Hacker News Reader

Comment by ramraj07 | Hacker News Reader

I left academia after wasting all my twenties believing there's more to it than citation rings. And maybe there is a small amount more. But my conclusion is that in general citation rings (I typically use a more colloquial Reddit phrase involving geometric shapes and descriptions of motion) and ego stroking is the main purpose of academia. Any scientific progress is incidental or often merely accidental inspite of people trying not to move the needle for personal gain.

"At least Nvidia is doing something" - like what exactly? Sounds more like a PR move than anything. They can have a more tangible effect donating money for actual efforts to help people probably.

Whenever I said "something is better than nothing" my dad would immediately reply, "but nothing is better than nonsense." He was a smart man indeed.

View on HN

> I left academia after wasting all my twenties believing there's more to it than citation rings. And maybe there is a small amount more.

I also worked quite a few years in academia, including participating in a few international research programs, and although the indentured servitude facet is indeed the problem and the "publish or perish" pressure puts an emphasis on an aspect that is not very relevant, I have to say you're completely overblowing and misrepresenting stuff that has no meaning or consequence. If you ever had a career in academia you'd be clearly aware that the only thing that counts is whether your paper gets approved. Citation volumes are entirely meaningless beyond the vanity aspect of it all, as it only has an impact in main path analysis, and only if you use an algorithm that weighs edges wrt connectivity, which is a bit meaningless. Thus you're complaining about something that at most has an impact on your search results, and only if you are a competent researcher who doesn't exercise any independent reasoning, which is absurd. Thus, what leads you to believe that your concerns are meaningful or relevant to the discussion?

It feels like you tried desperately to pull an appeal to authority that has no substance or merit, quite frankly, and in a way that puts your credibility into question.

You've probably not heard of the RCR, or the relative citation ratio, that the NIH has instituted in recent years then?

Anyways, by citation rings I mean more than about the h-index or just the citation counts. It also includes cliquey things such as who cites who, who's a friendly reviewer and who's not, how do you continue to keep publishing in a way that makes you look like the expert more than finding out the truth, etc. But seems like you're an expert who knows better so I'll leave this conversation here.

Just drop it. If you actually had any experience in academia you'd be aware that citation counts matter zero beyond vanity. What matters is if you are able to get published on reference journals, and in some cases in a pre-approved list of publications. That's it. Just give it a rest.

Thanks for your honesty. I'm not from academia but I have made similar conclusions in my own area. I'm trying to find what I can pass on to my children to save them some time, but it's awfully hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com