Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's pretty easy to see who is a top star (because they have continuous highest-quality output), and who will never deliver anything worthwhile.

The trouble is the continuum between those two extremes. This domain is dominated by politics, endless grant applications, bureaucracy. Nobody can really tell where you belong in this continuum, maybe not even you yourself. And I also don't believe that academia is the best place to pursue your ideas anymore, anyway.




Define “highest-quality.” Is it publishing in the most prestigious journals? Obtaining the most prestigious grants? See what I did there?

Ground-breaking research often doesn’t qualify for either because it’s too new and scientists on those committees don’t understand it.


It's a matter of "you know it when you see it". I doubt it can be defined properly.


Is Yi Cui with an h-index close to 200 the best scientist then? Or Pulickel Ajayan?

I worked with samples grown from both of them, so my opinion on them is mixed. They are drive-by shooters; they identify a hot area, publish some crappy but early papers on the topic and move on to the next hot trend. Both of them have very little to zero sustained contributions to the field.

And this is, by the way, the case for most h-index superstars. Fundamental contributions are often sustained contributions over the years to a field, and the honest answer is that we can measure that only years after the science has been published.


I have no clue about your field, so I don't know. But it seems to me it is obvious to you if you want to include them in your list of top stars.

Note also that I never said anything about h-index being a measure for highest-quality. Only experts in a field can say what obvious highest-quality work is.


Well, top stars are obvious a couple of years in their career. Or do you think they are obvious from the beginning?


I am talking about the ones where it is obvious that they are or will be doing exceptional work. That can be 10 years into their career, or at year 0 of their career.

When this is not obvious, which most of the time it isn't, that's where the tough to judge continuum lies.


Unfortunately for some fields it is difficult to do anything outside of a lab. And startups are not a good solution either with the incentive to make money fast that shift the incentives. I would be interested in knowing what other places you are thinking about.


Yes. I don't have a good solution either. In the end you need to somehow get the money to do what you want to do. That may be within academia or not. In my case, I am just doing freelance jobs and reserving as much time as I manage to do the research I want to do. I don't need many resources, and being able to access sci-hub helps a lot.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: