Hans Waschke-Wischedag

227 karmaJoined


I just stumbled across this post: 


Which I strongly think would be of interest outside of the small bubble that is EA. It should be published as a pre-print or review article.

Thank you for your comment. This is a good point. I thought it was obvious, but it indeed isn't. A perfect example would be: 


This model is a fully-fledged analysis by an "EA-research" team that would probably gain interest and scrutiny by academic researchers in economics and artificial intelligence. It even has, despite the fact that it is not published in any conventional research outlets that would be picked up by search machines. 

I think it could be uploaded to arXiv with little to no change. I think this would greatly enhance the viewership and reach of the research. 

I completely agree that academic publishing is completely flawed and incentives are a mess. However, anyone that has actually sought to improve upon that must confess that changing this is difficult and will take time. I think it is an important cause.

Not publishing in academic fashion is not a viable or even working solution to the problem of academic publishing.

Yes, it is true that a forum post may get you more readers, and more importantly perhaps, a select readership. But I am advocating for also publishing your research in a way so that it shows up in a Google Scholar query. You should probably publish it here too, if it is important.

I do a bit of research myself and my impression is that most researchers rarely use a plain Google search, but rather use Google Scholar, Scopus or tools like ResearchRabbit and Elicit. None of these returns non-scholarly articles.

Furthermore, it is not only about reaching a larger audience, but rather making your research accessible to those who search. Publishing to ArXiv allows for someone who is actively searching for your article to find it. Conversely, the article is of most value to these readers. Lastly, ArxiV and other scholarly servers are more likely to be used for decades into the future, increasing the number of readers in the future relative to other options.

Wonderful! Thank you for sharing this. What you said about norms totally makes sense. Maybe I will re-sharpen the article.  

Thanks for your response! I am leaving InfoSec for now as well.

It is simply that the certificates that I happen to know about have poor tests that do not actually signal ability to estimate security. I do not know much about the certifications from SANS except that the training is indeed quite broad.
 According to their website, the test for the GICSP certification consists of 115 questions (I assume multiple choice) of which 70% have to be correct in order to get the certification. Depending on how the answers relate to points, I guess that I could get the certification with a couple of tries and little actual knowledge.
 Almost everyone of my colleagues had a G**** certification and I am not too impressed by their abilities.  Therefore, I assume that it is rarely useful to pursue a certification if you can self-teach instead (or have a very good mentor/teacher at hand).

I like your critique! I must admit that I was very unhappy with the org but already left it at the time when I wrote this post. 

However, I want to push back on some of your points. The Fraunhofer Society indeed conducts somewhat basic research, although the results are much more predictable than in the case of say foundational physics research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and I am not sceptical of it. In the post I wanted to point out that the organisation has an unhealthy relationship with grantmakers. This leads to a situation where there is no incentive for the institution  to actually provide any valuable research results. I have a better understanding of game theory now and would improve upon the post, if that would be considered helpful. 

Load more