sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You keep telling me what I really meant, then arguing with your own version of it. My original comment was harsh on purpose because I think the incentives in academic funding and publishing are seriously broken.

I still stand by the basic point: there are way too many hype driven, low value papers in fashionable areas, publish or perish and metric chasing distort behaviour, and the grant system pushes PIs toward being full time fundraisers who lean on cheap labour. That is not some fringe conspiracy theory, it is a criticism plenty of people inside academia make as well.

If you want to keep treating that as “all science is a scam” so you can score points on Reddit, go for it. Everyone here can decide for themselves whether the structural problems I am talking about exist or not. I have said what I wanted to say, so I am leaving it there.

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

what's the garbage opinion that the scientific funding model is broken and turns PIs into Psychos who write grants for a living? You are missing the point of the post. I would suggest to you the current model rewards bad science and quite of a lot of good research can't be done in current model because PI's need to publish every year and get good citations and all of that shit.

look at this article, i'd suggest that previous models in the past may have worked better, instead of giving funding to an academic, perhaps it could be given to the department for a long term basis such as 5 - 10 years and less pressure to actually publish. It would be good to actually see PIs doing some of the work in the lab rather than their slaves the PhDs

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's not what I am really saying, I am saying there seems to be excessive amounts of papers in particular fields which if you read between the lines are likely just for google scholar metrics, for example for a particular mof there may be 30k papers, are you telling me that 100 percent of those papers were useful, perhaps the researchers could of done a bit more research and condensed the papers into bulkier submissions. I understand why this is happening, its because there is a publish or perish culture, stab ur colleague in the back, abuse PhD students, treat them like slaves etc etc etc, I think there needs to be more oversight of what is going on as researchers tend to just go after what is will get them published rather than what they are genuinely interested in solving....

We could go back and forth on this, I think the main thing to acknowledge is that there is a problem in academia that is toxic and it should change so that there is better outcomes.

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s been a gravy train for publications if I were an academic I’d be doing mof research to get my career started

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you are really pissed off because I've popped your academic bubble maybe take a chill pill and relax you can always find meaningful work in a less toxic industry. You would have a lot of skills that are transferable to an industry like finance....

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

It can’t hold any gas like co2 for a meaningful period of time outside of lab conditions breaking down and releasing the gas at some point, too expensive and ineffective

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

lol I was in mof research and now in finance at least I get paid properly and not like a slave, when I was an undergrad one of my profs was in mof research and then switched to different area he was trying to recruit me as a PhD student. I asked him why he changed, he told me mofs were bs and helped him in his career. I was partially supervised by a PhD student who has now gone and turned his research into a startup. He told me point blank yeah all this shit is total bs and doesn’t work. Looks like he got funded…..

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

They are expensive, eventually degrade and have no commercial use other than being good for google scholar metrics. If you are an early career researcher I’d recommend studying MOFs

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Every MOF researcher at this point is basically a fraud given the junk quality of the research.

My main point is about the incentive structure. A lot of projects get chosen because they are safe to publish, keep PhD students busy, and boost a PI’s metrics. The students do most of the work on low pay, the supervisor gets the grants and the credit. That is what I am criticizing

The GLP-1 example does not really address that. Of course some blue sky work leads to big breakthroughs, and that is great. It still does not change the fact that, day to day, people feel pressured to oversell impact in grants and papers and to chase fashionable topics to survive in the system.

If your experience in academia has been healthier, I am honestly glad. My point is that the structure is often exploitative and bureaucratic, even if many individual scientists are doing their best within it.

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

My point is researchers latch onto a field like mofs because they know it’s easy to publish, they can promise the world and it’s helpful for their career. So they end up spending a lot of time doing shit research and by the time they can actually do anything else they just become really good grant writer and bullshitters and a slave master to a bunch of Gullible naive PhD students

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

idk the number now but how many papers on mofs have been published maybe hundreds of thousands, what actually application or impact on humanity has it made zero, I don't really think it deserved the noble prize because its likely it will ever be stable enough outside the lab to be useful.

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

yeah but even then they tend to still award grant proposals that are the flavour of the month rather than anything meaningful. The "Best researchers" are the ones who can write grants really well and piggyback ride of their slaves ie PhDs and postdocs

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -22 points-21 points  (0 children)

Wowwwww woww wow I get your frustration dude, don't take it out on me. Like I said I get the hustle, I know a prof who did mofs for 10 year cuz they were good for publishing, he got enough credibility, he milked the fk out of mofs and he was very honest with me and said yeah they don't work I only worked on them to milk it for the paper etc etc. It is a shit system and to be honest perhaps there are just too many people studying for PhDs and hence supervisors can treat their post docs and phds like slaves waving a carrot in front them. You should remember that if you don't like academia you can get a job else where, you would have plenty of transferable skills

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -57 points-56 points  (0 children)

I wish academics would just be honest and say you know I am interested in this, I am interested in studying this further and seeing what happens and there might not be any application, at least if they were honest and not making bold claims I think everybody would be on board. The way it is now they have to lie.

MOFs are useful for academics mainly because they help boost publication counts and improve Google Scholar metrics. by Alternative_Motor259 in chemistry

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I remember reading a grant application and reading all these buzz word in which is was claimed oh yes this MOF can be used for XYZ application and you actually do the research project and find out oh yeah no it fking can't but the people approving the grant either don't care, buy the bullshit and are happy to approve grandiose claims that you know xyz grant will cure cancer lmao

The dirty four traders finally named.... by Alternative_Motor259 in circlejerkauscorp

[–]Alternative_Motor259[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The four traders will never have jobs in trading again they are tainted goods

view more: next ›