Are consulting and research substitues or complements?

Think tanks have a horrible reputation everywhere by in the media. The reputation is because they are often very biased and sell out to their finders. The media is because think tank staff are willing to provide the expected sound bites to journalists, no matter what the topic. All this would be OK if think tanks were good at conducting independent research. It turns out the most prominent ones, do not do much of it on the hot topics they talk about, according to Dan Farber, who finds that they do not publish much of relevance (and this is not even considering peer reviewed research).

Interestingly, the picture is very different with respect to consulting. Looking at academics across all fields from five Spanish universities, Pablo D'Este, Francesco Rentocchini, Liney Manjarrés-Henrìquez and Rosa Grimaldi find that getting grant money is positively associated with getting consulting contracts. In other words, good researchers also get consulting gigs. And in some fields, consulting is where the financial rewards of research really lie, especially in social sciences where grants are usually relatively small.

What is up with Elsevier?

Whether you like it or not, Elsevier matters in the dissemination of research in Economics. By far the largest player in the field, it enjoys considerable market power (and a profit margin around 30% that comes with it). And even though journals are not at the frontier of research in Economics, it still matters what happens at Elsevier because it controls so many of the top field journals.

According to its web page on the global dissemination of research, Elsevier states:

We recognise that access to quality research is vital to the scientific community and beyond. For us this means providing support and the latest tools to maintain the quality and integrity of published scientific literature, achieving the widest dissemination of content, and embracing the opportunities of open access. We will continue to identify access gaps, and work towards ensuring that everyone has access to quality scientific content anytime, anywhere.

These are all nice words, but this is not all what Elsevier practices. First of all, all of the Economics content of Elsevier is gated, and academic libraries have to pay through the nose to let faculty access the content, including their own works. Even errata and retraction notices are gated. There is no open access journal in Economics, and even in other fields where it is available, the cost is prohibitive (usually US$3000, even more with color charges!), which cannot be justified in any reasonable way by hosting costs. Indeed, Elsevier spends considerable resources trying to keep potential readers away, by gating the material for the general public and making it difficult for individuals to buy subscriptions, especially for hard copies. All this management of subscriptions and filtering of web traffic would disappear with open access, making it much cheaper, not more expensive.

But this is not an issue only with Elsevier (Springer is much worse in this respect). Elsevier, with its market power is trying to kill any competition and any initiative that tries to open up the dissemination of research. For example, it was a huge backer of the Research Works Act in the US, which would have prohibited mandates that publicly funded research should be available in open-access repositories. Of course this generated a huge outcry from the scientific community (you know, the one that Elsevier claims to serve) and lead to a call for a boycott. This seems to have been successful, as Elsevier reversed its stance, thereby killing the bill.

Unfortunately, few economists seem to have participated in the boycott, which is probably why Elsevier continues to flaunt the research community with no remorse. For example, it has not updated the listings of its journals for over a year in RePEc, and still vigorously refuses to let RePEc perform citation analysis on its contents. Repeated attempts to get a reaction from Elsevier have unsuccessful from my part. My suspicion is that RePEc is threatening some of the products that Elsevier is pushing (Sciverse, Scopus), and the interest of the research community becomes second fiddle. From what hear, people are deserting the Economics desk at Elsevier, starting with its head, which makes you wonder who is in charge of "the widest dissemination of content."

To understand further what a fine business Elsevier is, here are some of my previous posts:
The evil empire strikes again
The evil empire strikes again (II)
Copyright and the lack of competition in academic publishing
Why I am boycotting Elsevier

How did online journals change the economics literature?

Scientific publication is not the same as it was, now that we can easily access the literature over the Internet. No more trips to the library, much fewer waits for interlibrary loans, and no more chasing who took or misplaced the volume in the racks. But did all this change anything in the way we publish our results?

This is what Timo Boppart and Kevin E. Staub study by looking at the diversity of topics covered in journals and how the availability of on-line publication would have changed that. The idea is that on-line publication allows to discover and read more material, and one may in particular stray away from the usual topics. No doubt about that. But I wonder why Boppart and Straub have this focus on journals. After all, working papers is where its at in Economics, and journal readership has not really increased, I believe. The treatment variable is the share of cited articles available on-line the year before publication. This seems so wrong. There is no way it takes only one year from the literature search to the print issue. Not in Economics, where I would say it is a minimum three years, with really rare cases below that. In fact, a good share of mine took more than a year from final acceptance to actual publication. Then, what about working papers? This is what people read, not articles.

