Especially for relatively junior PIs who face enormous publication pressures, and hiring a smart, technically capable post doc at that level but who is incapable of writing quickly and to a high standard can be a real career killer. I've seen it happen to people.
-
-
Replying to @chrisdc77 @micahgallen
I believe you, but it worries me even more if that's a skill weighting being used.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @micahgallen
Also, I think many (perhaps most) PIs would prefer to train new ECRs to do better science rather than teach them to write, which the PI may have zero ability to do even they are a great writer themselves. Teaching folks to write better is fearsomely hard.
4 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @micahgallen
I agree. I just, from many personal experiences, think retraining leaves pockets of old (wrong) knowledge (QRPs) intact. Its much more dangerous than bad wiring. Bad writing can be seen literally in black and white and addressed. A QPR for example can be hidden by good writing.
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
To be clear, this is based on my experiences not derived from some mechanism or principle. It's likely I've met many PIs who don't know how to retrain and/or many students/trainees who know how to write very well to the point of hiding huge issues.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
I believe my experiences generalise well, but I'm obviously biased.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @micahgallen
Totally. I couldn't agree with you more. The obsession w good writing is part of the "flair" culture that emphasises bullshitting & story-telling over proper science. Personally I would prefer to employ a promising scientist over a promising bullshitter, but I fear that if >
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
> you had asked my former self (say, 12 years ago as young PI who had not woken up to the problems in science) what I would prefer, I would have been swayed toward hiring someone who can produce, & arrogantly assumed that I could fill the science gap.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @micahgallen
It makes sense but it's scary! Hopefully the tide is turning!
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
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...1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.