About the ISI system

I promised a friend that I would write about it. I was one of the people who now better than 10 ani se lupta să se schimbe „sistemul ticăloșit” din cercetare, where on the files, without doing much, you could go far. It was in 2008, when I was in the Educer association, of which I soon became very disappointed. Only, as they say, be careful what you wish for, that it might happen to you! And so it was! It happened! Now it's much worse! Nu mi-am dat seama despre cât de departe poarte merge mintea criminală umană… Și sigur, all this also changed my idea of ​​what crimes are called, about what crime means. I would definitely have more compassion and friendship for one I could catch in my pocket or even in my house preying on me, than some so-called researchers, who have discovered how to legally steal taxpayers' money, and whom no law can catch. And, I live in the midst of continuous robbery. Only that many of the taxpayers want to believe in the system.
Am prins doctoratele „altfel”, which were often on file. Numai că… nu întotdeauna. One more got away for good. Based on a discovery, at least one observation. Probably about as much as needed. Then the problem was reagents, now the problem is as old as ever: human resources. In any place in the world, truly original ideas are rare. Most Ph.D.s I know of, which I participated in, they did not deserve to be granted. It is of no value to science, and their authors, even if they somehow played by the rules, if I stay like this, they will never be real researchers. Because they never posed any scientific problem, about nature, about society. They don't even know how to argue a reasoning. But what do they know to do?? ISI articles. How can such functional illiterates write dozens or hundreds of ISI articles? Simple, because it's easy, they are recipes! And, these doctorates from now on, often based on many ISI articles are worse than those of sad memory. incomparably, from what i saw.
In a book written by Kapitsa, laureate of the Nobel Prize, the author told how Rutherford, with whom he had worked, he wondered that in that era, at the beginning of the 20th century, science was a prisoner. Now she's not just a prisoner, now it is standardized, robot. Instead of robotizing production, we robotize science. How to make an ISI article now? Let's say, in chemistry, in which there are most. As a philosopher said, that the system is now made by chemists, that everything became a matter of….chemistry. I don't raise the issues he raised, about the infinite discrimination of those from other fields, especially if I don't speak English, if they are from exotic cultures. What they do doesn't matter, their contribution is not considered. About this, I know that there was someone trying to sting those who gave doctorates in Romania, a friend who said how much she was wanted by foreign magazines (if I didn't know what this phenomenon is!), that of, in Romania nothing is worth anything. Damn it! If only it were so! If there were Romanian research schools, if there were more... In fact, all those who get their doctorates in Ro get their international ones, published in international journals, and by the number of articles in these journals they are evaluated. Proletarians of all countries, Unite! More precisely robots...
How to make an ISI article? Find a trendy phenomenon, find a method that you know works (even if someone told me that they wouldn't try what I want, that he doesn't know if it works, so walking is essential, not exploration), it measures everything that can be measured with that method, that you know it works (and if it doesn't work, methods were invented to adjust the results to work), do some experiments, actually repeat the method as many times as possible, write according to the rules, without a bit of thought, n articole, applying the template. And that's it, career! That's what it looks like, as I liked to say, that you have hands, not brain! No more PhD students who don't even know how to search a bibliography! That you give it to them, 2-3 headlines, as needed. If the phenomenon is fashionable, method, you will receive citations. But if not, and methods were invented. It's called peer review. No one knows how much peer is in it. Well, you can put your people to peer review. And, magazines ask you. It actually encourages it. They won't let you submit if you don't list peer reviews. And! My pain is to post something like that. And I think who among the people I know would understand what I'm doing. Și pun mereu aceiași oameni, almost without exception Jews, that of, people are culture... It's good that the far-right Europeans weren't more effective!
About citations, if you write something niche, evolution and aging, what do i do mainly, how to be quoted by many, when all the people who would understand and be interested in what you do, that generally in this industry people don't have broad interests (I follow impactful articles, with citations, with clear methods), would fit in an average sized pub? I was surprised one day when a researcher from Pakistan who was interested in my aging hypothesis sought me out. understood! Like damn good! Some from us, interested in aging, they had caught nothing. He wanted to put me on his article, also something with connections, with aging and evolution. Sure, how can I accept such a thing??? They're just not my colleagues! That there is no point in talking about this phenomenon, it is known. Some multiply their ISI articles by putting their name, not to say anything else, on articles based on the ideas or work of others, student, Doctoral, subordinates. Sure, in the field, noise matters more than ideas. If before, a few decades ago, asta era considerat scârbos, now it's normal. My fantasy with the Pakistani researcher was a real collaboration, cu experimente pe animale… La noi în UE, everything became more and more difficult. I've had people interested in my articles before, and westerners, but most from old cultures, Chinese people, Indians. But I don't know how much they understood. I found some Russians who understood. But if you want a career, you are not quoting something new and controversial, which opens up new perspectives, new research directions.