On the state of economic research blogging

If you are an economist and maintain a blog, the best way to get an audience is to get into fights with pundits and journalists, and you then easily become a pundit yourself, losing the impartiality you are supposed to have as a scientist. The most popular economist bloggers are either openly libertarian or quite far right, or in reaction resolutely on the left. Almost all engage in politicking and wars of words and have basically abandoned the principles of impartiality their scientific upbringing taught them. The impartial scientists are drowned.

EconAcademics.org tries to rectify that, aggregating blog posts that discuss research, or at least refer to research. The list of monitored blogs is impressively long, yet it saddens me to see that the "popular" blogs are nowhere to be seen near the top of those who have discussed the most research, despite their considerable volume of posts. While I could be proud to be (far) ahead on this last list, it saddens me again how little consistent discussion of research there is. Out in the blogosphere, are we really so few economists doing this? Why can't the top economics blogs relate more to the results of their field?

A positive externality of EconAcademics.org is that is compiles a list of all papers I discussed, including where the ultimately got published. I have put the link in the sidebar and will come back to discuss it sometime soon.

Bruno Frey: the epilogue?

A little less than a year ago, a controversy erupted about the publishing practices of Bruno Frey and his students. Indeed, they tend to repackage their research and submit it to multiple journals simultaneously (or sometimes successively), without cross-references and without alerting editors to this. This is in clear violation of the submission conditions of most academic journals and even goes against principles Bruno Frey has himself advocated in multiple (of course) publications: there is not enough space for everyone to publish on the one hand, and the pressure to publish leads people to (self-)plagiarize on the other hand. On his homepage, Bruno Frey crows about over 500 or 600 publications, depending on where you look, numbers that are completely surreal for any self-respecting academic economist.

The scheme blew in his face when some editors and some blogs started raising questions when very similar articles about the Titanic, with Benno Torgler and David Savage, appeared in four journals (some say there is even a fifth one in German, but I cannot verify). And the article was not even original, as a similar analysis was done and published 25 years prior and is now standard reading and exercise in statistics courses. Newspapers picked up the story, Frey went into denial but finally confessed to the editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, who published correspondence about the case and publicly admonished him for multiple submissions (he do not yet know about the prior literature). But that is only for this case, there are all the other ones. The University of Zurich, from where Bruno Frey recently retired, promised an investigation. That was sometime in the Summer. Since then, nothing.

One could suspect the University would do nothing, as Bruno Frey is the best ranked economist in German-speaking universities. And the prolonged silence clearly seemed to corroborate this. But rumors started circulating in the hallways, rumors that were not encouraging at all. But no evidence from Zurich.

Finally, I got good evidence from a reliable source. And it is indeed not encouraging. The University of Zurich mandated three prominent academics to look into the case. But the mandate was formulated in such a way that only the articles about the Titanic could be analyzed. The experts came to the obvious conclusion that unethical behavior was at play for this case. They could not mention the others and thus the University concluded that this was a one off miss-step. The University gave Frey a verbal admonishment, which does not go on his record, and did not release the report.

But this was not an one-off miss-step. Frey has been banned from the editorial board of Public Choice for a similar case of re-publication. He is by now banned from publishing in at least a half-dozen journals. To make matters worse, he has himself advocated to go against plagiarizers and others that unnecessarily take up valuable publication space. The investigation should have looked at his whole career, like when a scientist is suspected of fabricating data and all his publications are subject to scrutiny. And it is not like the information would be difficult to obtain, it is readily available and people have even compiled it, as documented in the FreyPlag Wiki.

