prompt stringlengths 22 39.2k | prompt_id stringlengths 64 64 | chosen listlengths 2 2 | rejected listlengths 2 2 | messages listlengths 2 2 | score_chosen float64 5.19 10 | score_rejected float64 0 10 | other_info dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well not a academic advice but why don't you make a website and try to reach other people who been suffering from that disease and tell them about your experiences?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.946154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4,
"raw_score_rejected": 15,
"seconds_difference": 23465,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You would have to be very careful how you frame the article, how you define the scope of the work, and how you establish and retain credibility throughout it (much more so than someone with a research degree in medicine or an allied discipline), but it is doable. . Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) presenting it as a case report which aims to offer an update and a very slight expansion to your previous work at a medically-oriented conference, you might consider publishing it within the framework of an auto-ethnography of your disease and current clinical standards at a more interdisciplinary venue - say, at a medical-anthropology or medical geography conference. I’m a historian and geographer, so I’m not sure exactly how to approach it, or if those are really the ideal venues, but that’s probably close to the track I’d take. . Like I said, I’d approach it very carefully. I might write it up in a way which: a) reviews the available lit (including your previous article), b) speaks to the experience of the condition and the experience of treatment within current standards of care in your particular context, c) highlights the need for an expansion of the available treatments in specific ways which address the tensions you pointed out in the previous section, d) speaks very tentatively to the potential benefits of your experimental treatments and your experiences with them in terms of a case report, and, e) emphasizes the importance of examining these and other potential treatments, acknowledges the ethical hurdles, and maybe suggests commonly accepted solutions to those or similar ethical hurdles to demonstrate a way forward for this research within the context of a more traditional clinical review process. . Fair warning, even if you are incredibly careful in the construction and presentation of the paper, independent scholars get a tough reception at even the most welcoming venues, and the medical set isn’t usually known for being exactly that. Good luck! . Edit: /u/polyphonal makes a fantastic point about disciplinary genre conventions and their (perhaps unfortunately frequent) use as shibboleths. I would absolutely run this past a second set of trusted eyes with experience within whatever discipline you intend to publish/present your work.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.246154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.1,
"raw_score_rejected": 10,
"seconds_difference": 6577,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Some journals have pretty strict criteria about what they will publish, and may require that a study was approved by an IRB, had an adequate sample size, etc. You may not personally require IRB approval to collect data on yourself, yet a journal could still require IRB approval to publish it. I think you will get more traction if you can develop a collaboration with a professional or team of professionals. However valuable your insights may be, there are good reasons that scientific norms and standards have been put into place, and attempting to bypass them will undermine your ultimate goal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 4.346154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 7,
"seconds_difference": 19534,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Agree with the rest of the comments on case reports. Will you be monetizing your intervention? If so, might be worth it to keep quiet about it until you can collaborate with the industry to perhaps explore more robust evidence generation (randomized control trials).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The fact that your medical team has backed away after already publishing with you suggests they're finding this whole thing as weird as you're making it sound, and they just don't want to put their reputation on the line any more than it already is. Being experienced in how it feels to live with a disease =/= being an expert in objectively analysing it, or having the medical training to know *how* to analyse it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 3.146154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.2,
"raw_score_rejected": 5,
"seconds_difference": 26835,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "At N=1, it will be very hard to draw conclusions from your case. Could you write and subsequently publish a case report on yourself? Sure. I’d read that and I’d find it interesting. It might make me ask questions for a well constructed research study applied to a larger group of people. Most physicians and scientists are not going to trust the results of a “research study” that’s based entirely on one individual. At the core, it’s a statistics problem. On a broader clinical level—you’re one human being. One. People are vastly different for a variety of reasons—it’s almost impossible to draw conclusions from an intervention preformed on a single individual. It is, however, possible to see that an intervention is worth studying on bigger playing field from one individual. Rare disease or not, a true clinical research effort among multiple physicians at multiple hospital centers could gather together a group of you for a research intervention. That’s something the scientific community would put more stock in. So write a case report with yourself as the patient. Publish it. Suggest in your discussion that your modus operandi be tested in a larger patient group.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Agree with the rest of the comments on case reports. Will you be monetizing your intervention? If so, might be worth it to keep quiet about it until you can collaborate with the industry to perhaps explore more robust evidence generation (randomized control trials).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "At N=1, it will be very hard to draw conclusions from your case. Could you write and subsequently publish a case report on yourself? Sure. I’d read that and I’d find it interesting. It might make me ask questions for a well constructed research study applied to a larger group of people. Most physicians and scientists are not going to trust the results of a “research study” that’s based entirely on one individual. At the core, it’s a statistics problem. On a broader clinical level—you’re one human being. One. People are vastly different for a variety of reasons—it’s almost impossible to draw conclusions from an intervention preformed on a single individual. It is, however, possible to see that an intervention is worth studying on bigger playing field from one individual. Rare disease or not, a true clinical research effort among multiple physicians at multiple hospital centers could gather together a group of you for a research intervention. That’s something the scientific community would put more stock in. So write a case report with yourself as the patient. Publish it. Suggest in your discussion that your modus operandi be tested in a larger patient group.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.153846 | 3.553846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 18,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.6,
"raw_score_rejected": 5,
"seconds_difference": 1380,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well not a academic advice but why don't you make a website and try to reach other people who been suffering from that disease and tell them about your experiences?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Agree with the rest of the comments on case reports. Will you be monetizing your intervention? If so, might be worth it to keep quiet about it until you can collaborate with the industry to perhaps explore more robust evidence generation (randomized control trials).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well not a academic advice but why don't you make a website and try to reach other people who been suffering from that disease and tell them about your experiences?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.961538 | 3.961538 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 15,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 5,
"seconds_difference": 3370,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You would have to be very careful how you frame the article, how you define the scope of the work, and how you establish and retain credibility throughout it (much more so than someone with a research degree in medicine or an allied discipline), but it is doable. . Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) presenting it as a case report which aims to offer an update and a very slight expansion to your previous work at a medically-oriented conference, you might consider publishing it within the framework of an auto-ethnography of your disease and current clinical standards at a more interdisciplinary venue - say, at a medical-anthropology or medical geography conference. I’m a historian and geographer, so I’m not sure exactly how to approach it, or if those are really the ideal venues, but that’s probably close to the track I’d take. . Like I said, I’d approach it very carefully. I might write it up in a way which: a) reviews the available lit (including your previous article), b) speaks to the experience of the condition and the experience of treatment within current standards of care in your particular context, c) highlights the need for an expansion of the available treatments in specific ways which address the tensions you pointed out in the previous section, d) speaks very tentatively to the potential benefits of your experimental treatments and your experiences with them in terms of a case report, and, e) emphasizes the importance of examining these and other potential treatments, acknowledges the ethical hurdles, and maybe suggests commonly accepted solutions to those or similar ethical hurdles to demonstrate a way forward for this research within the context of a more traditional clinical review process. . Fair warning, even if you are incredibly careful in the construction and presentation of the paper, independent scholars get a tough reception at even the most welcoming venues, and the medical set isn’t usually known for being exactly that. Good luck! . Edit: /u/polyphonal makes a fantastic point about disciplinary genre conventions and their (perhaps unfortunately frequent) use as shibboleths. I would absolutely run this past a second set of trusted eyes with experience within whatever discipline you intend to publish/present your work.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Some journals have pretty strict criteria about what they will publish, and may require that a study was approved by an IRB, had an adequate sample size, etc. You may not personally require IRB approval to collect data on yourself, yet a journal could still require IRB approval to publish it. I think you will get more traction if you can develop a collaboration with a professional or team of professionals. However valuable your insights may be, there are good reasons that scientific norms and standards have been put into place, and attempting to bypass them will undermine your ultimate goal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You would have to be very careful how you frame the article, how you define the scope of the work, and how you establish and retain credibility throughout it (much more so than someone with a research degree in medicine or an allied discipline), but it is doable. . Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) presenting it as a case report which aims to offer an update and a very slight expansion to your previous work at a medically-oriented conference, you might consider publishing it within the framework of an auto-ethnography of your disease and current clinical standards at a more interdisciplinary venue - say, at a medical-anthropology or medical geography conference. I’m a historian and geographer, so I’m not sure exactly how to approach it, or if those are really the ideal venues, but that’s probably close to the track I’d take. . Like I said, I’d approach it very carefully. I might write it up in a way which: a) reviews the available lit (including your previous article), b) speaks to the experience of the condition and the experience of treatment within current standards of care in your particular context, c) highlights the need for an expansion of the available treatments in specific ways which address the tensions you pointed out in the previous section, d) speaks very tentatively to the potential benefits of your experimental treatments and your experiences with them in terms of a case report, and, e) emphasizes the importance of examining these and other potential treatments, acknowledges the ethical hurdles, and maybe suggests commonly accepted solutions to those or similar ethical hurdles to demonstrate a way forward for this research within the context of a more traditional clinical review process. . Fair warning, even if you are incredibly careful in the construction and presentation of the paper, independent scholars get a tough reception at even the most welcoming venues, and the medical set isn’t usually known for being exactly that. Good luck! . Edit: /u/polyphonal makes a fantastic point about disciplinary genre conventions and their (perhaps unfortunately frequent) use as shibboleths. I would absolutely run this past a second set of trusted eyes with experience within whatever discipline you intend to publish/present your work.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.641026 | 5.212454 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 10,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4285714286,
