Study Attempts To Predict Scientists' Career Success

First time accepted submitter nerdyalien writes "In the academic world, it's publish or perish; getting papers accepted by the right journals can make or break a researcher's career. But beyond a cushy tenured position, it's difficult to measure success. In 2005, physicist Jorge Hurst suggested the h-index, a quantitative way to measure the success of scientists via their publication record. This score takes into account both the number and the quality of papers a researcher has published, with quality measured as the number of times each paper has been cited in peer-reviewed journals. H-indices are commonly considered in tenure decisions, making this measure an important one, especially for scientists early in their career. However, this index only measures the success a researcher achieved so far; it doesn't predict their future career trajectory. Some scientists stall out after a few big papers; others become breakthrough stars after a slow start. So how we estimate what a scientist's career will look like several years down the road? A recent article in Nature suggests that we can predict scientific success, but that we need to take into account several attributes of the researcher (such as the breadth of their research)."

Comments

predicting success is hard

[RichMan]

I am interested in how anyone would predict the successfull contributions of people who have been hiding in the patent office for several years being denied promotions for their lack of credentials.

Exceptions are exceptionally hard to predict.

Successful Predictions Feedback Loop Overload

[Githaron]

Even if they start successfully predicting individuals careers, wouldn't the system eventually break down since professors would probably change based on the results of the prediction?

Re:Successful Predictions Feedback Loop Overload

[drooling-dog]

It's worse than that. If such an index were used widely in hiring decisions, then its success would be a sef-fulfilling prophecy. It would be guaranteed to work amazingly well, because only scientists scoring highly on it would be allowed to succeed. And if you don't secure a high rating for yourself by the age of 28 or so, then you can just forget it and move on to something else.

Of course, the world pretty much works that way already, without reducing hiring criteria to a single number. The evil is that HR people will use it to minimize risk and simplify decision making, and so every employer will in effect be using the same hiring criteria. There might as well be a hiring monopoly to ensure that no "square pegs" get through all of the identical round holes.

Re:Teaching?

[rmstar]

b) Had a GOOD lecture

Good lectures make lazy students.

A student must feel truly abandoned, left to his own designs in an unjust game. Only students like that go to libraries, ask around, and make an effort to actually acquire their skills by themselves. Only those students have a long term chance of achieving anything.

The products of "good lectures"? Like fat and complacent castrated cats that never learned to fend for themselves. Useless.

I do teach at a university. I do good lectures, and produce lots of useless, well fed and lazy fat cats. They rate me as a good prof and everybody is happy. I do what I get paid for - but I know better.