For more about the case, you can read my past blog posts: 30 April 2011, 3 September 2011, 27 September 2011. Also, Olaf Storbeck's Economics Intelligence blog was the one that convinced the University of Zurich to finally (pretend to) act: 4 July 2011, 4 July 2011, 5 July 2011, 6 July 2011, 7 July 2011, 9 July 2011, 20 August 2011, 29 August 2011, 12 September 2011

Women do not patent

A frighteningly low proportion of patents are granted to women, 7.5% in the United States, while only 5.5% of those that are commercialized are from women. Maybe they are of a more generous nature and realize how progress-crippling patenting can be these days. But I doubt this effect can be that strong. The elephant in the room is of course the low proportion of females in sciences and engineering professions. It cannot be the only explanation, because females have a higher share than 7.5%, but it is a start.

Jennifer Hunt, Jean-Philippe Garant, Hannah Herman and David Munroe claim the missing women has little to do with their proportion in the science and engineering fields. Rather, the culprit is the lack of women in science and engineering jobs that involve development and design, in particular electrical and mechanical engineering. What pushes women out? Lack of interest, abilities or discrimination? The paper is silent on this (except for hurdles in the promotion process) but ventures to say that correcting this would increase GDP by 2.7%. This number is based on the idea that if more women were working in those fields, there would be proportionally more patents, and GDP would be proportionally higher. I do not think this is that simple.

About the cult of statistical significance

A large part of economic research is devoted to empirical studies, and the name of the game there is statistical significance. Once you get an interesting effect being significant, it becomes a study worth writing, and possibly publishing. If you cannot find an effect, then try another specification until it is statistically significant. Nobody will know how much you tried, the one that is significant is all that counts. If one cannot find a statistically significant result, a null result, publishing it becomes really difficult. This game of finding statistical significance is unfortunately misleading, as this hunt dominates theory or even common sense when choosing specifications, and often completely neglects economic significance. What if a statistically significant results is tiny even though it is precise? And what about a large effect that is statistically weak?

I am certainly guilty as well of confusing statistical and economic significance, including on this blog. Indeed, it is often difficult even understanding what the size of the effect is, because the specification does not allow one to relate the effect to something tangible.

The reason I am mentioning all this is that I came across a recent paper by Walter Krämer, who tries to revise the argument made by Stephen Ziliak and Deirdre McCloskey that any statistical significance is useless. While he seems to concur on the general abuse of statistical significance, he claims it can still be useful under some circumstances. And these are when you do exploratory testing, as it allows to discard unviable hypotheses or specifications. But one has to remember, even though this is elementary statistics yet so often ignored, one can only reject or not reject, but never accept a hypothesis. So even the exploratory testing has its limitations.

On the advantages of open-source econometrics

I find it surprisingly difficult to encourage my colleagues or my employer to go for open-source software. It appears to be very difficult to overcome the idea that if it is free, it cannot be good. But open-source software is not only good and free, by its very name, it is possible to look at its entrails. This implies that if there is an error, anybody can find it and fix it. With proprietary software, errors are much more difficult to detect, and then one is at the mercy of the publisher to do something about and disseminate a patch. You may think this is not a problem for you, well let's see whether this example hits closer to home.

Talha and Yasemin Yalta have looked at a series of econometrics software bundles and in particular tested for their accuracy. It turns out that fixes for gretl, the open-source one, were rapidly applied. The commercial products, though, took up to five years to correct them. And I know of at least one case where the software publisher refused to correct an error, because "published results would then not replicate." And imagine all the errors we do not see because the code is secret...

PS: another interesting point the authors raise is that commercial publishers do not make old versions of their software available for replication purposes. That can be a serious problem, for example if someone were accused of falsifying results, or just being sloppy.

Why I am boycotting Elsevier

It is not secret to regular readers that I am no friend of Elsevier. It is engaging in unethical behavior (exhibits I and II), it is abusing its near monopoly power in the diffusion of research, yielding profit margins in the order of an incredible 30%. But foremost, it is actively trying to prevent the dissemination of research by hiding articles behind expensive paywalls and lobbying for making illegal various initiatives promoting Open Access in science.

A few years ago, biologists had enough and managed to create a group of journals in Open Access that are now the most respected in the profession, and that in just a couple of years. Mathematicians seem to be the next, and they invite a signature campaign for boycotting submissions to and refereeing for Elsevier journals. The site is here, and appears to suffer from the strain of its sudden popularity. Bookmark it to sign on when it is back on. You can certainly can count me in, as I have already been following such a boycott for a few years. It is not always easy, especially when I refuse to referee for editor friends, but they are understanding.

