@doc_becca
Dr Becca, PhD 🐘
@doc_becca
5 years
“Quality” does not only mean Cell/Nature/Science. Refusing to publish scientifically sound data because it isn’t glam-worthy is an unethical use of taxpayer $$ and unfair to your trainees, who are ALSO people with goals and lives and careers.
@SocialImpurity
IlyaR 🇨🇦 🇮🇱🇺🇦
@SocialImpurity
5 years
Deep sigh. This sets up a totally wrong narrative. PIs are not servants to the career ambitions of trainees but people with goals and lives and careers. It's part of our jobs to maintain output quality.
14
0
7
7
61
365

Replies

@SocialImpurity
IlyaR 🇨🇦 🇮🇱🇺🇦
@SocialImpurity
5 years
@doc_becca Define "scientifically sound". Did you review the data? Or are you just making the evil PI/brilliant but victimised student assumption? I was arguing with your default narrative, but publishing nonsense also wastes taxpayers $$$.
2
0
1
@doc_becca
Dr Becca, PhD 🐘
@doc_becca
5 years
@SocialImpurity The original poster said that her PI wouldn’t publish because her data weren’t glam-worthy, not because they were nonsense.
2
1
13
@PSNostalgia_
TheKastorian
@PSNostalgia_
5 years
@doc_becca How about we get rid of impact factors all together
1
0
1
@doc_becca
Dr Becca, PhD 🐘
@doc_becca
5 years
@TheKastorian OK by me!
0
0
0
@mjtrigger
Matthew Regier, Ph.D.
@mjtrigger
5 years
@doc_becca The lake Wobegon effect. All the papers need to be above average.
0
0
4
@doc_becca
Dr Becca, PhD 🐘
@doc_becca
5 years
@MARspidermonkey Exactly!
0
0
4
@drugmonkeyblog
Drug Monkey
@drugmonkeyblog
5 years
@doc_becca Preach.
0
0
2
@PozzoMillerLab
Lucas Pozzo-Miller, PhD
@PozzoMillerLab
5 years
@doc_becca I’ve learned a new euphemism for the Impact Factor: quality output 🤢🤮
0
0
2
@aetiology
Dr. Tara C. Smith
@aetiology
5 years
@doc_becca Yes! I can't believe it when people say they're "not publishing that" because it's... not Glam enough? So much wasted time by trainees, money by funders, loss of scientific credit for those who need it, and more.
2
4
22