koen_hufkens

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @academicchatter And if you don't like it you are clearly not passionate enough.

koen_hufkens , 2 months ago

@erinnacland @academicchatter @klangin Hurray, my timing seems about right to go private with my consulting business, offering academic services on my terms (not the crappy terms of short-term post-doc contract).

koen_hufkens , 2 months ago

@moritz_negwer @erinnacland @academicchatter @klangin Having been on the hiring end the past year, yes it is. Certainly a downturn in turnout for positions.

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@academicchatter Ironically, this time you do have to side with the philanthropists - because they are right to demand this.

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@brembs @albertcardona @academicchatter Did I mention that I once got a runner up price by Elsevier, for trying to improve the peer-review infrastructure.

What did we get, Publons, i.e. more baseless metrics. 🤷‍♂️

https://www.elsevier.com/en-in/connect/peer-review-challenge

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@brembs @albertcardona @academicchatter Some of this was actually covered by Hypothes.is. Which is actually open source, but nobody bothers. I think only the AGU journals use this for peer-review comments.

For reference, this has been possible for a good 10 years (as I didn't -invent- things for my submission, I only pointed out the obvious).

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@albertcardona @brembs @academicchatter This has been my point for a long time. The problem with that are perverse incentives. Everybody wants the eat their cake and have it, too. So there is a lot of open washing, but little systemic change in institutions because of it.

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@brembs @albertcardona @academicchatter Thanks. But to be fair, I'm not going to claim the idea as such either. At the time the infrastructure was there to do this consistently, even when still dealing with PDFs on the backend (flawed as that "standard" might be). I was merely trying to point this out, in a idle hope of adoption (we're now a decade later, and I've given up #enshitification is the norm I fear).

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@academicchatter Ooooh, I was wrong, it isn't a good faith move by the philanthropist after all (I should have known better). It is a move to capture market share in the pre-print business, pushing some #AI nonsense.

#FFS #LateStageCapitalism

@jonny

https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/112217497889784880

koen_hufkens OP , 2 months ago

@jonny @academicchatter Won't hold my breath on this one I fear.

koen_hufkens , 4 months ago

@ml @academicchatter

Reasons:

• quick personal career profit (prestige)
• ignorance and lack of management training
• poor incentives
• hazing / survival bias attitude
• ...

The reason things don't change is not because it is hard, but mostly because it is perceived to not pay off. So people are treated as cannon fodder on behalf of research projects. Students shouldn't be "coddled", but as an educator you do have a duty of care.

koen_hufkens , 4 months ago

@ml @academicchatter You could just "supervise" and don't teach - just tell people what to do (be a boss). But this debases the requirement of getting additional -education- of a PhD degree. If people want a boss they will get a job elsewhere, and probably be paid better as well.

You pay and treat people well to retain talent, not for doing "the job". You can act that way but you will pay for it with churn and a bad reputation. Happy people are creative productive people.

koen_hufkens , 4 months ago

@StephanieMoore @NeptuneCaffeine @ml @academicchatter Exactly, and this goes for all aspects. You can leave people to sort it out (sink or swim) or you can just put in a good word or (re)direct them. This takes little effort and goes a long way.

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter It's a borrowed (new) term I use. I equate the economic and political fallout of these similar to online "platform" economics of for example Facebook or Uber.

Basically, setups where little new is created, on the platform, aside from a way to aggregate labour - AND - where the benefits of this labour generally don't flow back in equal measure to the contributors (users).

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter With this I mean that, when done correctly, networks can be great. But this requires radical openness in governance and the underlying process(ing). The latter is rarely the case.

This results in these networks having similar dynamics than say Uber, where the contributions to a network disproportionately benefit the network owner (rarely the contributors).

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter I'll give an example. In movement ecology you have Movebank. Which provides certain services to people who contribute their data (i.e. it pulls in remote sensing and climate data for locations - mostly).

This service is "free", but by and large this service is not reproducible by others (their processing is not open). i.e. you do not teach people to do this on their own. Thereby, sucking the oxygen out of the room when it comes to funding general infrastructure.

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter Then there is the issue of "god mode" referring to the abuse of Uber spying on its users. And I've seen this, as I had preferential access to data in the past. In short, those who own the network can pre-empt large studies because they can see / and leverage the value of the full dataset before anyone else does.

This gives network owners an incredible advantage in getting things "first out of the door", as well as explore research questions and data gaps.

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter The latter then reflects onto the potential to write and acquire funding for said network.

This is further compounded by the fact that the more people contribute to large the incentive there is to fund it - especially when the "secret sauce" is not shared. In many ways, things become too big to fail.

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter This is my general criticism, that networks are fine. Unless they do not share their inner workflows and governance structures. And especially in ecology there is a lot of that out there.

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter So the way to make this into a platform would be to setup a database, where you gatekeep all aspects (only sharing a subset of the data back to the contributors - or a transformed "product").

You then leverage this into soliciting more contributions (the growth phase) from external collaborators. This will give you the opportunity to posit that it becomes indispensable (while not sharing all data or the underlying processing) - increasing personal funding chances.

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter Now I've been the devil's advocate here. Don't do this, as it limits reproducibility and in the long-term negatively impacts the open data discourse IMO.

