In Poland, it has been assumed that to obtain a higher degree of associated doctor and professor one should have significant scientific achievements, but there are no clearly defined rules, that is, for example, specific points. That is why the assessments of achievements are often biased. What do you think about this? How is Your significant achievement in Your universities and countries assessed?
There are many activities that are scientific achievements. In my personal opinion, I think scientific thinking is out of the ordinary and reaching new facts is the best scientific achievement away from conventional methods.
This is a very interesting question. The terms 'significance' and 'scientific' introduce tensions, more or less problematic dependent on discipline. Thus scientific endeavour has different connotations in different disciplines. There must be an interplay between the level of study or research and how significance is viewed in the discipline. On my education-focused doctoral programme, for example, the term scientific was less apparent and instead the terms rigour, methodical and trustworthy featured more prominently. Similarly, the criteria for significance was linked with contributions to knowledge. In my experience this emerged as a consensus between the researcher, supervisors and examiners.
There are rules that differ from one university to another, one institution and another in how to calculate significant scientific achievements, according to which they are generally not accurate standards and didn't reflect a true picture about the extent of scientific and activity of professors
In my field specializes development of the use of nanopesticides
There are many activities that are scientific achievements. In my personal opinion, I think scientific thinking is out of the ordinary and reaching new facts is the best scientific achievement away from conventional methods.
You should have significant contributions in teaching, research, and community service. Each has specific criteria applying points system.
My dear,
Thank you very much for your answers in the discussion.
Best regards
In my opinion, it is very difficult to define significant scientific achievements, especially in social sciences and economics. It's definitely easier in medicine or biology where it's easier to discover something new.
New discoveries in the social sciences tend to emerge over time. The new knowledge is often the culmination of many separate arguments and papers. Therefore in the social sciences new knowledge is often the focus of persuasion. In this respect the presentation of new knowledge tends to differ in terms of the writing style and citation. See Ken Hyland’s very interesting work on academic writing in the disciplines.
That's quite an interesting question. A significant scientific achievement to any researcher signifies the state of mind of a researcher , being perceived in a number of ways , unfortunately the barometer for measuring it varies quite significantly.
A scientific breakthrough must serve to society but unfortunately inly a few researches are recognised in day to day use , but doesn't mean they have no relevance .A significant scientific achievement is one which offers some ease and comfort to mankind.
However on professional front , a researcher is concerned his academic upliftment ....
Yes, it difficult to define significant achievements. It varies from field to field. In many fields, generally publications in high impact journals are cosnsidered as significant achievement. In agriculture the technologies which have made good impact are also considered as siginificant achievements.
Dear Sarvjeet,
I agree with you, that in many fields, generally publications in high impact journals are considered as significant achievement. I also believe that the number of citations can be an indicator of the quality of scientific work.
Following link is to an article which discusses how to measure a significance of a scientific achievement...
https://cresst.org/wp-content/uploads/TECH491.pdf
Hi,
It is a saddening fact that true research capabilities and talents never receive their due, until you are lucky enough. In the science fraternity, it is not that one is more talented than the other, there are only two categories: One who has got the opportunity and who hasn't. So, people who get the opportunity are known to the world, which doesn't mean the rest of them are losers. In my country, the entire academic/research system is corrupt and biased, based on gender, religion, relationships (flattery) and what not?! We still should learn to survive with all this hoping that being true to Science would someday favour us in return.
Although Navnit Kumar Ramamoorthy there is no doubt more opportunity for some, I have observed that many researchers have worked extremely hard to create their opportunities, even to the extent that they have made a great deal of sacrifices. I have known people to travel long distances to undertake particular work for example. I was once told by a doctoral supervisor that if you undertake any kind of research it inevitably encroaches on your personal time. I have found this to be absolutely correct. It is very difficult to find the time needed to do justice to the project and the subsequent work needed to get it into the public domain as a part of your normal work, even if you are lucky enough to receive time for this within your paid working hours.
More value placed on research least likely to be (1) funded or (2) reported by media.
+ More value placed on replicating others findings (the basis of science) rather than always chasing the new. ("We did exactly what they did and got exactly the same result").
+ More value placed on negative findings.
("We studied these obviously causal things -- everyone knows -- but weren't able to find any association at all!")
+ More value placed on research completely outside "the box".
(Ex: saying, in the year 2005, "these people on these specific forms of very high fat diets are really healthy in these specific ways", or the way the Krebs cycle was mapped out completely outside of standard public funding dogma).
(Perhaps science needs more independently wealthy status-indifferent asperger-types?)
Many universities use publications in SCI journals with impact factors, Number of citations in google scholar or RG, RG score, number of PhD student supervised, Grants attracted, confernces attended, patents etc....
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking