of pseudo-academic circle jerk.
I find the same in every ‘service’ industry. There are those who just love to serve, and others who seek glory and personal recognition for ‘serving’. Reminds me of the hypocritical religious leaders in Jesus’ day. (Mathew 6:1-4)
Can you publish my paper? There's money in it for you ... https://www.science.org/content/article/paper-mills-bribing-editors-scholarly-journals-science-investigation-finds
Further advice to those trainees--Strive to become the "no need to add me" kind.
The obsession with reputation and glamour science is not about science at all. It’s not too much different than marketing or getting your band on a bill with a headliner. It is actually hurting science when there is more care given to showboating than whether the story you are writing contains a proper interpretation of the data. I see news articles everyday that take a scientific article and completely misrepresent what it’s about. The tweet is just another form of representing by building pomp. Another form of this is the preprint…it was designed to get public critical review before then sharpening it and going to a journal…but now it’s just a way to tweet out the latest whatever-it-is and get everyone’s praises. Overall there is an enormous loss of critical review…perhaps why I read Vinay’s substack?
Nice!
Even as someone who has a marketing background, I have difficulty figuring out how to get people interested in what I'm writing about. Although it's not often medical in nature, I understand this desire to get people who are more popular to talk about you.
I honestly don't care about connecting with "my readers". I only care about being able to keep doing research. Whatever I do, is for that end - a sort of additional obligation I'd very happily do without if I could.
"Connecting" even betrays that you're trying to frame or market your work as if it's a product to sell; or if you are a product to sell on the job market. Which shows that while morally understandable, your perspective is sociologically unsustainable in this society: as soon as reputation becomes relevant in science, it's the survival of the fittest; market metrics oriented towards that goal of selling.
It seems to me the distinction should be made between people who are interested in the subject matter and the rigorousness of 'the science', and have a sense of responsibility, vs. those who see 'being nice' and 'asking nicely' as being the tools for 'getting ahead' and succeeding in the world.
Human nature will always be reflected in activities of human beings. Skepticism and critical thinking are absolute necessities for sorting out the good and the bad. Probably the two most important words are: who benefits?
There are two kinds of people ...
Andre Weil reviewing a (mathematics) paper- "What is new is not interesting and what is interesting is not new". It has been my 40 year observational study (hard to do a RCT) that lack of intellectual integrity in a field is directly correlated with the amount of money involved.
Just as in all of life, there are the givers and the takers - financially, emotionally, spiritually, and (surprise!) academically.
I get more from reading Mad Magazine than from any medical research papers. The number one vision of medicine is how do I expose my arrogance to make myself look better when I really don't know shyt.
Meanwhile, can we stop pretending that the vast majority of this stuff is related to actual research worth that term?
THAT is a very insightful comment. I would offer Exhibit A here: The “900 article CV” mentioned over and over by its owner, one of the most voluble “COVID experts” who constantly self-promotes and shamelessly so. I shall not mention his name, but he is a pathetic representative of the medical profession who was apparently a useful cardiologist at one time but now just another vitamin and supplement and bullshit hawker on the Internet. He regularly retweets junk science spewed by his equally pathetic acolytes, a sort of pseudo-academic circle jerk.
I find the same in every ‘service’ industry. There are those who just love to serve, and others who seek glory and personal recognition for ‘serving’. Reminds me of the hypocritical religious leaders in Jesus’ day. (Mathew 6:1-4)
Interesting observation. I think integrity is what is missing in people.