"raw_score_rejected": 7,
"seconds_difference": 12957,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You would have to be very careful how you frame the article, how you define the scope of the work, and how you establish and retain credibility throughout it (much more so than someone with a research degree in medicine or an allied discipline), but it is doable. . Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) presenting it as a case report which aims to offer an update and a very slight expansion to your previous work at a medically-oriented conference, you might consider publishing it within the framework of an auto-ethnography of your disease and current clinical standards at a more interdisciplinary venue - say, at a medical-anthropology or medical geography conference. I’m a historian and geographer, so I’m not sure exactly how to approach it, or if those are really the ideal venues, but that’s probably close to the track I’d take. . Like I said, I’d approach it very carefully. I might write it up in a way which: a) reviews the available lit (including your previous article), b) speaks to the experience of the condition and the experience of treatment within current standards of care in your particular context, c) highlights the need for an expansion of the available treatments in specific ways which address the tensions you pointed out in the previous section, d) speaks very tentatively to the potential benefits of your experimental treatments and your experiences with them in terms of a case report, and, e) emphasizes the importance of examining these and other potential treatments, acknowledges the ethical hurdles, and maybe suggests commonly accepted solutions to those or similar ethical hurdles to demonstrate a way forward for this research within the context of a more traditional clinical review process. . Fair warning, even if you are incredibly careful in the construction and presentation of the paper, independent scholars get a tough reception at even the most welcoming venues, and the medical set isn’t usually known for being exactly that. Good luck! . Edit: /u/polyphonal makes a fantastic point about disciplinary genre conventions and their (perhaps unfortunately frequent) use as shibboleths. I would absolutely run this past a second set of trusted eyes with experience within whatever discipline you intend to publish/present your work.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Agree with the rest of the comments on case reports. Will you be monetizing your intervention? If so, might be worth it to keep quiet about it until you can collaborate with the industry to perhaps explore more robust evidence generation (randomized control trials).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You would have to be very careful how you frame the article, how you define the scope of the work, and how you establish and retain credibility throughout it (much more so than someone with a research degree in medicine or an allied discipline), but it is doable. . Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) presenting it as a case report which aims to offer an update and a very slight expansion to your previous work at a medically-oriented conference, you might consider publishing it within the framework of an auto-ethnography of your disease and current clinical standards at a more interdisciplinary venue - say, at a medical-anthropology or medical geography conference. I’m a historian and geographer, so I’m not sure exactly how to approach it, or if those are really the ideal venues, but that’s probably close to the track I’d take. . Like I said, I’d approach it very carefully. I might write it up in a way which: a) reviews the available lit (including your previous article), b) speaks to the experience of the condition and the experience of treatment within current standards of care in your particular context, c) highlights the need for an expansion of the available treatments in specific ways which address the tensions you pointed out in the previous section, d) speaks very tentatively to the potential benefits of your experimental treatments and your experiences with them in terms of a case report, and, e) emphasizes the importance of examining these and other potential treatments, acknowledges the ethical hurdles, and maybe suggests commonly accepted solutions to those or similar ethical hurdles to demonstrate a way forward for this research within the context of a more traditional clinical review process. . Fair warning, even if you are incredibly careful in the construction and presentation of the paper, independent scholars get a tough reception at even the most welcoming venues, and the medical set isn’t usually known for being exactly that. Good luck! . Edit: /u/polyphonal makes a fantastic point about disciplinary genre conventions and their (perhaps unfortunately frequent) use as shibboleths. I would absolutely run this past a second set of trusted eyes with experience within whatever discipline you intend to publish/present your work.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.641026 | 4.641026 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 10,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 5,
"seconds_difference": 20258,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated. | 508853b766ea0a623d7cde74142994670957f086f753982c66f04726bc07352c | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Some journals have pretty strict criteria about what they will publish, and may require that a study was approved by an IRB, had an adequate sample size, etc. You may not personally require IRB approval to collect data on yourself, yet a journal could still require IRB approval to publish it. I think you will get more traction if you can develop a collaboration with a professional or team of professionals. However valuable your insights may be, there are good reasons that scientific norms and standards have been put into place, and attempting to bypass them will undermine your ultimate goal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Agree with the rest of the comments on case reports. Will you be monetizing your intervention? If so, might be worth it to keep quiet about it until you can collaborate with the industry to perhaps explore more robust evidence generation (randomized control trials).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Can an educated patient with a rare disease present and publish self researched interventions? I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I do have a very rare genetic disease with no therapy or cure. I am university educated ( arts degrees) and self researched and applied lifestyle interventions that were unexpectedly successful. As I track all data regarding my interventions, my medical team and I, as first author, published an article this Spring. As I am acting outside the standard of care for someone with my disease, albeit with proven success, my medical team has now backed away from further research collaboration for ethical and liability reasons. As an informed patient, I am not bound by the same ethical or professional constraints of my medical team. Over the past year, I have progressed the interventions, still outside the standard of care, and I would now like to independently present the results as an N=1 study at a Conference in June. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of this effort but feel very strongly that the research would be immensely valuable to other patients suffering with the same disease. Currently, there is no cure or therapy for this progressive and debilitating disease and my research might offer some hope for others. Any academic advice on strategies for navigating through the publication process would be very much appreciated.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Some journals have pretty strict criteria about what they will publish, and may require that a study was approved by an IRB, had an adequate sample size, etc. You may not personally require IRB approval to collect data on yourself, yet a journal could still require IRB approval to publish it. I think you will get more traction if you can develop a collaboration with a professional or team of professionals. However valuable your insights may be, there are good reasons that scientific norms and standards have been put into place, and attempting to bypass them will undermine your ultimate goal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 5.048718 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "kmuu1s",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4,
"raw_score_rejected": 5,
"seconds_difference": 7301,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.91
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Very few. I find them irritating to be friends with in general. When I'm with friends, I don't like the possibility of competition and posturing. To me friends are people I can be myself around, not people I have to watch my back with. I have one close friend from my institution, and a few from other schools. Otherwise socially, no thanks",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find it easier to be friends with people in academia the longer I am in it. A lot of people don't understand what a post-doc is, even after you explain what you'll be doing (oh so you're a student still? do you get paid? do you get college credit?). And it's easier to talk to people who understand why that your career takes 10+ years after graduating to even reach a point where you'd be considered \"successful\" or that you're not just trying to get rich in life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Very few. I find them irritating to be friends with in general. When I'm with friends, I don't like the possibility of competition and posturing. To me friends are people I can be myself around, not people I have to watch my back with. I have one close friend from my institution, and a few from other schools. Otherwise socially, no thanks",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 9.129032 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 116,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.8709677419,
"raw_score_rejected": 62,
"seconds_difference": 35,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Very few. I find them irritating to be friends with in general. When I'm with friends, I don't like the possibility of competition and posturing. To me friends are people I can be myself around, not people I have to watch my back with. I have one close friend from my institution, and a few from other schools. Otherwise socially, no thanks",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Honestly, except for my family I don't know anyone outside of academia anymore",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Very few. I find them irritating to be friends with in general. When I'm with friends, I don't like the possibility of competition and posturing. To me friends are people I can be myself around, not people I have to watch my back with. I have one close friend from my institution, and a few from other schools. Otherwise socially, no thanks",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 8.363636 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 116,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6363636364,
"raw_score_rejected": 44,
"seconds_difference": 3509,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Very few. I find them irritating to be friends with in general. When I'm with friends, I don't like the possibility of competition and posturing. To me friends are people I can be myself around, not people I have to watch my back with. I have one close friend from my institution, and a few from other schools. Otherwise socially, no thanks",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my friends are those I made during my undergrad 20-something years ago. I've picked up a few along the way during work - more from some jobs than others, and from some jobs none at all. I've picked up a few from places I've lived while moving that had nothing to do with academia too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Very few. I find them irritating to be friends with in general. When I'm with friends, I don't like the possibility of competition and posturing. To me friends are people I can be myself around, not people I have to watch my back with. I have one close friend from my institution, and a few from other schools. Otherwise socially, no thanks",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.258065 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 116,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.7419354839,
"raw_score_rejected": 31,
"seconds_difference": 2619,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find it easier to be friends with people in academia the longer I am in it. A lot of people don't understand what a post-doc is, even after you explain what you'll be doing (oh so you're a student still? do you get paid? do you get college credit?). And it's easier to talk to people who understand why that your career takes 10+ years after graduating to even reach a point where you'd be considered \"successful\" or that you're not just trying to get rich in life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Honestly, except for my family I don't know anyone outside of academia anymore",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find it easier to be friends with people in academia the longer I am in it. A lot of people don't understand what a post-doc is, even after you explain what you'll be doing (oh so you're a student still? do you get paid? do you get college credit?). And it's easier to talk to people who understand why that your career takes 10+ years after graduating to even reach a point where you'd be considered \"successful\" or that you're not just trying to get rich in life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.974359 | 8.565268 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 62,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4090909091,
"raw_score_rejected": 44,
