News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An open discussion forum for ArXiv papers by michaelmior on Sunday September 08, 2024 @12:52PM (#41481447)
> usually those who rely on prestige over actual quality to advance their careers

Unfortunately for those of us pre-tenure, it's difficult to balance these as I'm sure you aware. We're evaluated by people who may have the best intentions, but don't work directly in our field. They then determine whether we keep our jobs. It's difficult not to consider prestige as a factor when you know those evaluating you will.

Re:An open discussion forum for ArXiv papers by godelski on Sunday September 08, 2024 @09:37PM (#41484777)
I cannot understand how people think that trying to evaluate people who are pushing the bounds of human knowledge is anything short of "a clusterfuck." I understand the appeal of metrics and prestige, as they provide some signal in an insanely noisy system, but to think they are perfectly aligned is ludicrous. Are we unwilling to just admit that the process is noisy? Is it really not okay that it is (and that we'll probably never escape this aspect)? Because I can't see us doing good science if we're not.