But first of all, for an article to be cited, it must be with something fashionable, from a fashionable field, and let there be many readers. So are high impact factor journals, are read by many. I mean again we have to reach something popular, for many to have an interest. In general, in my field, those for doctors, with something clinical. But those magazines, as a level, they do not compare to those that present mechanisms. But high impact factor journals have something: I'm asking for money. Many! The medical ones, Less, but those in the fields in which I publish, with mechanisms, thousands of euros! 3000, for example! At some, dacă ești din țari foarte sărace (even wartime Syria was not on the list), you are exempt from payment. I've thought of such shenanigans, although... I know how much I struggled with my collaborator to look for magazines that do not charge money for publication! I had a list, cred că o am și acum… Când vedeam open access, i knew. It's on the money!
But now about how the system works, why is all this needed?: the research is with grants, i.e. research money. Grants depend on publication, especially in high-impact journals (scientific tabloids, as I spoke), then from the grants money is given to magazines for publication, for other grants. It looks like a business plan? That's it! That's what it's about! In the labs I've been to, except some from an absolutely sinister institution, but in which there were also scientists, but I'm not anymore (they died or retired) there was no discussion of science at all, research, I was also giving a speech (how rude it would have been!), but about grants, applications. What debates! What controversy! Nothing! As I said, it's worse than before! Măcar înainte impostorii voiau să pară și ei altceva și îi invidiau pe cei care erau… Acum nimeni nu mai dă doi bani pe cei care sunt altceva, that is, what research people should be. If you imagine that there is something else outside, you are wrong. It's the same! But being much more and much more money, an idea creeps in, something interesting.
But the history of science shows that new ideas, original, I find it difficult, in time. What to me in this era, it seems silly to say the least.
The system is outdated, wretched, miserable, made by and for mediocrities, for their success, not for the development of science. A biology classmate told me, from college, that those who have devices that allow them many experiments (what I called experiments above), they want such a system, that they have something to write articles with, the ones we talked about, and take funding. I turned to theory at the beginning of my career because I had no reagents. But I think it did me a lot of good...exactly for the most original experiments.
what to do? In this era? Very simple! Abolished this whole system, criticized before I was born, although he was much cuter then. Cunosc profesori universitari americani care au lucrat în domeniu din anii ’70, who wonders what has been achieved.
First of all, why do we need magazines anymore?, when now anyone can make their results known immediately! When there is mass media! There is net! I can write some results just for the record or for people to look me up, if they want that, they want my results, but that's what a news story is for, a summary. That is, to have some kind of scientific bulletins. And for those who want my results in detail, I only have two words? Well, if it's about longevity and fertility experiments in old mice (unpublished, that they must be patented and found how to capitalize on them), I only have what I would write in a few sheets? NOT, I have hours of movies, thousands of pictures. They can see what I didn't see. This is happening and it's wonderful, when others see your ideas and results better than you do. I see what you don't. This is what I do with others, fearing every time that they are fakes. But the fakes would go away when you can show everything you've done, workbooks, you can even film yourself working.
Sure, for that everything should be rejected. How to accept, if you have a brain and a conscience, to pay to be published? That is, money should be a criterion of value? One who keeps whining about the system, me too, like so many other times, say, Look, this is mine (de câte ori am luat țeapă așa!) he says yes, must be paid, that otherwise they would all camp to publish. I hear! Well, most people wouldn't want to publish anything, would do nothing, if the system didn't force them to play doctorates, of the articles, to advance in his career. Cum îmi zicea un medic care se înscrisese la doctorat, it is not known if he will not ask them someday. People who often will never do any research again. I pray, they will no longer be involved in the research game... But also those who remain, mostly, I do not remain that some research worm is eating him (expression that I quote), but that this is what he has to do. It's easy for them to waste time producing worthless items, which the system rewards. I remember when I published the aging hypothesis. I was sure that I would receive a research award that year. Who would have done more in Ro than me?, in my field? What a sucker! I didn't see that magazine, which matched what I published, it didn't have a big impact factor! It was given on the impact factor. In the following year, I got some crap, as I saw them, even if they were based on my ideas, but on which a bunch of other beings had been placed who wouldn't even have understood what I wanted with those substances. I shared the prizes with them (NURC), although some didn't even know what I had done. Put on the article like this, that the PhD supervisor wanted, that he had an obligation, hell knows. I also remember the conflicts I had with her, that I didn't want more articles, i was full, I had what I needed.
I don't think many people will understand what I wrote here, but maybe there will be some who will. Sure, for the good of all the system should change. But who would care when it's already full of imposters! One, which I thought was mine (we were looking for each other like vampires), he told me that he was outraged that I knew nothing about research, if I'm talking about predictions, about great ideas. I do NOT know what research is, which is done in small steps. And, so I should give up my results, that they are not what they should be. By today's methods, Mendel would have been a failure, and Franklin, who did business and took up science after 40 year old, a freak. I don't think there is any field where talent, real skills, to count less than in research, as well as individual merit. People should not be asked how many items they have, but what specific articles they wrote, what concerns them, what they would like to know. Most have nothing to learn ever. The promotion system is flawed, the selection system is flawed.
The result: what we see now! Disaster is an understatement!