Triple-blind refereeing

Until it became too easy to find research papers on the Internet, the norm in academic publishing was to subject any journal submission to a double-blind refereeing process. The author does not know the referee, and vice-versa. Most, but not all journals have abandoned the double-blind for single-blind, as referees can figure out anyway who the author is. Well, most of the time.

And now the new concept, triple-blind refereeing, where the editor does not know who the referee is. Indeed, I got a paper to referee under my nom de plume. And I just cannot figure out who the author is.

Why would the editor choose me? Indeed, what are the chances that the paper's topic would fall in my research competences? While I do something like refereeing on this blog, and I have written on this topic, it is not like I can claim to be an expert on every topic, or even on any topic. And the paper is certainly not that bad that the editor just expects me to trash it and help get it out of the pile.

Maybe the editor could just have waited for me to discuss it here. But wait, the paper is not available on the Internet, so I would never see it. Yes, that is the ticket: the editor lost patience waiting for my comments.

Anyway, I will referee this one, just because of the unique situation. I will do my best to write a good referee report. But I cannot promise I will write more referee reports under my pen name. What would be in it for me? Writing a report anonymously to both author and referee, and the report remains forever secret, even the fact that I wrote it? And no, I will not publish it here. I do not take suggestions on what I should write about.

On the mobility of academics in Europe

Europe has suffered a brain drain of top academic scientists that it has tried to reverse by offering better work conditions. The main competitor in the United States, where top scientists are able to attract easy funding and universities are accommodating. While pertains to relatively few people, they are considered to be key, as their reputation can attract better colleagues and graduate students, ultimately improving the rankings administrators vie for. Given the large amounts of money spent by the European Commission and its country counterparts, it is important to understand what motivates scientists to move.

Edward Bergman does this using a survey of 1800 European academics considered to be among in the top institutions. Those who exhibit higher levels of loyalty or "voice" (opinionated on local affairs) tend to stay and try to improve things internally , if necessary. The others prefer to leave when local conditions worsen, and then they have no particular loyalty to stay in Europe when they are just looking for better working conditions. All this is not too surprising. What I find more interesting is that scientists top priority is research opportunities followed by salary, and language preferences is very minor. European universities cannot count on scientists coming home any more.

Non-conformism in academia

In economics, there is the mainstream and various heterodox fractions that do not identify with the mainstream or each other. Too many, the heterodox seem like annoying and useless chatter. But they fulfill an important role, which is to keep those in the mainstream on their toes. This is part of the scientific process: challenge long and widely held views to check whether they are still valid. And even if the challenge is wrong, it makes those in the mainstream think about the axioms the build their theories on.

Vela Velupillai makes the case that dissenters are typically silenced by the mainstream, but may prevail in the long-run, citing many examples of mathematical economics, in particular the work of Pietro Sraffa. And this is really what tenure is good for: a dissenter will have much trouble publishing but may ultimately still contribute a lot to scientific advances.

We are in times were dissenters seems to have a more receptive audience. Indeed, the current crisis is seen by some as a failure of Economics, thus it is easy to criticize it. But it also highlights that dissenting can be very distracting if it is poorly focused, uniformed and populist. In this regard the recent dissenting by Colander, Krugman and Stiglitz has, I think been counterproductive, as I have occasionally discussed here. It is good to criticize the fundamental assumptions of the mainstream. It is better, but not necessary to offer alternatives. But it is counterproductive to dissent on the basis of a old read of the literature, and a literature that has in the meanwhile evolved to address these supposedly new criticisms.

Heterodox Economics has thus gained a fresh wind, simply because it is different from the mainstream. But what does it have to offer? Peter Skott, a heterodox economist himself, argues that it is still far from being an viable alternative. While heterodox approaches usually reject microeconomic foundations in macroeconomics, they should not throw out the baby with the bath water, i.e., ignore microeconomics altogether. And while the heterodox analysis for income distribution has focused on the labor income share, the large changes in income inequality happened within labor income. Finally, the heterodox literature is just as guilty of ignoring many of the suddenly relevant intricacies of the world of finance.

