Comment by wisty
2 days ago
Also, peer review started in the 1960s. Einstein published a single peer reviewed paper
Also woth noting that Higgs claimed that the publish or perish climate of the 90s would have made his work in the early 60s impossible.
> Also woth noting that Higgs claimed that the publish or perish climate of the 90s would have made his work in the early 60s impossible.
I found the posted article interesting in that it seemed to contradict this sentiment. See from the section titled "Göttingen and the birth of modern academia".
Not the 60s vs now comparison, but the article contradicts the idea that "publish or perish" is new. Instead it says that careers depended on publication counts before original research was even expected of university professors.
True, though it was only in some universities and there are boom / bust cycles.
Universities weren't picky in the 60s. Now they are cut-throat.
> Instead it says that careers depended on publication counts before original research was even expected of university professors.
But these were not peer-reviewed publications.
True. But I'd also gladly report that in small pockets like AI, having highly cited and used arXiv preprints that never passed peer-review can also be impactful regarding careers and job offers. Industry and academics often are smarter than looking at raw numbers. And they are aware that some subfields can sometimes be overtaken by mafialike collusion rings that keep every outsider away from their turf (it's usually hyperspecific to some narrowly defined AI task or benchmark area). It also depends on whether the decision maker is some huge committee and multi-level bureaucracy with process and metrics and numbers in Excel sheets or just one professor who can make their overall assessment without being questioned on it. Of course, this relies on trust that can be abused for biased hiring. Falling back on raw metrics is often a CYA tactic in low-trust, litigious societies.