Re: [tlug] Open Access Journals

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

Attila Kinali writes:

 > How come professors cannot evaluate each others work? If they are
 > working in the same (or at least nearby) field, then they should
 > know enough to judge whether something is potentially usefull or not?
 > Or am i just to naive in this regard?

Naive.  Especially in the Japanese context, where "knows everything
about nothing" is not the definition of "PhD", it's the definition of
"BS".

Also, in the US universities of tenure and promotion committees at
every level (department, college, university-wide).  In a properly-
functioning university, only "troubled" departments and colleges have
their decision scrutinized by higher-level committees (plus the usual
complement of appeals from denied applicants).  However, in such cases
you really can't expect people to be evaluating research in their
field most of the time: they need to be able to work outside of their
specialties.

 > And even if the advisor has a strong incentive to promote his
 > students (what is that incentive anways?),

Professors whose students get (good) jobs get better students and more
respect from colleagues than those who don't.  Students who get
degrees get better jobs than those who don't.  I think the logic
should be obvious. :-)

 > shouldn't he try to get his students to do "real stuff" instead of
 > doing just another expedition in an already known dead end, with no
 > guidance and even less incentive to try new things?

He (the advisor) doesn't know any better.

Your respect for the title "professor" is somewhat exaggerated given
the current way these folks behave. :-)

 > But during a PhD (or any other research position), i expect people to do
 > something that andvances the field in some way.

This is not the issue at all.  It's important, but it doesn't have
anything to do with professors' ability to evaluate outside of their
fields.

 > I always wondered how this system came to be. What external motivation
 > is there to publish as much as possible? Ok, if you don't publish (much)
 > your name will not be known. But isn't a good paper a year worth more
 > than 10 bad ones?

Not in a system where you are  being evaluated by those whose own
research is at best mediocre.
 > Hmm? How is it interesting? Beside mentioning of the Santa Fe Institute
 > it does not say anything about how research is done or how it is
 > paid for.

Reread it! :-)