There is still a lot of work to do, and instead of pursuing an excess of mutual accusations and claiming Economics is useless, it seems much more appropriate to put more resources into making it better, heterodox or mainstream. After all, medical research was not defunded when the HIV/AIDS epidemic made ravages.

What is the value of research?

What is the value of the research we do? The typical way we have to evaluate the impact of research is to count citations, and possibly weigh them in some way, in Economics and any other sciences (except maybe where patents are relevant). But this only evaluates how the research output is viewed within a narrowly defined scientific community. The contribution to social welfare is an entirely different beast to evaluate.

Robert Hofmeister tries to give research some value. The approach is to consider the scientific process through cohorts, where each wave provides fundamental research as well as end-applications based on previous fundamental research. A particular research results thus can have a return over many generations. It is an interesting way to properly attribute the intellectual source of a new product or process, but the exercise is of little value if it is not possible to quantify the social value of the end-application. Indeed, Hofmeister goes back to using citations in Economics for a data application, which is equivalent to evaluate research only within the scientific community. In terms of the stated goal of the paper, we are back to square one. In terms of getting a better measure of citation impact, this is an interesting application of an old idea. And the resulting rankings of journals and articles look very much like those that are already available.

Are PhD dissertations lagging the research frontier?

A doctoral or PhD dissertation is supposed to be work that pushes the research frontier further. Obviously, not all dissertations are created equal and it is to be expected that some will push more that others. But they are all supposed to push. Well, do they? This is something that is quite difficult to measure as one needs to know where the research frontier lies and what the contribution of a dissertation is. For each dissertation, only few people can do this, and it is thus impossible to have an aggregate picture, unless you use a clever trick.

Sheng Guo and Jungmin Lee take publications in top Economics journals as the research frontier and look in which JEL categories they fall. They compare this to the JEL codes for US Economics dissertations and find a strong correlation controlling for the number of jobs available in the field. If you lag the publications by two years, the regression is just as good, which hints that dissertations react to the research frontier rather than the opposite (which is unfortunately undocumented), especially when you consider that with the long publication delays in Economics, the journals are in fact a few years behind the research frontier.

My interpretation here is not quite that of the authors, who really want to understand how students choose their field of study, given that they want to be on the job market with research on a hot topic. But when they start working on it, they do not know yet what will be hot. I am not sure this is quite such a conundrum, as seminars and conferences already give quite a good picture, and working papers as well. But it still looks like dissertations follow the trends instead of creating them.

On the ethics of research cloning

Even though the Journal of Economic Perspectives recently went open access, a move the American Economic Association should be applauded for, I am still receiving physical copies. It is a nice journal to read while lounging in the garden or on a plane ride. The last issue has as usual a good set of interesting articles, including one I had reported on earlier when it was still a working paper. But while checking what I had said about it, I noticed something rather odd: the paper I discussed was ultimately published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. I had to investigate.

The two papers are by Bruno Frey, David Savage and Benno Torgler. They both report on the sinking of the Titanic and discuss the characteristics of the passengers who survived versus those who perished. Both papers come to the same conclusions. The texts are different, though, and the published regressions are slightly different, with no explanation why, because there is no reference to the other paper. One has therefore to read in much detail to understand what the contribution of each paper is, if there is any.

All this is very fishy. It really looks like the authors are playing games here, trying to get multiple publications out of the same work. They do not mention the other work to fool editors and referees into thinking these are original contributions, as required for any submission to those journals. They tweak the results and rewrite the text so that they cannot be accused of blatant self-plagiarism. This is unethical behavior, but it is not unheard of in the profession.

But like a late-night infomercial, there is a bonus. Looking at the author's CVs, I notice that they have a third publication with the same topic and results, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Bruno Frey has also published two short pieces in German in magazines prior to the academic publications: 1, 2, both pdf.

