Comment by a9h74j | Hacker News Reader

Comment by a9h74j | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I saw something similar in an academic's blogged advice ten or fifteen ago: "At graduate level, you should cultivate [peers and a concentration] such that your intellectual correspondence is publishable."

I took that as plausible enough at the time to mention the advice once to a graduate student in philosophy. I did not take it at the time as immediately translatable into a [simply translated?] phrase I have heard since: "friendship corruption."

There are some video lectures from a writing consultant employed at UChicago. He accepts that concentrations within fields are to some extent self-defined in the academic game -- in only slightly more generous terms. IIRC his strategic advice for those failing to publish is: learn to frame your abstracts as respecting but advancing the discussion. Perhaps in small enough niches ingratiate yourself would need to be mentioned? Or show that you will play by being selectively generous with citations??

Citations. The academic version of SEO and currency more valuable than money? (Recall where page rank came from.) One kind of power behind institution-sanctioned monsters?

> "At graduate level, you should cultivate [peers and a concentration] such that your intellectual correspondence is publishable." ... I did not take it at the time as immediately translatable into a [simply translated?] phrase I have heard since: "friendship corruption."

This seems misguided, and I certainly hope that this 'friendship corruption' concept never catches on. There are great papers that started as letters and were later completed by the sender, recipient or both. No one should feel ashamed about that, and no one should feel ashamed of developing friendships with their colleagues.

Well said. My comment was phrased in response to its parent comment looking askance at "amassing enormous citations." There is love of truth and not all is corruption.

> When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. - Goodhart's Law

> The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor. - Campbell's Law

This is just another proof that you can't trust metrics. Build up a network of people that you can hold personally responsible for, and if any of them ever recommends low quality work then let them go. Let that network know whenever you discover a network of individuals who put out low effort work so that you and your network can disregard the entire network.

Bottom up, not top down. Do not rely on citation count. Do not rely on views. Do not rely on upvotes or reviews from people you do not know. Do not rely on if they went to a prestigious university. Do not rely on the ability to pass a standardized test.

The problem here is that there is no bright-line distinction between "friendship corruption" and "doing high-quality collaborative research in a small field where colleagues are cordial."

I'm not saying that one can't bleed into the other -- sometimes they do. I'm saying that any approach you take that disincentivizes the bad behavior is also likely to harm good scientific collaborations as well. It's one of the downsides of peer review.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com