The possibility of applying research in real life

Best Regards Alejandro Bortolus

Hi there!

This is a tough question for me: so I'll start by refering to my country's scientific evaluation system -Argentina, just as yours. The tricky part is, is not the same evaluation for every field, but I'd like to talk about biologists -probably because I'm not one, but I work with them and see them every day- and their need in Argentina to publish in indexed journals (mostly from the northern hemisphere) in order to be evaluated well and keep being financed by the state of Argentina. That for me is at the least a little troubling, because it means that most ouf our scientific agenda is estipulated by the goals, needs and troubles from other countries -not ours- and the third world scientists are juggling in order to insert themselves in a system that sometimes they cannot afford -because those journals are really expensive, and maybe it is not even in their countrie's best interest. Now, the problem with this is that with my train of thought I became really nationalist somehow, and of course this is not my intention: I do believe science needs from the interaction of many countries and that exchange can bring really good stuff. But I also feel like there is much more in being a good scientist or academic (in the lack of a better word, about my case, since I study history and I don't consider myself a "scientist") than producing indexed papers, because somehow I believe these indexed journals gobble up all other types of productions. Of course, they also do many good things... but well, now that my point has been made with the problem I wanted to adress, I'll go with the 4 achievements (even when I don't feel like a scientist) I'll consider regarding me and my research, because 5 seemed like a lot and I'm on the clock.

The most good that can come from my research, what will make it good and will make me good in this is:

1. If it can make other people think about my results, and do things (or better things) with them. If I'm quoted, If my thesis or publications (indexed or not) are taken into account for other specialists and they can take them and continue their own investigations with it, I will feel that my work is good. That is contributing to the dialectic knowledge.

2. As an enviromental history student, maybe the other good thing that will make my research good is to generate conscious about the anthropogenic impact in the society I live in. I guess that means I think divulgation is important for a scientist work - even though I don't think they are an important item in the evaluation in Argentina.

3. If my research is constantly updated with tools (social or otherwise), sources and knowledge of the field, I think it makes it better. I think I'm better if I keep studying.

4. Finish the thesis! Enough said, I'll get back to my work :)

A brave opinion indeed Sofia! (and a great intro as well. I agree with you) thanks a lot. Since you are working on your doctoral thesis, your vision of a "good scientist" is unique, for it allows us to see and feel what you truly expect from yourself as a young scientist.

So, as I see them, your “top 4” features to evaluate a scientist can be summarized as:

1-CITATIONS/QUOTATIONS. The knowledge produced by a scientist (in papers, books or thesis) have to have an impact on your colleagues’ work, and you see that if his/her work is quoted or cited by his/her colleagues.

2-SOCIAL IMPACT: a scientist’s work has to have an impact in the society (local or global). That may be difficult to measure or see, unless people talk to us directly about the scientist's work, right? or unless we can identify a social reaction directly associated to the scientist's work.

3- UPDATE: a scientist has to be updated. We can see that in the methods, theories and literature he/she uses or mention in his/her work, among other things.

4- SUCCESS ACCOMPLISHING OBJECTIVES: a scientist has to be able to be successful accomplishing his/her objectives. This may be also relatively hard to measure or see. We can see it mostly when we know the objectives (like if we are part of the Theses' committee, or when reading a research final report) but we not always know how many projects, articles or professional interactions, a scientist has not concluded as planned.  

This is great information Sofia! Let’s not to forget that the fundamental problem hidden in my question is the “academic evaluation”. What do we do to evaluate a colleague? How we do it? Within this context, your "top-4" also reveals us what you would do to evaluate a fellow student colleague of yours.

Now that we have the great baseline you provided us with to discuss, please allow me to be more specific about my question with an example. Lets say that you just met a scientist/colleague. It can be a young or a Senior researcher, a professor, a consultant, or even someone recently retired. Lets say this person is a serious candidate to take over the Direction of your Department or to be the Head of your Lab (I assume you want the best for that position). Lets say also that your opinion/advice really counts to decide whether this person gets the position or not. You don’t know this person at all, but you need to know if he/she is good in his/her research field or not. What info would you look for first? What are the top-5 (a top-4 is fine too!) professional things/characteristics you would look for first?

The possibility of applying research in real life

Best Regards Alejandro Bortolus