Now, who are the authors? David Savage is a PhD student at Queensland University of Technology. He must have been following orders of the more senior authors, either without realizing their unethical behavior or watching in horror and not being able to do something about it. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. His adviser is Benno Torgler, who has already an impressive track record for someone whose first refereed publication was in 2002. His RePEc profile lists 105 working papers and 52 journal articles. Looking at the published works, it seems to like to revisit previous papers by adding new twists to them. Nothing wrong with that, but it may explain why there is no major hit in the publications. There is simply too much slicing and no single slice is a major contribution worth a good publication. But early in his career, he published a series of articles on tax morale using the World Values Survey. Using the same data and the same methodology, he managed to publish several articles whose distinguishing feature is only that they look at a different set of countries: Asia, transition countries, Canada, Latin America, and possibly more. While I must confess that I have not read the papers in detail, there is simply too much material, and Benno Torgler may be innocent, I still find these patterns very disturbing.

It took me some time to figure out where Benno Torgler earned his doctorate. It is at the University of Basel, under the supervision of René Frey (Basel) and Bruno Frey (Zurich), who are brothers, after undergraduate studies at the University of Zurich. Which bring us to Bruno Frey. He is a researcher of international recognition, mostly for his work on welfare economics, happiness research, and critiques of fundamental assumptions in economic models. He credits himself with over 600 published articles and books, an astounding number in Economics. Of course, if this number comes about by slicing papers or republishing known results as described above, this number is less surprising. Looking at his list of major articles, one can surely suspect something is not quite right. I do not have the time (or the will) to go all of this, but there is indeed a lot of rehashing the same themes, which is OK when one uses new data sets or new approaches. But seeing those quantities, that seem unlikely.

Another aspect that I find disturbing in Bruno Frey's record is that his recent work has been railing against the tendency of academics (and especially their administrators and grant makers) to look for quantifiable evidence of their productivity, what he calls "evaluitis." He writes against the pressure to publish and the prominence of rankings of research output. I have reported about some of this writing myself (1, 2, 3). But again he seems to be repeating himself a lot, even in published articles, essentially criticizing a game that he seems to be excelling at. Either he is sarcastic or hypocritical, I cannot decide.

I realize the accusations I am making here can have severe consequences. But I am only accusing, not condemning. I leave the reader the opportunity to make her own opinion, as I have linked to plenty of evidence. I hope to be proven wrong, that these three individuals are indeed extremely innovative and productive. But from what I have seen so far, my prejudice is strongly negative in this regard.

Update (Sunday): I have been alerted that there is a fourth publication about the same Titanic study, in Rationality and Study.

Further update: A follow-up post.

Should universities focus on teaching or research?

The UK is going through a rather traumatic reform of the finances of its higher education system. There is much debate, both public and among academics, on how much of the burden should be carried by the students and how. If we take as given that universities are funded by public grants, how to allocated them is still complex, in part due to the dual goals of universities: teaching and research. Research grants are now quality driven, while teaching grants are mostly quantity driven. Given that their is a budget constraint, either at the government or at the university level, any economist would tell you there is a trade-off and choices need to be made.

John Beath, Joanna Poyago-Theotoky and David Ulph discuss how universities choose whether to focus on research or teaching. Universities are funded according to a formula depending on the number of students taught, the number of academics and their research quality, which depends itself on the academic/student ratio, Every academic gets the same pay, and universities maximize an objective based on the quality-weighted volume of research and the quality adjusted number of students, where the quality of teaching is a consequence of the academic/student ratio.

It is clear there is not going to be a free lunch. A university cannot be good at both teaching and research. As one plays around with the funding formula, all sorts of equilibria can emerge. For example, if research is well rewarded and a minimum quality of research is required for it to be funded, a bifurcation occurs where a few universities concentrate on research and others on teaching. Which funding formula is best for society remains open, though.

Which are the most efficient universities?

University rankings are not particularly useful because they only measure the output and hardly the input. And if they measure the input, having more inputs is better. This means that rankings reflect size and resources, not how well resources are used, and how much students improve from when they started their studies. This implies that any university that does not have a medical school or an engineering school starts with a disadvantage. Internationally, university rankings have become very important, to the point that, for example, France is now reversing the splitting of its large universities in field specific institutions. The new monster universities, now again covering all fields, will rank much better thanks mostly to their sheer size.

To counteract all this, you need to measure the efficiency of universities. Thomas Bolli does this for 273 universities across the world by estimating a production possibilities frontier. Unfortunately, the sole measured input it full-time equivalents of staff, while possible outputs are FTE of undergraduate and graduate students, and citation numbers. But it is a start. Universities in Switzerland and Israel appear to be very efficient (and indeed they are small are generate a good amount of research) while those in the UK seem particularly inefficient. That should fan some flames in the debate on university financing there.

