What do average and mediocre and superstar mean when applied to science? How do you define them?

Do you define according to the number of papers people publish, their average journal impact factor score? The number of NIH or NSF grants they get?

If you measure by those standards, you define "master craftsman" as the only type of scientist who will be a superstar. There is no room for paradigm-breaking projects in that world. There can't be: breaking the model takes years of s-l-o-w ponderous thought, and there is no time for that approach when you have to publish constantly! and get grants!! or lose your job!!! shocked shocked shocked

Not to mention that those groundbreaking ideas are way too risky for funding anyway. Forget that! You might as well give up. IMO, a lot of our successful scientists (especially in the biological and medical sciences) are doing incremental work that looks safe on grant applications. In a way, this is a natural but disastrous outcome of over-expansion at universities and paylines that fund 10% or less of applicants.



Last edited by Val; 05/21/13 02:45 PM.