And this is it.
A reward system based on paper publishing and conference speeches is fundamentally broken.
There are really no built-in checks and balances, unless commercial interests care for it to do a 'check', that benefit that commercial interest.
Adding to that, a now well known, built-in corruption of student acceptance and grading, it is impressive that we get any forward movement at all in applied sciences.
>"..
. Now, in general, negative results may have value, and it may be worth sharing them. You could write a negative result paper (I think they are valuable). But wait, most conferences don't like those! Shit. So what do you do? You could write a blog post — as detailed as you want, no page limits, etc. you are the boss! — and move on with life with something better? But wait, blog posts "don't count" (more on this later). And in many environments, "no paper" == "I completely lost my time from the eyes of the public"...
"
There are really no built-in checks and balances, unless commercial interests care for it to do a 'check', that benefit that commercial interest.
Adding to that, a now well known, built-in corruption of student acceptance and grading, it is impressive that we get any forward movement at all in applied sciences.
>".. . Now, in general, negative results may have value, and it may be worth sharing them. You could write a negative result paper (I think they are valuable). But wait, most conferences don't like those! Shit. So what do you do? You could write a blog post — as detailed as you want, no page limits, etc. you are the boss! — and move on with life with something better? But wait, blog posts "don't count" (more on this later). And in many environments, "no paper" == "I completely lost my time from the eyes of the public"... "