News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99. Parent comment

Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by ggm on Saturday July 29, 2023 @01:03AM (#36917122)
Yes. The system broke down. I don't know anyone who thinks it works how it should

I've had pretty hard bounces which were deserved and I know how to get work over the threshold, but some review feedback has been petty, passive aggressive ignorance, and suspiciously similar stuff pops up from time to time in "3 papers and your phd is done" which makes me wonder if copycats are getting softballed through for career development.

the rules behind length, word count and mark-up are pretty silly too. I've seen some rather odd latex tricks to compensate for length inside word count because typographical checkers were bouncing.

I don't do this for a living, barely act as maybe helpful co author these days: it's hard work.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by jacquesm on Saturday July 29, 2023 @07:45AM (#36919262)
I think in part this is because a lot of people started to be interested in the meta-metrics of scientific work and like any metric once you start tracking it you influence the system you are tracking. Publishers and various scientific actors then made things worse by making those very metrics (a symptom) a goal in its own right. That's what broke the system.
[ Parent | on HN ]