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@DrEvanGowan @academicchatter Often monetizing this require a certain momentum (critical mass), and being open about things works against this. Again, not saying you should do this - but it seems to be a pattern in certain fields.

koen_hufkens , 4 months ago

@UlrikeHahn @paulralph @philosophy Add scientific humility to the list of themes to explore.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@alxsim @academicchatter I think there is this time. It is just easier to play the numbers game.

Not playing the numbers game requires political action, which for many is seen as dangerous for their careers.

Instead they pass the buck to the next generation through not teaching thoughtfully but teaching how to play the numbers, mostly.

There is a strong survivor bias in staff faculty, i.e. being those that profit from this status quo.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@alxsim @academicchatter The road to hell is paved with good intentions of what people will do after they get tenure.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@andrei_chiffa @academicchatter The study itself I think is something to be discussed in its own right. There are different confounding dynamics at play.

BUT, there is no escaping the fact that scientists publish ever more work. And the rate does not track the number of new Phd applicants (which has been increasing as well).

Basically a whole lot of people are collectively running, to effectively stand still.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@kraweel65 @andrei_chiffa @academicchatter Fact remains that too many academics are chasing metrics, and too many people down the pecking order are thrown under the bus for it.

Both the Science and Nature laments on PhD student and post-doc well-being go back more than a decade with little improvement over time.

Getting back to not chasing our tail would do everybody a favour.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00332-6

koen_hufkens OP , 4 months ago

@FantasticalEconomics @benfell @Runyan50 @academicchatter I draw parallels, this isn't peer reviewed people. I write on my morning commute or when traveling in general. These are observations I make, which might (or might not) merit attention.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@academicchatter But then you might wonder how do I get mentoring experience and management experience.

Well, through mentoring by a senior member early in your career. The obvious catch 22 ensues.

The core issue in this context is that, generally, academia is greedy and doesn't pay it forward. With short-term fixed contracts the norm it is easier not to invest in people and consider them expendable.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@egonw @academicchatter I refuse to believe that attention to finishing a project is detrimental. Projects need clear goals to retain momentum.

I find it a testament to poor planning if not at least some goals can be achieved (with goals I do not mean papers, I mean the core underlying research done).

I've seen too many projects mismanaged because "we don't set goals" and pie in the sky mismanagement, where the last minute rescue and scramble needs to be covered by poor phds or post-docs.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@egonw @academicchatter Personally I work along the crowd-sourcing model if you will. Where my projects will have highly feasible components, and then there are the more dangerous "stretch goals". The latter are bonus (not critical).

All too often, projects are written solely with the stretch goals in mind, which leaves everyone disappointed when they are (most likely) not reached. This leaves then little to report to funders, and the whole thing reeks of lack of management vision.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@egonw @academicchatter This methodology is also people and infrastructure first, where you build capacity bottom up - rather than dictating / demanding output top down. The latter is a source of much ill in academia.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@MCDuncanLab @academicchatter Yes, this point has been made in the thread as well. There are ample opportunities, but I feel it is a minority that either uses them, or gets selected for them (as you mention).

Ultimately this self selection, against it, is what matters. Then there is the matter of "going through the motions" in these matters, where people get the training only to tick a box on their CV - but frankly couldn't care less about the implementation.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@cazencott @academicchatter Yep, there is a lot of that around.

https://mastodon.social/

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@IanSudbery @academicchatter I guess YMMV on many of these courses. I fear that some things get lost in translation from a business to an academic setting. Worth exploring.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@ktoddbrown @academicchatter This is the argument I've made in the thread. The catch 22. I find that mostly "the paying it forward" isn't emphasized (i.e. the community aspect).

Hence, PIs end up with little experience going through the standard track (and not actively seeking these opportunities themselves).

This doesn't only cover mentorship, also supporting students in management and orienting them for other than academic tracks for example.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@ktoddbrown @academicchatter I'm highly resisting the idea that tenure track is the time to mess about with management and mentoring.

Failing to take this serious from day one, and ideally before they start, is not only failing themselves but also multiple people in their wake. I don't think this an acceptable trade-off to gather this sort of knowledge. There are books for that, or ideally you get this spoon fed by someone who mentored you in these matters.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@ktoddbrown @academicchatter There is one exception to this rule, being totally transparent with lab members and stating that you are making this up as go along (i.e. admit that mistakes will be made).

This then demands that there should be considerable slack on work demands - i.e. no double standards. One can't demand people to be on time, if time management of a PI fails.

This requires deep introspection and a huge amount of scientific humility. I would argue that this a scarce resource.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@ktoddbrown @academicchatter All of this is then routed in a deep humanity of the enterprise of any business (academic or not). If there is trust and respect, up and down and strong bottom up support a lab will survive.

If there is no trust and respect, because of double standards, stuff will fall apart, or will be prone to what is ultimately abuse of power.

This is how I've seen it play out anyway.

koen_hufkens OP , 5 months ago

@ktoddbrown @academicchatter Acknowledging this humanity, i.e. diversity and inclusion, works toward finding out what works for all people - and bringing out the best in them - lifting them up. This in contrast to the standard top down approach of bossy leadership (i.e. no mentorship, just doing "the job").

However, this requires sitting down with people and talking at length. This long game doesn't vibe with the move fast and break stuff attitude in science these days I feel.