"seconds_difference": 3474,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find it easier to be friends with people in academia the longer I am in it. A lot of people don't understand what a post-doc is, even after you explain what you'll be doing (oh so you're a student still? do you get paid? do you get college credit?). And it's easier to talk to people who understand why that your career takes 10+ years after graduating to even reach a point where you'd be considered \"successful\" or that you're not just trying to get rich in life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my friends are those I made during my undergrad 20-something years ago. I've picked up a few along the way during work - more from some jobs than others, and from some jobs none at all. I've picked up a few from places I've lived while moving that had nothing to do with academia too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find it easier to be friends with people in academia the longer I am in it. A lot of people don't understand what a post-doc is, even after you explain what you'll be doing (oh so you're a student still? do you get paid? do you get college credit?). And it's easier to talk to people who understand why that your career takes 10+ years after graduating to even reach a point where you'd be considered \"successful\" or that you're not just trying to get rich in life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.974359 | 7.974359 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 62,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 31,
"seconds_difference": 2584,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I moved half way across the country for my PhD program. Naturally many of the people I developed friendships with were those I met through the program. I tried getting involved with young adult groups at churches in the area but those events often conflicted with my class schedule. However, my closest friends are those from college who live elsewhere. None of them are academics and they frequently don't understand what I do, lol. I love them dearly. My boyfriend did receive an MA but is not in academia. His friends are not in academia. IT'S SO NICE HANGING OUT WITH NON ACADEMICS. Like, I enjoy hanging out with my academic friends but I can only handle so much office gossip/despair over research.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my close friends are non-academic. I like a good portion of my cohort and would go to events and hang out with them but I'm unlikely to contact most for one on one things. It's probably because out of 11 in my cohort, 8 are fresh out of undergrad and I'm 30 so we're at different stages of life and its just harder to connect.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I moved half way across the country for my PhD program. Naturally many of the people I developed friendships with were those I met through the program. I tried getting involved with young adult groups at churches in the area but those events often conflicted with my class schedule. However, my closest friends are those from college who live elsewhere. None of them are academics and they frequently don't understand what I do, lol. I love them dearly. My boyfriend did receive an MA but is not in academia. His friends are not in academia. IT'S SO NICE HANGING OUT WITH NON ACADEMICS. Like, I enjoy hanging out with my academic friends but I can only handle so much office gossip/despair over research.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 5.435897 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 1133,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I moved half way across the country for my PhD program. Naturally many of the people I developed friendships with were those I met through the program. I tried getting involved with young adult groups at churches in the area but those events often conflicted with my class schedule. However, my closest friends are those from college who live elsewhere. None of them are academics and they frequently don't understand what I do, lol. I love them dearly. My boyfriend did receive an MA but is not in academia. His friends are not in academia. IT'S SO NICE HANGING OUT WITH NON ACADEMICS. Like, I enjoy hanging out with my academic friends but I can only handle so much office gossip/despair over research.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "About 3 that i’d call friends. Met these whilst doing my masters and PhD. Friends with mainly non-academics that I grew up with in my home town. Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of great people in academia, some not so great, but wouldn’t go as far as calling them friends",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I moved half way across the country for my PhD program. Naturally many of the people I developed friendships with were those I met through the program. I tried getting involved with young adult groups at churches in the area but those events often conflicted with my class schedule. However, my closest friends are those from college who live elsewhere. None of them are academics and they frequently don't understand what I do, lol. I love them dearly. My boyfriend did receive an MA but is not in academia. His friends are not in academia. IT'S SO NICE HANGING OUT WITH NON ACADEMICS. Like, I enjoy hanging out with my academic friends but I can only handle so much office gossip/despair over research.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 2.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 4,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3379,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my broader circle of friends are current or former academics - we have built a network of support and respect over the years. Much of it is rooted in relationships forged in grad school and post-doc, and some who came along later. We have supported each other through marriages, children, divorces, deaths, tenure decisions both up and out, ethical dilemmas both at work and at home, and every other bump and scrape for the last twenty-odd years. It’s taken a long time to build this cadre, and to find people we each trust and admire. We have lost quite a few people to divergent interests or skullduggery over the years, too. And most people of our acquaintance never made it into the group in the first place. I mean, who else would understand what it means to get a paper in Cell?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "my 'work friends' are academic obviously, but the people i build my life around socially are entirely nonacademics. im poly and i also dont date academics, both because i like getting to know people from 'other walks of life,' and im very strict about not 'shitting where i eat.'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my broader circle of friends are current or former academics - we have built a network of support and respect over the years. Much of it is rooted in relationships forged in grad school and post-doc, and some who came along later. We have supported each other through marriages, children, divorces, deaths, tenure decisions both up and out, ethical dilemmas both at work and at home, and every other bump and scrape for the last twenty-odd years. It’s taken a long time to build this cadre, and to find people we each trust and admire. We have lost quite a few people to divergent interests or skullduggery over the years, too. And most people of our acquaintance never made it into the group in the first place. I mean, who else would understand what it means to get a paper in Cell?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.576923 | 5.451923 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 9,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.125,
"raw_score_rejected": 8,
"seconds_difference": 1445,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my broader circle of friends are current or former academics - we have built a network of support and respect over the years. Much of it is rooted in relationships forged in grad school and post-doc, and some who came along later. We have supported each other through marriages, children, divorces, deaths, tenure decisions both up and out, ethical dilemmas both at work and at home, and every other bump and scrape for the last twenty-odd years. It’s taken a long time to build this cadre, and to find people we each trust and admire. We have lost quite a few people to divergent interests or skullduggery over the years, too. And most people of our acquaintance never made it into the group in the first place. I mean, who else would understand what it means to get a paper in Cell?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "About 3 that i’d call friends. Met these whilst doing my masters and PhD. Friends with mainly non-academics that I grew up with in my home town. Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of great people in academia, some not so great, but wouldn’t go as far as calling them friends",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my broader circle of friends are current or former academics - we have built a network of support and respect over the years. Much of it is rooted in relationships forged in grad school and post-doc, and some who came along later. We have supported each other through marriages, children, divorces, deaths, tenure decisions both up and out, ethical dilemmas both at work and at home, and every other bump and scrape for the last twenty-odd years. It’s taken a long time to build this cadre, and to find people we each trust and admire. We have lost quite a few people to divergent interests or skullduggery over the years, too. And most people of our acquaintance never made it into the group in the first place. I mean, who else would understand what it means to get a paper in Cell?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.576923 | 3.576923 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 9,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 7045,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my broader circle of friends are current or former academics - we have built a network of support and respect over the years. Much of it is rooted in relationships forged in grad school and post-doc, and some who came along later. We have supported each other through marriages, children, divorces, deaths, tenure decisions both up and out, ethical dilemmas both at work and at home, and every other bump and scrape for the last twenty-odd years. It’s taken a long time to build this cadre, and to find people we each trust and admire. We have lost quite a few people to divergent interests or skullduggery over the years, too. And most people of our acquaintance never made it into the group in the first place. I mean, who else would understand what it means to get a paper in Cell?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a few friends from high school/college (we went to both together), but most of my college and MA friends have slipped away over the years. Most of my closest friends I met during my PhD, with a handful during the peripatetic job market years afterwards. Of those, some are academics but many of the closest ones are the spouses of academics or ex-academics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my broader circle of friends are current or former academics - we have built a network of support and respect over the years. Much of it is rooted in relationships forged in grad school and post-doc, and some who came along later. We have supported each other through marriages, children, divorces, deaths, tenure decisions both up and out, ethical dilemmas both at work and at home, and every other bump and scrape for the last twenty-odd years. It’s taken a long time to build this cadre, and to find people we each trust and admire. We have lost quite a few people to divergent interests or skullduggery over the years, too. And most people of our acquaintance never made it into the group in the first place. I mean, who else would understand what it means to get a paper in Cell?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.576923 | 3.576923 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 9,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3344,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my close friends are non-academic. I like a good portion of my cohort and would go to events and hang out with them but I'm unlikely to contact most for one on one things. It's probably because out of 11 in my cohort, 8 are fresh out of undergrad and I'm 30 so we're at different stages of life and its just harder to connect.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "About 3 that i’d call friends. Met these whilst doing my masters and PhD. Friends with mainly non-academics that I grew up with in my home town. Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of great people in academia, some not so great, but wouldn’t go as far as calling them friends",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my close friends are non-academic. I like a good portion of my cohort and would go to events and hang out with them but I'm unlikely to contact most for one on one things. It's probably because out of 11 in my cohort, 8 are fresh out of undergrad and I'm 30 so we're at different stages of life and its just harder to connect.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.576923 | 3.576923 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 9,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 2246,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "my 'work friends' are academic obviously, but the people i build my life around socially are entirely nonacademics. im poly and i also dont date academics, both because i like getting to know people from 'other walks of life,' and im very strict about not 'shitting where i eat.'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "About 3 that i’d call friends. Met these whilst doing my masters and PhD. Friends with mainly non-academics that I grew up with in my home town. Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of great people in academia, some not so great, but wouldn’t go as far as calling them friends",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "my 'work friends' are academic obviously, but the people i build my life around socially are entirely nonacademics. im poly and i also dont date academics, both because i like getting to know people from 'other walks of life,' and im very strict about not 'shitting where i eat.'