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)."
Ah, nah, what was I thinking. Whether someone produces future scientists or students who know science, doesn't matter one bit. Let's continue to fetishize publication, and the system of duchies it rests on!
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.
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?