The number of journal publications reveals nothing about the quality of research.
There. I said it. A dreadful realisation that very few are ready to accept. The academic world seems to be infested with the idea that the practise of piling up publications somehow translates into quality research. We see people with 100's of publications offering next to nothing in quality.
A quick glance reveals that most of them are simply dropping their name left and right, primarily thanks to their PhD slaves or Post-Doc goblins.
Why this happens? Schools compete with each other based on publication numbers. Grants in schools are also allocated based on those meaningless numbers. Quality of research and real world applications hardly matter anymore. Thus, the academic world has become highly competitive on a system that feeds on an empty idea. Imagine a world where actual businesses' total worth depended on the amount of products produced. It makes no sense since anyone can produce any number of ...something. What makes a difference is quality. The only true measure of quality is determined from the public.
There is a dark secret that holds all this academic shenanigan together, a truth that nobody talks about but everybody is aware. A handful of people called "professors" monopolise knowledge.
The books you get to read in school stem from the choices of those people. The ideas you get to work with are carefully crafted from advisory committees in order to enrich sheeple that follow a given school of thought. Students and Researchers alike are being played into a pyramid scheme of what has come to be known as "intellectuallity".
...There Shall Be Steemit
Imagine a world where each person's research is upvoted depending on how it helps the community. Forget bureucrats allocating grants to academic relics aging like old wine in the dark pits of their office. Forget about the unshakeable status-quo that terrorizes any new idea that comes forward. Is your idea worthy in the eyes of the public? This is all you need. Only the real world can demonstrate value in respect to something. Anything. Ideas, theories and mambo jumbo sophistry can stay in coffee-shops where it belongs. Once those ideas can be applicable then we can take them seriously.
The system could work as follows: Under tag or section called "Research" every person can publish in open source their thesis. Projects will be classified in respect to popularity, trending, funding etc much like the Steemit frontpage. For every project there will be a budjet. Steem Dollars could be allocated in other denominations such as "Research Steem Dollars" which they will carry their own value.
Upvoters will own a partial share on the applications of that research. The percentage could be allocated from the author or the public. Crowdfunding and Quality Research in one place.
We live in the beginning of a true revolution. People will realise that they cannot be governed from people who hold all the power in their hands. Decentralisation is key. Every single person matters. Every single person can produce ideas that nobody has ever thought about. If we leave it to the current system most ideas will perish under scrutiny and petty politics. Steemit can revolutionise the academic world and bring forwad ideas we haven't even dreamed about.
If you like this post follow me @kyriacos . Suggestions for new topics are welcome.