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 3.846154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 5600,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "my 'work friends' are academic obviously, but the people i build my life around socially are entirely nonacademics. im poly and i also dont date academics, both because i like getting to know people from 'other walks of life,' and im very strict about not 'shitting where i eat.'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a few friends from high school/college (we went to both together), but most of my college and MA friends have slipped away over the years. Most of my closest friends I met during my PhD, with a handful during the peripatetic job market years afterwards. Of those, some are academics but many of the closest ones are the spouses of academics or ex-academics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "my 'work friends' are academic obviously, but the people i build my life around socially are entirely nonacademics. im poly and i also dont date academics, both because i like getting to know people from 'other walks of life,' and im very strict about not 'shitting where i eat.'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 3.846154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 1899,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm pretty evenly split. I have a core group of grad school friends who are my people, and I have another core group of other friends who are NOT academics at all (like no college). I love the balance and I get different perspectives and different support from each group of friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "About 3 that i’d call friends. Met these whilst doing my masters and PhD. Friends with mainly non-academics that I grew up with in my home town. Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of great people in academia, some not so great, but wouldn’t go as far as calling them friends",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm pretty evenly split. I have a core group of grad school friends who are my people, and I have another core group of other friends who are NOT academics at all (like no college). I love the balance and I get different perspectives and different support from each group of friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 7246,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm pretty evenly split. I have a core group of grad school friends who are my people, and I have another core group of other friends who are NOT academics at all (like no college). I love the balance and I get different perspectives and different support from each group of friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a few friends from high school/college (we went to both together), but most of my college and MA friends have slipped away over the years. Most of my closest friends I met during my PhD, with a handful during the peripatetic job market years afterwards. Of those, some are academics but many of the closest ones are the spouses of academics or ex-academics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm pretty evenly split. I have a core group of grad school friends who are my people, and I have another core group of other friends who are NOT academics at all (like no college). I love the balance and I get different perspectives and different support from each group of friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3545,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a mix. I live in a small college town, so my pre-pandemic social life was me, my husband (also an academic) and our friends--whom we knew from work--and their spouses. I had one in-town friend who was not affiliated with the school. It's one of those towns where there is nothing to do unless you go to church (nope) or know people through your kids (which we don't have). However, I'm still actively close and friendly with people from my pre-grad school life, whom I stay in touch with on social media and the phone. None of them are academics. That said, when my academic friends and I hang out and talk about work, it's 99% normal workplace griping, like who's what kind of dumbass, or backstabber, or who is interesting and should really come to our sophisticated faculty backyard kickbacks where we talk a lot of trash.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "About 3 that i’d call friends. Met these whilst doing my masters and PhD. Friends with mainly non-academics that I grew up with in my home town. Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of great people in academia, some not so great, but wouldn’t go as far as calling them friends",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a mix. I live in a small college town, so my pre-pandemic social life was me, my husband (also an academic) and our friends--whom we knew from work--and their spouses. I had one in-town friend who was not affiliated with the school. It's one of those towns where there is nothing to do unless you go to church (nope) or know people through your kids (which we don't have). However, I'm still actively close and friendly with people from my pre-grad school life, whom I stay in touch with on social media and the phone. None of them are academics. That said, when my academic friends and I hang out and talk about work, it's 99% normal workplace griping, like who's what kind of dumbass, or backstabber, or who is interesting and should really come to our sophisticated faculty backyard kickbacks where we talk a lot of trash.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.923077 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 7615,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a mix. I live in a small college town, so my pre-pandemic social life was me, my husband (also an academic) and our friends--whom we knew from work--and their spouses. I had one in-town friend who was not affiliated with the school. It's one of those towns where there is nothing to do unless you go to church (nope) or know people through your kids (which we don't have). However, I'm still actively close and friendly with people from my pre-grad school life, whom I stay in touch with on social media and the phone. None of them are academics. That said, when my academic friends and I hang out and talk about work, it's 99% normal workplace griping, like who's what kind of dumbass, or backstabber, or who is interesting and should really come to our sophisticated faculty backyard kickbacks where we talk a lot of trash.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a few friends from high school/college (we went to both together), but most of my college and MA friends have slipped away over the years. Most of my closest friends I met during my PhD, with a handful during the peripatetic job market years afterwards. Of those, some are academics but many of the closest ones are the spouses of academics or ex-academics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a mix. I live in a small college town, so my pre-pandemic social life was me, my husband (also an academic) and our friends--whom we knew from work--and their spouses. I had one in-town friend who was not affiliated with the school. It's one of those towns where there is nothing to do unless you go to church (nope) or know people through your kids (which we don't have). However, I'm still actively close and friendly with people from my pre-grad school life, whom I stay in touch with on social media and the phone. None of them are academics. That said, when my academic friends and I hang out and talk about work, it's 99% normal workplace griping, like who's what kind of dumbass, or backstabber, or who is interesting and should really come to our sophisticated faculty backyard kickbacks where we talk a lot of trash.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.923077 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3914,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my friends are academic, mainly because my friends are people I've met through work. Half of my friends from school ended up doing PhDs as well, so some of them are academics too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 5664,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have lots of friends with PhDs but it's easier to befriend those with PhDs in different fields.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 5485,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would say the majority of my best friends are people In academia, although my closest friends are people I met as a lab tech (different dynamic than being in the same program- no comparisons). In graduate school, I have a close group of friends, although sometimes one of them says weird comments that I believe stems from feelings of competition. However, the rest of the girls are quite lovely! Perhaps because they are not planning on staying in academia so they’re not competitive. It might also depend on the program. I’ve heard from other graduate students that the people in their program are cold or hostile.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 4084,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nearly 100% of my friends are either faculty or admin staff at my university. Certainly they are the only ones I see IRL pre-COVID. All my other friends live far away so we only connect virtually; about half of them are academic too (grad school friends) and the rest are from college/high school. Ultimately I'd have to say that nearly all of my friends with whom I interact regularly IRL or online are academics, though a few are high school teachers or people with graduate degrees working for the government.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What a great question. You may be friendly to people but not friends. Friendly — many... Friend, I think only one and he did the phd with me — we are still friends but he didn’t go into academia — One of the smartest person I have known. It was a lost for academia but he is happy with what he is doing. That’s all. I’m not someone that likes to have too many friends... but i’m close with a few people but they are not in academia. Friendship is complicated as you get older — besides, I really don’t need that many friends.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 3565,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my friends are academic, mainly because my friends are people I've met through work. Half of my friends from school ended up doing PhDs as well, so some of them are academics too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 17917,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have lots of friends with PhDs but it's easier to befriend those with PhDs in different fields.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 17738,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would say the majority of my best friends are people In academia, although my closest friends are people I met as a lab tech (different dynamic than being in the same program- no comparisons). In graduate school, I have a close group of friends, although sometimes one of them says weird comments that I believe stems from feelings of competition. However, the rest of the girls are quite lovely! Perhaps because they are not planning on staying in academia so they’re not competitive. It might also depend on the program. I’ve heard from other graduate students that the people in their program are cold or hostile.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 16337,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nearly 100% of my friends are either faculty or admin staff at my university. Certainly they are the only ones I see IRL pre-COVID. All my other friends live far away so we only connect virtually; about half of them are academic too (grad school friends) and the rest are from college/high school. Ultimately I'd have to say that nearly all of my friends with whom I interact regularly IRL or online are academics, though a few are high school teachers or people with graduate degrees working for the government.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm still friends with pretty much everyone I went to grad school with that wasn't in my year, but, boy, did they not like each other. I mentioned it to my spouse and he just recounted the first time he went when everyone took me out for my birthday and it was a table of like 10 people that were only talking to me and not each other. Everyone in my year hated everyone, but aside from me we had: guy who lit the building on fire and didn't clean up after his kid peed in the shared office over a weekend, the lady that would full-on scream in people's faces when she was stressed out, that girl's girlfriend (they're not dating anymore. Girlfriend seems happy and she's nice enough), and guy that would disappear for days instead of showing up for work and creep on any man in his vicinity. The last guy once called me a \"fucking bitch\" during class when I said I wasn't a fan of a particular translation of *Hedda Gabler*. So... I guess I'm fine with two of them at this point, but I prefer to keep it to facebook likes and the occasional comment. There's too much water under that bridge.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 15818,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my friends are academic, mainly because my friends are people I've met through work. Half of my friends from school ended up doing PhDs as well, so some of them are academics too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 19448,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have lots of friends with PhDs but it's easier to befriend those with PhDs in different fields.