Are scientific reputations boosted artificially?

[Lia]

Never mind the fame, the egos or the ‘brand name’ reputations! The world is in urgent need of innovative and effective design and cures. This is not a profession where an ego should feel bruised for pity’s sake. One would have thought that academia would be above that sort of thing.

If one’s research, clinically tried and tested, is to be published or recognized, subject to its researchers past history for long standing work, or for his standing amongst an elite group of peers, then we might as well all cave in now to the ‘old boys school’ of thought, and move nowhere rapidly!

In any event, this article below makes for fascinating reading...

Reputations emerge in a collective manner. But does this guarantee that fame rests on merit, asks Philip Ball.


Does everyone in science get the recognition they deserve?
Obviously, your work hasn't been sufficiently appreciated by your peers, but what about everyone else? Yes, I know he is vastly over-rated, and it's a mystery why she gets invited to give so many keynote lectures, but that aside — is science a meritocracy?

How would you judge? Reputation is often a word-of-mouth affair; grants, awards and prizes offer a rather more concrete measure of success. But increasingly, scientific excellence is measured by citation statistics, not least by the ubiquitous h-index1, which is intended to quantify the impact of your literary oeuvre. Do all or any of these things truly reflect the worth of one's scientific output? Many would probably say: "sort of".

That's to say, most good work gets recognized eventually, and most Nobel prizes are applauded and deemed long overdue, rather than denounced as undeserved. But not always. Sometimes important work doesn't get noticed in the author's lifetime, and it is a fair bet that some never comes to light at all. There is surely an element of chance and luck (not to mention politics) in the establishment of reputations.

Read more:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110506/full/news.2011.270.html

 

[muleman]

Polotics and money play far too big of a role. Al Gore and global warming come to mind. The fix was in for corporate exploitation and profit long before the science was even begun. They tend to slant research to achieve a preplanned outcome to secure grants.