自古以来,没有先进的东西一开始就受欢迎,它总是要挨骂。
一万年以后,先进的东西开始也还是要挨骂的。
不是由于有意压抑,只是由于鉴别不清,也会妨碍新生事物的成长。
真理只有一个,而究竟谁发现了真理,不依靠主观的夸张,而依靠客观的实践。
没有调查,就没有发言权;不做正确的调查,同样没有发言权。
为我国2070年开始的诺贝尔科学奖“井喷”清除障碍、铺平道路!
客观规律是客观的;独立于人而客观存在。
[新闻] “原创三大杀手:同行评议、短期考核、没有时间”被顶刊论文证实
顶刊 Nature Human Behaviour 在 2023-02-08 发文《Quality research needs good working conditions 高质量研究需要良好的工作条件》,重申:
High-quality research requires appropriate employment and working conditions for researchers. However, many academic systems rely on short-term employment contracts, biased selection procedures and misaligned incentives, which hinder research quality and progress.
高质量的研究需要研究人员的适当就业和工作条件。然而,许多学术体系依赖于短期雇佣合同、有偏见的选拔程序和不一致的激励,这阻碍了研究质量和进展。
Current selection procedures fall into the trap of Goodhart’s law 5: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”. When researchers are required to pursue third-party funding or to publish in highly desirable journals, genuine scientific progress and high research quality are not necessarily incentivized. Instead, the incentive system can promote attention to ‘hot topics’ in mainstream research areas, and disincentivize the thorough, painstaking process of corroborating and documenting research to establish robust knowledge. This structure may reward researcher decisions that game the system: for instance, by focusing on ‘low-hanging fruit’, avoiding high-risk projects or even by (intentionally or unintentionally) using questionable research practices to succeed 6 — all of which are ultimately detrimental for genuine scientific progress.
当前的选择程序落入古德哈特定律的陷阱5:“当一项措施成为目标时,它就不再是一项好的措施”。当研究人员被要求寻求第三方资助或在非常理想的期刊上发表时,真正的科学进步和高研究质量不一定会受到激励。相反,激励系统可以促进对主流研究领域中“热门话题”的关注,并抑制彻底、艰苦的验证和记录研究以建立可靠知识的过程。这种结构可能会奖励那些与系统博弈的研究人员的决定:例如,关注“低垂的果实”,避免高风险项目,甚至(有意或无意地)使用有问题的研究实践来取得成功6——所有这些最终都不利于真正的科学进步。
5. Goodhart, C. (1975). in Monetary Theory and Practice (ed. Goodhart, C.) 91–121 (Macmillan International Higher Education, 1975).
6. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. Psychol. Sci. 23, 524–532 (2012).
其它内容请看原文:
Nonpermanent employment is a systemic problem 非永久性就业是一个系统性问题
High turnover harms research quality 高周转率损害研究质量
Biased selection procedures endanger academic freedom 有偏见的选拔程序危及学术自由
An academic system for cutting-edge research 尖端研究的学术体系
More holistic research agendas 更全面的研究议程
More openness and transparency in research 研究更加公开和透明
More team research 更多团队研究
Open scholarship in teaching 开放式教学奖学金
More resources for civic duties 更多资源用于公民义务
What will bring change 什么会带来改变
原创出处:
[1] 新华网,2019-10-11,日本迎来“诺奖热潮” 从科学到工程获奖领域广泛
http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2019-10/11/c_1210307397.htm
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1647107383699397810&wfr=spider&for=pc
http://news.china.com.cn/2019-10/11/content_75290207.htm
从过去情况看,获得诺奖的成果大多是研究人员25至45岁取得。在当前日本的大学和研究机构,对20岁至39岁的年轻研究人员大多采用聘用制。研究人员追求短期成果,难以作出大胆挑战和踏实从事基础研究。
[2] Jian Wang, Reinhilde Veugelers, Paula Stephan. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1416-1436.
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317301038
[2-2] 闵超. 短效评价阻碍科学创新[N]. 中国科学报, 2018-08-14 第7版 视角.
https://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2018/8/416516.shtm
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1792012-1116106.html
参考资料:
[1] Rima-Maria Rahal, Susann Fiedler, Adeyemi Adetula, Ronnie P.-A. Berntsson, Ulrich Dirnagl, Gordon B. Feld, Christian J. Fiebach, Samsad Afrin Himi, Aidan J. Horner, Tina B. Lonsdorf, Felix Schönbrodt, Miguel Alejandro A. Silan, Michael Wenzler & Flávio Azevedo. Quality research needs good working conditions [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2023-02-08
doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01508-2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01508-2
[2] Tozama Qwebani-Ogunleye, Pradeep Kumar & Adeyemi Oladapo Aremu. Remodelling research agendas [J]. Nature Reviews Chemistry, 2022, 6: 371–372.
doi: 10.1038/s41570-022-00381-x
[3] Alexander J. Stewart & Joshua B. Plotkin. The natural selection of good science [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2021, 5: 1510–1518.
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4616768
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01111-x
[4] Andrea H. Stoevenbelt. Reward PhDs’ high-quality, slow science [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2019, 3: 1033.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0694-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0694-3
[5] Malcolm R. Macleod. The reproducibility opportunity [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2018, 2: 616–617.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0398-0
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0398-0
[6] 来昕,2023-02-12,当今科研界的短期雇佣方式已经成了高质量和创新性科研的最大阻碍! 精选
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3518723-1375836.html
相关链接:
[1] 2021-12-15,原创三大杀手:同行评议、短期考核、没有时间
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1316730.html
[2] 2020-08-12, [命名建议] “新华网”聘用制危害科技原创定理?
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1246066.html
[3] 2021-11-02, [重复] 基础研究:“同行评议”加“短期考核”迫使谁也干不成正经事!
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1310598.html
[4] 2021-02-25,对“原创”及其外因的几点认识
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1273816.html
[5] 2020-07-21,[讨论] 住监狱是否能做出更好的科技成果?
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1242966.html
[6] 2019-06-09,科技成果依赖于研究条件
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1183968.html
[7] 2019-12-25,[转载] 科学创新,社会的责任——读《居里夫人文选》有感(下篇)
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1211452.html
[8] 2022-09-19,[???] 热血沸腾之后,更是“耗尽/耗干”后的无奈(关联资料“集成电路”,诺伊斯 Robert Norton Noyce)
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1356020.html
[9] 2019-12-02,[随笔] 科技“同行评议”引发美国《大停滞》?
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1208480.html
感谢您的指教!
感谢您指正以上任何错误!
感谢您提供更多的相关资料!
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权,同时请注明本文来自杨正瓴科学网博客。
链接地址:https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1375905.html?mobile=1
收藏