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 19269,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would say the majority of my best friends are people In academia, although my closest friends are people I met as a lab tech (different dynamic than being in the same program- no comparisons). In graduate school, I have a close group of friends, although sometimes one of them says weird comments that I believe stems from feelings of competition. However, the rest of the girls are quite lovely! Perhaps because they are not planning on staying in academia so they’re not competitive. It might also depend on the program. I’ve heard from other graduate students that the people in their program are cold or hostile.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 17868,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nearly 100% of my friends are either faculty or admin staff at my university. Certainly they are the only ones I see IRL pre-COVID. All my other friends live far away so we only connect virtually; about half of them are academic too (grad school friends) and the rest are from college/high school. Ultimately I'd have to say that nearly all of my friends with whom I interact regularly IRL or online are academics, though a few are high school teachers or people with graduate degrees working for the government.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "After 5+ years in my PhD program, when I think of “friends” I never think of my fellow PhD students at my school. There is one person I call a friend, but it’s not an ordinary friendship. Definitely more of a “work friend.” I typically feel put down/made to feel small as they list their accomplishments and often diminish mine (competitive). Someone on this thread didn’t understand what could be competitive ?!? Every season for us is working to publish, present at conferences, apply for awards and grants, and develop other professional skills. That said I have a handful of very good friends who are academics but they are at other schools and I mostly know them from when we crossed paths in field research. Also - I have some of the best friendships of my life, with some of the best people I know, from my masters cohort. Masters are short and the stakes are pretty low. I am so happy to see this conversation - I sometimes feel bad that I have so few friends at school. 90% of my friends I know from other spaces - sports, volunteering, and church.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 17349,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my friends are academic, mainly because my friends are people I've met through work. Half of my friends from school ended up doing PhDs as well, so some of them are academics too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 23476,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have lots of friends with PhDs but it's easier to befriend those with PhDs in different fields.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 23297,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would say the majority of my best friends are people In academia, although my closest friends are people I met as a lab tech (different dynamic than being in the same program- no comparisons). In graduate school, I have a close group of friends, although sometimes one of them says weird comments that I believe stems from feelings of competition. However, the rest of the girls are quite lovely! Perhaps because they are not planning on staying in academia so they’re not competitive. It might also depend on the program. I’ve heard from other graduate students that the people in their program are cold or hostile.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 21896,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nearly 100% of my friends are either faculty or admin staff at my university. Certainly they are the only ones I see IRL pre-COVID. All my other friends live far away so we only connect virtually; about half of them are academic too (grad school friends) and the rest are from college/high school. Ultimately I'd have to say that nearly all of my friends with whom I interact regularly IRL or online are academics, though a few are high school teachers or people with graduate degrees working for the government.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Friends? What is that? I lost the ability to make friends myself.... personally find that saddening.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 21377,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Most of my friends are academic, mainly because my friends are people I've met through work. Half of my friends from school ended up doing PhDs as well, so some of them are academics too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 25418,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have lots of friends with PhDs but it's easier to befriend those with PhDs in different fields.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 25239,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would say the majority of my best friends are people In academia, although my closest friends are people I met as a lab tech (different dynamic than being in the same program- no comparisons). In graduate school, I have a close group of friends, although sometimes one of them says weird comments that I believe stems from feelings of competition. However, the rest of the girls are quite lovely! Perhaps because they are not planning on staying in academia so they’re not competitive. It might also depend on the program. I’ve heard from other graduate students that the people in their program are cold or hostile.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 23838,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. | 8f4bcb2822d2aeeba70b388980c3e7bcf3e7ae5d7ab7a6cc8094c35522dea784 | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nearly 100% of my friends are either faculty or admin staff at my university. Certainly they are the only ones I see IRL pre-COVID. All my other friends live far away so we only connect virtually; about half of them are academic too (grad school friends) and the rest are from college/high school. Ultimately I'd have to say that nearly all of my friends with whom I interact regularly IRL or online are academics, though a few are high school teachers or people with graduate degrees working for the government.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Have many academic friends do you have? Or, are your friends mainly non-academics? Hi all, Hope this post is allowed here. I'm curious as to how easy or difficult academics find it to make friends in similar fields or their institution. I know people define 'friendship' differently, but I guess for the purposes of my question, I mean someone you would see socially and with whom you'd discuss your personal lives beyond polite small talk (maybe Level 4 and higher?). Personally, after 8 years as a PhD student and postdoc, I know three people, all of whom I met as MPhil/PhD students, who I might call friends. We've talked about personal stuff but we're very low contact which is partially due to geography. I also initiate most of the conversations. My two proper close friends are non-academic and I have lots of academic colleagues/acquaintances. It seems like lots of other people in my field have circles of academic friends but maybe this is a misperception from social media. I see people thanking loads of friends in their thesis intros and I can't relate haha. I have, unsuccessfully, tried to put myself out there with people but I think it's a combination of incompatibility and some being understandably busy with their own stuff. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is kind of a weird question for me to answer. I have non academic friends but all of them have advanced educations. I am still a grad student and entry level scholar in liberal arts. And most of my undergrad friends are in a variety of medical school programs and a couple are in law school. We are all in our mid twenties so though i have non academic friends, i do not have “normal” friends that are no longer in school or are working “real” job. BUT i have noticed that my non-academic, advanced degree seeking friends, have a vastly different perspective of education and advanced degree seeking life. To be frank, my friends aren’t *that* intellectually independent. I am not minimizing thier hard work in anyway. But they are given directions and they follow them. Yes, they are intellectually challenged but *not* independent. But me? I am pretty much left to my own devices. I decide what to research and its my responsibility to justify and present that research. It’s also my responsibility to teach at least 40 students a semester about a topic. I am a grad student and its not always perfect but I am usually treated like an academic professional and a scholar in my own right. There is no one giving me any direction and, if anything, I have to do everything in my power to stand out and “be unique.” But my friends are still very much “students.” They have tangible goals. I feel and behave as if academia is a “job.” I get paid a stipend. I wrestle with the copy machine. I’ve even got a cubicle office. But my friends are very much still “going to class” and “studying.” This has become very long but i am a bit envious that they get to be 25 year old students and I have to be a 25 year old who is grasping at straws in order to build a CV. They will also probably make more than me in the end",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "il84nw",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 23319,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not something I am personally connected with, but PruittGate recently started when a new professor was alerted to a longtime collaborator's data being suspicious. Things snowballed into dozens of papers being retracted, and it seems like the reputation of the person who almost definitely made up data is destroyed. The blog post linked above is how the initial steps of confirming the falsified data were taken, and covers some of the issues of trust and ethics many people witnessing this have had to grapple with. I think the person pushing for their own papers to be retracted because of bad data shows enormous courage, as well.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 9.680328 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 161,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3196721311,
"raw_score_rejected": 122,
"seconds_difference": 7250,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Student had a job lined up and was really testy about bending over backwards in order to keep it for immigration reasons. They pushed *hard* to defend ASAP when our mutual PI was going through his own personal stuff and didn't have the time or energy to pick through all of the data as thoroughly as he normally would have. Student defended successfully and left for work. Later we try to publish the thesis chapters as individual papers and we start to notice that a lot of the numbers are suspect. PI then basically split up said student's work into chunks and assigned each segment to different PhD students in order to unfuck the data enough to be publishable. Not sure if it was deliberate fabrication or just ineptitude + anxiety on the part of the student involved, but given the context I wouldn't be surprised if they had fudged the numbers in order to get a conclusion and defend it without worries.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 8.175439 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 161,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.8245614035,
"raw_score_rejected": 57,
"seconds_difference": 6046,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 6.975 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 161,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.025,
"raw_score_rejected": 40,
"seconds_difference": 1353,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Out of curiosity, how \"morally\" bad do y'all think data fabrication to be? Relative to other wrongdoings, like, say, littering, or taking lots of international vacations and not buying carbon offsets, or a cashier stealing from the cash register, or armed robbery, or breaking a promise to a friend, or hiking off designated trails across delicate restoration areas? What's the appropriate punishment for it -- a slap on the hands? termination from your current position? permanent revocation of any opportunity to do academic work (e.g. blacklisting from all journals?). Is it field dependent, e.g. medical research may be held to a higher standard than, say, paleontology? Hypothetically, what are the minimum circumstances under which you'd personally fabricate data? Say someone either willfully or out of willful ignorance partakes in dodgy statistical practice, e.g. failing to report multiple comparisons, or excluding outliers solely for reasons of inconvenience, or whatever. How bad is that compared to wholesale data fabrication?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 3.333333 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 161,
"raw_score_ratio": 7.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 6187,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 2.526316 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 161,
"raw_score_ratio": 8.4736842105,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 3821,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 3.333333 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 161,
