The H-Index is ruling science these days.

Recently an interesting article appeared in EuroPhysics News. I think this paper is of interest to all scientists, and not only to physicists:

Europhysics News Vol. 40, No. 5, 2009, pp. 26-29
DOI: 10.1051/epn/2009704

Bibliometric evaluation of individual researchers: not even right… not even wrong!
Franck Laloë[1] and Remy Mosseri[2]

[1]  Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, ENS, CNRS and UPMC, Paris, France
[2]  Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de la Matière Condensée, UPMC and CNRS, Paris, France

Published online: 17 October 2009

Here is the pdf file. Or download it from the Europhysics News site.

Experimental observations always are coming with uncertainties. Any measurement is an estimate of the real value, if indeed such an objective value exist.

The uncertainty in the magnitude of a measured quantity is more important as the value itself. Many readers will find this remark alarming. The determination of the “error bars” is considered a dull, redundant exercise. Especially when the reported observable quantity has a surprising value that reporting it without the associated uncertainty will certainly get the authors the attention of the media, or get their manuscript accepted in Nature or Science.

The problem with a reported observable without an uncertainty is that people, including the reporting scientists, will draw conclusions from these observations that are in no way corroborated by that experiment.

This post is not about building the atomic bomb or chemical weapons. It is about being sensitive to a basic and yet very important ethical issue in producing and publishing science: Honesty. Publishing in science is based upon trust. No review mechanism, no matter how sophisticated its design is, can overcome systematic fraud when it is practiced by a major part of the scientific community.

Honesty measures can be categorized to different levels based on the number of scientists who practice them. At the bottom of the dishonesty pyramid lies acts like plotting the data in the graph such that the agreement with the theory is exaggerated or underestimating the error-bars to beat the exactness record. One level higher in the pyramid could be keeping it silent when you find out that your already published results are not as correct as you have claimed, if no one else is pointing that out (Yes! I think this latter behavior is so common that is it ranked near the bottom of the pyramid).

Social networks are everywhere. Personally I like Facebook to keep track of old friends and add new ones. These friends are mostly of nonscientific background. Until recently I had never realized the importance of social networks in science. When you do your PhD and perhaps some postdoc projects here and there, it is hard to think about what it takes to become a successful scientist other than doing brilliant science. Although scientific skills are undoubtedly important, I believe that one of the key ingredients which can make or break a scientific career is a good network of friends.

Let’s take a (not so) hypothetical situation: assume you hold some kind of responsibility in your group. You might the the principal investigator, a researcher or even just an experienced post-doc; the important part is that you are somehow responsible (morally if not practically) for people hierarchically below you.

Let’s also assume that a new PhD student (or, as a limiting case, a fresh post-doc) enter your group. The path he/she took to reach your group can vary enormously from country to country so let’s skip it. The main point is that you don’t really know this person but you have some good reason to believe he/she will do good.

The first few months are there to allow your new PhD student to get used to the new place, the new subject, the new “way of doing things” and so on. After some time passed you expect him/her to become productive. After all he/she is no more a undergrad student and is reasonable that, given some guidance, he/she will start conducting an experiment (or at least a part of it). After all the very reason you took in a new PhD student is because you need people working.

The United States is the premier example of a country where people move, and indeed move all over the country, if by doing so they get a better job. This professional mobility also applies to scientists. The country has invented a lot of mechanisms to ease these relocations.

Scientists move because they get a chance to start their own research group. Or they change affiliation because the new place offers a better scientific environment. Or offers a higher salary. For some scientists moving is very simple. A philosopher or a theoretical physicists just has to bring a few books to his new place and he is all set. For a scientist who works for a giant organization as Fermilab bringing his laboratory to the new location is impossible. But how about those scientists that have acquired movable pieces of equipment and apparatuses as a result of their successful grant applications? The scientists need this equipment to be able to pursue their research successfully in the new place. In the United States the rule is very simple: wherever the principal investigator (PI) is going - even if it is abroad - he is allowed to take with him all of his equipment. In my opinion this is the correct attitude.

Writing grant proposals is a fact of live for every group leader. This writing can be quite time consuming. Your chance of success depends on a number of factors. The factor I want to discuss here is the originality and the detail of the proposal .

New idea
Pursuing a new idea is what makes the life of a scientist fascinating and challenging. But also demanding. Just continuing one’s research on old ideas is much easier. But a new idea is very difficult to come by.  Continuation of old stuff is much easier. Grant organizations want new ideas. Supporting continuation is in our society never appreciated. ( Unless it is Scottish whisky.)  So even when you are just going to do the same research you have to package it in the form of a new idea.

Finding a suitable research subject is about the most difficult task in the life of a researcher. And professional scientists are confronted with this task continuously all through their career.

You do not want to work on a field that has existed for a long time and where great scientists have made large contributions. The suicidal defense that people bring forward when they embark on an almost exhausted field is:  “there is still so much to do”.

I suppose you have found your almost virgin territory and that it has made, or will make, you famous. You will however only make a large impression with your activities in your new field if many other people will work on this field as well. But if the field is indeed as promising as you think it is, you do not have to wait long,  and your terrain will be rampaged  by the  competition.

A scientist should behave as a good citizen in the scientific community. You cannot  expect that other colleagues perform all the unpleasant jobs and that you can spent all your time on science.  I am referring to low-reward activities like reviewing papers, reviewing grant proposals, sitting on review panels, being an editor of a scientific journal, sitting on program committees and - which is the subject of my present post - really organizing a conference.

Conference organizers receive many complaints
Am I a good citizen as far organizing conferences is concerned? I have only organized a dozen one-day meetings, most of them only national. So indeed I am not a very good citizen in this respect. I have been to close to people who did organize large international conference. I can assure you that organization of a 4 or 5-day international conference which a couple of hundred participants is murder. Leave alone conferences for more than thousand people. Those mammoth-sized conferences should be left to professionals.

I still remember those days that my thesis supervisor didn’t have to justify why he wanted to buy a particular, expensive, piece of equipment. When I became a group leader those golden days were already gone forever.

Nowadays scientists fight for research money in fierce competitions. I certainly agree that some competition is healthy. Although, I would like a situation where the science policy makers themselves and the board members of science-supporting agencies, for the sake of improving their quality, would have to write and defend as many proposals as we scientists have to do; given the funding rate that these science managers find socially acceptable for us, I would suggest for them also a funding rate of about 5%.

Young people’s dimmed enthusiasm for a career in science
The progress of science depends on how attractive a job in science is for young, bright people. If you are not bright you better become a lawyer or a politician. Science needs Ph. D. students and postdocs. We need people who want to start a career in a tenure-track position. I understand why tenure-track positions have become very depressing for young people. One of the bad aspects of a career in science is the subject of this post: immorally low funding rates.