I agree. One of the reasons PIs often prefer prolific ECRs (especially 1st authored ones) is not b/c the science is good (on the contrary, over production is often associated w/ salami slicing & shallow investigations) but b/c it signals that the ECR is a capable writer.
-
-
We also as a community need to decide what to do and say to people trained badly. It's hard to convince somebody they are essentially totally wrong and in a way have been conned.

-
It's an issue very close to my heart.
-
One last thing. Good writing mustn't be confused with bullshitting. Good explanation and good theory are so important. But yes, certain people are only good writers and able to use their skills to hide the truth.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Just thinking about how many papers Darwin had to publish a year
is there even a reason why we're still using this system besides capitalism conspiracy? Seems like there are much better ways to share science these days to me, just sayin'
I guess altmetric kinda works, but... -
Yeah, it worries me as popular on social media, for example, isn't a good metric IMHO.
-
I agree. It's all some form of popularity metric. Reproducibility is key and ensuring accessibility isn't a barrier in reproducibility are the two main themes I'm most concerned about as a scientist. Not stories, likes, or number of citations. Negative results matter too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