"raw_score_ratio": 7.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 3200,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We had a really bad case of fabrication in my department back in the 80s, and it’s still discussed with graduate students in our research ethics seminar. Long story incoming: Basically, a grad student was doing a project examining the constituent minerals of a newly discovered rock formation. His advisor left for some reason halfway through, and he got placed with a new advisor that didn’t really understand the project or the methods he was using, and just let him keep going at it. He ended up claiming he had discovered a several new and unique rare minerals - all of which had never been seen before in the geology community. He named them and everything, published about it, got his degree... his advisor didn’t really know enough about the method to check. A few years later another professor in the department happens to take a look at the data and realizes these ‘minerals’ look remarkably similar to some synthetic substances he had created years ago during a collaboration with a material science professor. These substances happened to still be sitting on the shelf in the room where the student had done all of his data collection (the room the machine he was using was in). Professor gets pretty suspicious and brings it to the department head. They decide to invite the student back to ‘examine’ some new rocks to see if they have his new minerals in them. They stick a camera in the instrument room and run a cable back to a computer in another room to watch what the student does. Every day for the 2 weeks of the student’s visit, they watch him go into the instrument room, lock the door, then sit there and read a book. Didn’t even touch the machine. Didn’t do anything at all! At the end of the two weeks he emails the profs with a dataset very similar to his original one, numbers just barely tweaked. It was blatantly obvious to everyone what was happening. The university tells the journal, they get his papers pulled. Profs also write a new paper discrediting his work. They also decide to rescind his degree due to research misconduct. It turns into a protracted legal battle where the student sued the university, claiming that ‘a degree is like a gift, once you give it you can’t take it back’. He actually won the first case, then it went to appeal and he ending up losing. A dramatic situation all around. Frankly I don’t understand what would drive someone to so blatantly fabricate shit, but oh well. Makes for a crazy story! Edit to add: you can read the paper discrediting everything here if you are interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260079704_New_Data_on_and_Discreditation_of_Texasite_Albrittonite_Cuproartinite_Cuprohydro-magnesite_and_Yttromicrolite_with_Corrected_Data_on_Nickel_Bischofite_Rowlandite_and_Yttrocrasite. Also yes, the student’s last name was Crook. You can’t make this stuff up!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 161,
"raw_score_ratio": 13.4166666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 4672,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Student had a job lined up and was really testy about bending over backwards in order to keep it for immigration reasons. They pushed *hard* to defend ASAP when our mutual PI was going through his own personal stuff and didn't have the time or energy to pick through all of the data as thoroughly as he normally would have. Student defended successfully and left for work. Later we try to publish the thesis chapters as individual papers and we start to notice that a lot of the numbers are suspect. PI then basically split up said student's work into chunks and assigned each segment to different PhD students in order to unfuck the data enough to be publishable. Not sure if it was deliberate fabrication or just ineptitude + anxiety on the part of the student involved, but given the context I wouldn't be surprised if they had fudged the numbers in order to get a conclusion and defend it without worries.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 9.614035 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3859649123,
"raw_score_rejected": 57,
"seconds_difference": 8168,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 9.025 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.975,
"raw_score_rejected": 40,
"seconds_difference": 3475,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 8.366667 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 30,
"seconds_difference": 637,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Out of curiosity, how \"morally\" bad do y'all think data fabrication to be? Relative to other wrongdoings, like, say, littering, or taking lots of international vacations and not buying carbon offsets, or a cashier stealing from the cash register, or armed robbery, or breaking a promise to a friend, or hiking off designated trails across delicate restoration areas? What's the appropriate punishment for it -- a slap on the hands? termination from your current position? permanent revocation of any opportunity to do academic work (e.g. blacklisting from all journals?). Is it field dependent, e.g. medical research may be held to a higher standard than, say, paleontology? Hypothetically, what are the minimum circumstances under which you'd personally fabricate data? Say someone either willfully or out of willful ignorance partakes in dodgy statistical practice, e.g. failing to report multiple comparisons, or excluding outliers solely for reasons of inconvenience, or whatever. How bad is that compared to wholesale data fabrication?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.238095 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.7619047619,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 8309,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 6.842105 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.1578947368,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 5943,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.238095 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.7619047619,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 5322,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a story of temptation that I resisted. I was in my 8th or 9th year of my PhD and the stupid gizmo I made just wasnt cooperating. I discovered one night that I could just bump it and it would make a spike like what I was looking for. Trust me that the urge was VERY strong, but I didnt do it. I kept grinding and eventually got some legit data. I am SO glad I didnt do that. Not that there was ever a real shot of me doing it, it's not in my nature. As for the 'why'. Well, year 9 is bleak. Youve sunk almost a decade into this stupid thing, you just want out and to make enough money to eat a real meal, maybe spend a holiday with family and you know you dont have a real career as a researcher. You also dont want to tell everyone in your life that you spent a decade for nothing, just an MA or MS that you could have gotten by year 2. You also know no one is going to replicate your work, so what's the harm? Well, I also knew I'd have to live with it forever, and it would undo me if anyone ever found out. Just not worth it. So yeah, I got real data, published an OK paper and got out, but I understand the pressures that might tempt someone to actually do it. I honestly wouldnt judge someone too harshly if they did. I mean, they should be kicked out of the academic community, but like, I'd kinda understand. Like how you can understand someone killing a friend for a deep betrayal. Not something you'd condone, but also not a mystery as to why it went down.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 4.416667 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 6.5833333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 6794,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Student had a job lined up and was really testy about bending over backwards in order to keep it for immigration reasons. They pushed *hard* to defend ASAP when our mutual PI was going through his own personal stuff and didn't have the time or energy to pick through all of the data as thoroughly as he normally would have. Student defended successfully and left for work. Later we try to publish the thesis chapters as individual papers and we start to notice that a lot of the numbers are suspect. PI then basically split up said student's work into chunks and assigned each segment to different PhD students in order to unfuck the data enough to be publishable. Not sure if it was deliberate fabrication or just ineptitude + anxiety on the part of the student involved, but given the context I wouldn't be surprised if they had fudged the numbers in order to get a conclusion and defend it without worries.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Out of curiosity, how \"morally\" bad do y'all think data fabrication to be? Relative to other wrongdoings, like, say, littering, or taking lots of international vacations and not buying carbon offsets, or a cashier stealing from the cash register, or armed robbery, or breaking a promise to a friend, or hiking off designated trails across delicate restoration areas? What's the appropriate punishment for it -- a slap on the hands? termination from your current position? permanent revocation of any opportunity to do academic work (e.g. blacklisting from all journals?). Is it field dependent, e.g. medical research may be held to a higher standard than, say, paleontology? Hypothetically, what are the minimum circumstances under which you'd personally fabricate data? Say someone either willfully or out of willful ignorance partakes in dodgy statistical practice, e.g. failing to report multiple comparisons, or excluding outliers solely for reasons of inconvenience, or whatever. How bad is that compared to wholesale data fabrication?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Student had a job lined up and was really testy about bending over backwards in order to keep it for immigration reasons. They pushed *hard* to defend ASAP when our mutual PI was going through his own personal stuff and didn't have the time or energy to pick through all of the data as thoroughly as he normally would have. Student defended successfully and left for work. Later we try to publish the thesis chapters as individual papers and we start to notice that a lot of the numbers are suspect. PI then basically split up said student's work into chunks and assigned each segment to different PhD students in order to unfuck the data enough to be publishable. Not sure if it was deliberate fabrication or just ineptitude + anxiety on the part of the student involved, but given the context I wouldn't be surprised if they had fudged the numbers in order to get a conclusion and defend it without worries.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.653846 | 6.93956 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 57,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.7142857143,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 141,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Out of curiosity, how \"morally\" bad do y'all think data fabrication to be? Relative to other wrongdoings, like, say, littering, or taking lots of international vacations and not buying carbon offsets, or a cashier stealing from the cash register, or armed robbery, or breaking a promise to a friend, or hiking off designated trails across delicate restoration areas? What's the appropriate punishment for it -- a slap on the hands? termination from your current position? permanent revocation of any opportunity to do academic work (e.g. blacklisting from all journals?). Is it field dependent, e.g. medical research may be held to a higher standard than, say, paleontology? Hypothetically, what are the minimum circumstances under which you'd personally fabricate data? Say someone either willfully or out of willful ignorance partakes in dodgy statistical practice, e.g. failing to report multiple comparisons, or excluding outliers solely for reasons of inconvenience, or whatever. How bad is that compared to wholesale data fabrication?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.564103 | 6.659341 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 40,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.9047619048,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 4834,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.564103 | 6.458839 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 40,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.1052631579,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 2468,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.564103 | 6.659341 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 40,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.9047619048,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 1847,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PI had me edit images for an R01 grant submission because we were desperate for funding and \"these aren't published so dont worry' We got the grant No repercussions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.564103 | 5.230769 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 40,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 3319,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 6.984615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 30,