Are hot teachers better teachers?

It is well known that beautiful and tall people have better lives and are better paid. This is especially thought to be true in activities where skills are relatively unimportant. What about economics professors?

Anindya Sen, Marcel Voia and Frances Woolley use the hotness indicators from student evaluations at ratemyprofessor.com in Ontario and find hot economics university professors are paid a whooping 10% more than their less attractive counterparts. Not only is this a large number, it also runs counter to previous results that such effects are limited to unskilled professions. This effect is especially strong for men and not present for women, Indeed women who negotiate hard are not deemed attractive.

In addition, hotter teachers also get better student evaluations, even after controlling for all what the authors could put their hands on. For other indicators of professor productivity, it turns out that hotness affects positively women for citations, although this could be due to a few highly cited women (citation counts are always very skewed). But neither men nor women publish significantly more when hot, but they tend to attract more co-authors. I really need to be careful with my appearance.

Why should I write grant applications?

My administrators insist I should go for grants. They say it raises prestige and my research would benefit from it. I have not applied for a significant grant for quite some time for a reason: it is a horrible waste of time. I do not need grants. I do my research very well without the need for support money. All I need is a pencil, paper and a computer. I can even do without a printer. I do not need to pay for data, software and subscription, as all this is available for free (thanks to open source and open access). I do not need a research assistant as I do that much faster and better myself. And I do not need summer money as I am already well paid. In other words, I am doing just fine without grants, why should I put the time and effort into maybe getting a little money I do need, that comes with all sorts of strings attached?

My administrators do not care about the impact on my research, or my welfare for that matter. They want the overhead. They are begging for money to justify their existence. I already bring lots of money to the college by teaching many, many tuition paying and public funding attracting undergraduates. In fact, from a back of the envelope calculation, my pay should double just for that. I am already subsidizing the administrators, why would they need grant overhead? They need to feed a machinery that deals with those grants. The office of research, which manages the grants, is twenty people strong. And if I hire a research assistant among the graduate students, I have to pay his or her full tuition before anything can be assigned. I cannot hire outside the university. So why would I want to hire anyone?

In some way, the administration wants me to pay for my salary through grants, a salary I have already more than earned with teaching to overflowing classrooms. To be honest, if I were successful in obtaining grants, I would leave the university and keep everything for myself. I would then be able to concentrate on research instead of putting up with all the red tape. But most funding agencies do not accept submissions from independent researchers, so I continue doing my research without grants and try to ignore these administrators. Let them show their self-importance elsewhere.

How not to distribute research funds

Citation counts are often used to proxy for the quality of an article, researcher or journal. They are not a perfect measure, everybody agrees on that, but they have proven to be a useful starting point for evaluation. Sometimes they are taken very seriously, too seriously, for the distribution of funds and pay. But at least this is done within a field, as it is obvious that citing conventions and in particular frequencies differ from field to field.

Javier Ruiz-Castillo goes further in trying to infer how budget priorities should allocated across research fields by using citations counts. Of course, for this one first needs to have a good understanding of how citations are distributed. Roughly, citations are distributed following power laws with fields and subfields. This means that few articles garner a lot of citations, while many go empty (especially in Business, Management and Political Science). And if I understand the paper right, one can apply readily a multiplier to compare the citation frequencies across fields. And these multipliers then make it possible to compare researchers or research units across fields within, say, a country, as long as one assumes that an adjusted citation is equally worth citing. For example, is political science worth the same support as biomedical engineering after using these multipliers, to take two randoms fields? And the "size" of the field is important as well. Here the author makes an attempt at some definitions of size which I frankly did not understand.

That said, I wonder why I forced myself in reading this paper. First is it indigestible because it is poorly written and uses very bad analogies. Second, because trying to compare fields and use citations for the allocation of funds or prizes across then is impossible because you have no identification: in statistical speak, the fixed effects capture all the variance. You can only compare how well a field does in a country compared to the rest of the world, but this cannot measure how important the field is. You need more information than just citations.