"seconds_difference": 6249,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Out of curiosity, how \"morally\" bad do y'all think data fabrication to be? Relative to other wrongdoings, like, say, littering, or taking lots of international vacations and not buying carbon offsets, or a cashier stealing from the cash register, or armed robbery, or breaking a promise to a friend, or hiking off designated trails across delicate restoration areas? What's the appropriate punishment for it -- a slap on the hands? termination from your current position? permanent revocation of any opportunity to do academic work (e.g. blacklisting from all journals?). Is it field dependent, e.g. medical research may be held to a higher standard than, say, paleontology? Hypothetically, what are the minimum circumstances under which you'd personally fabricate data? Say someone either willfully or out of willful ignorance partakes in dodgy statistical practice, e.g. failing to report multiple comparisons, or excluding outliers solely for reasons of inconvenience, or whatever. How bad is that compared to wholesale data fabrication?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 6.494505 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4285714286,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 7672,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 6.34413 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5789473684,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 5306,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 6.494505 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4285714286,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 4685,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm surprised nobody mentioned Schön yet, who was infamous enough to even have a book written about him called \"Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World\". Dude straight up made up measurements to fit data to various theoretical predictions, related to organic semiconductors and superconductivity (molecular field effects transistors were the biggest \"breakthrough\"). It earned him two highly prestigious prizes and, on average, one high-impact paper every 8 days for almost two years, before people recognized that he was recycling measurements based on correlations in noise. Many dozens of papers had to be retracted, including about 20 Nature and Science papers where he was first author.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 5.423077 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 6157,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Out of curiosity, how \"morally\" bad do y'all think data fabrication to be? Relative to other wrongdoings, like, say, littering, or taking lots of international vacations and not buying carbon offsets, or a cashier stealing from the cash register, or armed robbery, or breaking a promise to a friend, or hiking off designated trails across delicate restoration areas? What's the appropriate punishment for it -- a slap on the hands? termination from your current position? permanent revocation of any opportunity to do academic work (e.g. blacklisting from all journals?). Is it field dependent, e.g. medical research may be held to a higher standard than, say, paleontology? Hypothetically, what are the minimum circumstances under which you'd personally fabricate data? Say someone either willfully or out of willful ignorance partakes in dodgy statistical practice, e.g. failing to report multiple comparisons, or excluding outliers solely for reasons of inconvenience, or whatever. How bad is that compared to wholesale data fabrication?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 6.527473 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5238095238,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 13921,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 6.367072 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6842105263,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 11555,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 6.527473 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5238095238,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 10934,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "What concerns me are the cases that *haven't* been caught. I can guarantee that there are dozens and dozens of papers that get published in lower impact journals that have fudged data.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 5.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 12406,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 6.240891 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1052631579,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 17265,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The lab across the hall from me *seems to not understand* the difference between technical replicates versus biological replicates and has increased their n this way. It sounds like a P.I. problem though because 3 people in that lab have had to double check the actual n value. And the P.I. regularly has them redo experiments because she doesn't believe the data (because it doesn't gel with her hypothesis). I heard they had to correct previously published data in the past for that reason, but the P.I. is the department chair. Lol nothing happened.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.730769 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6153846154,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 5139,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.596154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.75,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 18116,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "One of the more famous cases is Marc Hauser at Harvard. There was a good write-up of the case in The Nation. Essentially there was strong evidence he was falsifying behavioral data in monkeys, he was found guilty of research misconduct, and he resigned in 2011. The kicker was that he wrote books about the evolution of morality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I didn’t fabricate any data but my data sucked and didn’t lead to any good conclusions. Still published. Still got my PhD. Not all data and not all research has to be completely amazing folks. Sometimes it’s interesting to find data that doesn’t give you anything. In fact, it can be more interesting if it goes against lots of claims being made in academia (as mine did) 🤔",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.437063 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.9090909091,
"raw_score_rejected": 11,
"seconds_difference": 2716,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 6.240891 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1052631579,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 621,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I worked with a guy who was normally a quality hard worker. At one point he had made a few mistakes in a short period of time and was in the dog house with middle management and they were dangling a performance review over his head which would pretty much guarantee that he wouldn’t get a raise that year. On day 2 of an experiment, one of his friends noticed that he hadn’t loaded 1/2 of his control fish. The friend let him know and he went and loaded the fish that he forgot and the friend recorded that they had been in the beaker the whole time. Someone else overheard the exchange and brought the issue to middle management, who escalated to the bosses. The guy who loaded the fish was fired and the friend was given a week unpaid suspension and no raise that year. I honestly felt bad for the guy. Had he owned up to the mistake he would have been in a lot of trouble and treated like shit. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place and I honestly blamed middle management more for providing a toxic work environment where everyone is made aware when you fuck up and you’re treated like shit when you own up to your mistakes. I think everyone in that lab learned a valuable lesson that day, though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.217949 | 5.634615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 19,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5833333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 851,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have seen this happen a lot. It was often directed by the PI but committed by others in the lab. There were a few people who did it without direction. Changing error bars, added asterisks, changing the bars of a graph, doing stats with an N of 1, changing labels in figures from one genotype to a different genotype, loading Western blot gels to get the desired results, etc... Nothing has ever officially been done about it. The PI has at least 6 RO1s that the institution is getting overhead from. The PI is on several co-PI grants with other PIs who are desparate for money and the department doesn't want to lose them. Some of these figures are in at least 1 published paper and several grants that have been funded. There was a lot of other stuff going on (I assume still goes on) that I'm sure IACUC would be very interested to hear about, but I was advised by the administration to keep it to myself. I became convinced that academic science is a slimy cesspool. I am in industry now and have never seen or heard about anything similar.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.596154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.75,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 1472,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The lab across the hall from me *seems to not understand* the difference between technical replicates versus biological replicates and has increased their n this way. It sounds like a P.I. problem though because 3 people in that lab have had to double check the actual n value. And the P.I. regularly has them redo experiments because she doesn't believe the data (because it doesn't gel with her hypothesis). I heard they had to correct previously published data in the past for that reason, but the P.I. is the department chair. Lol nothing happened.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A team director in a laboratory close to ours is known for that. Apparently has a drawer full of Western that he pops out for every occasion. Of course, each of its publications is carefully scrutinized. There are direct accounts of his doctoral students who are presses to obtain results, by \"all possible means\"... For the moment, no sanction but the cleaver is getting closer and closer each year. I didn't know him but see the Olivier Voynet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.ysis and TADAM! a new figure with all significant property values. He continued for a few years before teaming up with large investors, who were much more attentive than the newspapers when it came to the results. I didn't know him, but see the Olivier Voinnet scandal for more info. And realize that when you are a big fish, the repercussions are almost minimal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The lab across the hall from me *seems to not understand* the difference between technical replicates versus biological replicates and has increased their n this way. It sounds like a P.I. problem though because 3 people in that lab have had to double check the actual n value. And the P.I. regularly has them redo experiments because she doesn't believe the data (because it doesn't gel with her hypothesis). I heard they had to correct previously published data in the past for that reason, but the P.I. is the department chair. Lol nothing happened.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.833333 | 5.75 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 13,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0833333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 12977,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? | 47f4d32a794ce9fd02659629c19989bc2a6a59ed85350b7a72b2d0ba259c2e93 | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "\"Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis...\" pg12 of SI",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "One of the more famous cases is Marc Hauser at Harvard. There was a good write-up of the case in The Nation. Essentially there was strong evidence he was falsifying behavioral data in monkeys, he was found guilty of research misconduct, and he resigned in 2011. The kicker was that he wrote books about the evolution of morality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened? Do you have any stories of data fabrication in academia and what happened?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "\"Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis...\" pg12 of SI",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 5.678322 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "f6w95h",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0909090909,
"raw_score_rejected": 11,
"seconds_difference": 7422,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a common gripe indeed but it's also accurate signposting that you're playing the game and winning at it, with all the connections and privileges that that entails, and some places want to select for exactly that. They want people who'll do well with the grant agencies and who have the right in's with gatekeepers and so on. Obviously the winners of the game will tend to think this is all highly correlated with real scientific quality and the losers will tend to think it's somewhere between high false negatives and actively negative, corrupt nepotism. I do note that when yet another fraud case rolls along, there's a thundering silence on how much grant money, given by which agencies, the fraud had received for being such a top scientist. There is some movement against the general old power structures, e.g., they've introduced basic-threshold-plus-lottery-based grant awards in Germany I believe, which do no worse than \"we'll pick the winners\" grant agencies and save massive amounts of time and money. But the people at the top I've personally encountered over the last decades were pretty much all still products of the traditional system. They didn't get there for producing, like, thoughtful, creative academic work. I definitely hope it changes somehow, but I think it'll be outside forces saying, hey, we wasted a lot of taxpayer money on, say, the replication crisis and all these so-called brilliant researchers who caused that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Another big issue with h-index is that it doesn’t screen for authorship gifting. If a lab takes on the all too common practice of sharing authorship with every member of that lab (i.e., giving authorship to everyone irrespective of input), then you’ll end up with a huge number of publications per member. Hardy any of these are first author papers though, so value as a scientist isn’t well reflected and is heavily propped up by other people’s work. I don’t think everyone is playing by the rules or being judged to “the same standard” — the system encourages manipulation. Some people choose to lean in to this, some don’t. So yeah, it’s pretty woeful. A major funding body in my home country has just announced a new system for grant applications, whereby PIs have to list their top 10 publications (rather than listing all their pubs). I think this is a slightly better method, because more accurately judges quality and impact on an individual level. But it’s also a challenge for early career researchers who haven’t had an opportunity to build up their track record, so far from perfect.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a common gripe indeed but it's also accurate signposting that you're playing the game and winning at it, with all the connections and privileges that that entails, and some places want to select for exactly that. They want people who'll do well with the grant agencies and who have the right in's with gatekeepers and so on. Obviously the winners of the game will tend to think this is all highly correlated with real scientific quality and the losers will tend to think it's somewhere between high false negatives and actively negative, corrupt nepotism. I do note that when yet another fraud case rolls along, there's a thundering silence on how much grant money, given by which agencies, the fraud had received for being such a top scientist. There is some movement against the general old power structures, e.g., they've introduced basic-threshold-plus-lottery-based grant awards in Germany I believe, which do no worse than \"we'll pick the winners\" grant agencies and save massive amounts of time and money. But the people at the top I've personally encountered over the last decades were pretty much all still products of the traditional system. They didn't get there for producing, like, thoughtful, creative academic work. I definitely hope it changes somehow, but I think it'll be outside forces saying, hey, we wasted a lot of taxpayer money on, say, the replication crisis and all these so-called brilliant researchers who caused that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.564103 | 7.421245 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 40,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1428571429,
"raw_score_rejected": 35,
"seconds_difference": 1476,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a common gripe indeed but it's also accurate signposting that you're playing the game and winning at it, with all the connections and privileges that that entails, and some places want to select for exactly that. They want people who'll do well with the grant agencies and who have the right in's with gatekeepers and so on. Obviously the winners of the game will tend to think this is all highly correlated with real scientific quality and the losers will tend to think it's somewhere between high false negatives and actively negative, corrupt nepotism. I do note that when yet another fraud case rolls along, there's a thundering silence on how much grant money, given by which agencies, the fraud had received for being such a top scientist. There is some movement against the general old power structures, e.g., they've introduced basic-threshold-plus-lottery-based grant awards in Germany I believe, which do no worse than \"we'll pick the winners\" grant agencies and save massive amounts of time and money. But the people at the top I've personally encountered over the last decades were pretty much all still products of the traditional system. They didn't get there for producing, like, thoughtful, creative academic work. I definitely hope it changes somehow, but I think it'll be outside forces saying, hey, we wasted a lot of taxpayer money on, say, the replication crisis and all these so-called brilliant researchers who caused that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "High impact factor journals are mostly a load of rubbish imo. They aren't assessing the work to some higher standard that others within the same publisher group, they're just more picky about the topics they take to preserve their curated impact factor. That's not to say there aren't benefits if you've got work that matches those journals, but all journals by the big publishers are subjected to the same quality of peer review in my experience. I don't think IF is the most important thing - I'd rather my work be in a midrange open access journal that is accessible to all.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a common gripe indeed but it's also accurate signposting that you're playing the game and winning at it, with all the connections and privileges that that entails, and some places want to select for exactly that. They want people who'll do well with the grant agencies and who have the right in's with gatekeepers and so on. Obviously the winners of the game will tend to think this is all highly correlated with real scientific quality and the losers will tend to think it's somewhere between high false negatives and actively negative, corrupt nepotism. I do note that when yet another fraud case rolls along, there's a thundering silence on how much grant money, given by which agencies, the fraud had received for being such a top scientist. There is some movement against the general old power structures, e.g., they've introduced basic-threshold-plus-lottery-based grant awards in Germany I believe, which do no worse than \"we'll pick the winners\" grant agencies and save massive amounts of time and money. But the people at the top I've personally encountered over the last decades were pretty much all still products of the traditional system. They didn't get there for producing, like, thoughtful, creative academic work. I definitely hope it changes somehow, but I think it'll be outside forces saying, hey, we wasted a lot of taxpayer money on, say, the replication crisis and all these so-called brilliant researchers who caused that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.564103 | 3.564103 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 40,
"raw_score_ratio": 5,
"raw_score_rejected": 8,
"seconds_difference": 4467,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> number of views, etc. more important This will go so well............... not. I can already see the clickbaiting headline already: \"10 solved Theorems on 3D Fluid PDE you will not believe it!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Another big issue with h-index is that it doesn’t screen for authorship gifting. If a lab takes on the all too common practice of sharing authorship with every member of that lab (i.e., giving authorship to everyone irrespective of input), then you’ll end up with a huge number of publications per member. Hardy any of these are first author papers though, so value as a scientist isn’t well reflected and is heavily propped up by other people’s work. I don’t think everyone is playing by the rules or being judged to “the same standard” — the system encourages manipulation. Some people choose to lean in to this, some don’t. So yeah, it’s pretty woeful. A major funding body in my home country has just announced a new system for grant applications, whereby PIs have to list their top 10 publications (rather than listing all their pubs). I think this is a slightly better method, because more accurately judges quality and impact on an individual level. But it’s also a challenge for early career researchers who haven’t had an opportunity to build up their track record, so far from perfect.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> number of views, etc. more important This will go so well............... not. I can already see the clickbaiting headline already: \"10 solved Theorems on 3D Fluid PDE you will not believe it!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 7.279121 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0285714286,
"raw_score_rejected": 35,
"seconds_difference": 9382,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> number of views, etc. more important This will go so well............... not. I can already see the clickbaiting headline already: \"10 solved Theorems on 3D Fluid PDE you will not believe it!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "High impact factor journals are mostly a load of rubbish imo. They aren't assessing the work to some higher standard that others within the same publisher group, they're just more picky about the topics they take to preserve their curated impact factor. That's not to say there aren't benefits if you've got work that matches those journals, but all journals by the big publishers are subjected to the same quality of peer review in my experience. I don't think IF is the most important thing - I'd rather my work be in a midrange open access journal that is accessible to all.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> number of views, etc. more important This will go so well............... not. I can already see the clickbaiting headline already: \"10 solved Theorems on 3D Fluid PDE you will not believe it!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 3.807692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 8,
"seconds_difference": 12373,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> number of views, etc. more important This will go so well............... not. I can already see the clickbaiting headline already: \"10 solved Theorems on 3D Fluid PDE you will not believe it!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your intuitions are right and I personally would love the system to change. Take a look at the DORA declaration and it’s signatures.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> number of views, etc. more important This will go so well............... not. I can already see the clickbaiting headline already: \"10 solved Theorems on 3D Fluid PDE you will not believe it!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 12,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 6964,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Another big issue with h-index is that it doesn’t screen for authorship gifting. If a lab takes on the all too common practice of sharing authorship with every member of that lab (i.e., giving authorship to everyone irrespective of input), then you’ll end up with a huge number of publications per member. Hardy any of these are first author papers though, so value as a scientist isn’t well reflected and is heavily propped up by other people’s work. I don’t think everyone is playing by the rules or being judged to “the same standard” — the system encourages manipulation. Some people choose to lean in to this, some don’t. So yeah, it’s pretty woeful. A major funding body in my home country has just announced a new system for grant applications, whereby PIs have to list their top 10 publications (rather than listing all their pubs). I think this is a slightly better method, because more accurately judges quality and impact on an individual level. But it’s also a challenge for early career researchers who haven’t had an opportunity to build up their track record, so far from perfect.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "High impact factor journals are mostly a load of rubbish imo. They aren't assessing the work to some higher standard that others within the same publisher group, they're just more picky about the topics they take to preserve their curated impact factor. That's not to say there aren't benefits if you've got work that matches those journals, but all journals by the big publishers are subjected to the same quality of peer review in my experience. I don't think IF is the most important thing - I'd rather my work be in a midrange open access journal that is accessible to all.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Another big issue with h-index is that it doesn’t screen for authorship gifting. If a lab takes on the all too common practice of sharing authorship with every member of that lab (i.e., giving authorship to everyone irrespective of input), then you’ll end up with a huge number of publications per member. Hardy any of these are first author papers though, so value as a scientist isn’t well reflected and is heavily propped up by other people’s work. I don’t think everyone is playing by the rules or being judged to “the same standard” — the system encourages manipulation. Some people choose to lean in to this, some don’t. So yeah, it’s pretty woeful. A major funding body in my home country has just announced a new system for grant applications, whereby PIs have to list their top 10 publications (rather than listing all their pubs). I think this is a slightly better method, because more accurately judges quality and impact on an individual level. But it’s also a challenge for early career researchers who haven’t had an opportunity to build up their track record, so far from perfect.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.24359 | 3.86859 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 35,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.375,
"raw_score_rejected": 8,
"seconds_difference": 2991,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For the most part, it is a d*** measuring contest (and I'm deliberately using that term, it's a male-driven system).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 5.179487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 13336,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As my friend always says, if you win the rat race, then you are a rat.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 5.179487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 4809,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In my field it’s more about venues and who you publish with. There’s a handful of high profile conferences that you really need to publish in even during your graduate studies — also to get seen when presenting and to network. Journals are less important, and impact factor is not much of a consideration, but there are a few important ones that will get you noticed (typically ACM Transactions). On the other hand, in my native country they’ve developed a tiered system of venues that is used to assess your research production. It’s an imperfect system but gives PhD students and postdocs an idea of where to publish for impact.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 4.512821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 9640,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Citation metrics do not imply good quality research. To be sure, many great studies get cited a lot. Researchers who regularly do good work can get high h-values. But that's only part of the puzzle. Some other considerations: 1. How popular the topic you are researching is, compared with other topics in your discipline. A mediocre paper about a very popular topic may get cited more than a high quality paper about a very niche topic. 2. How much people in your sub-discipline are publishing. Some types of research take longer than others to conduct, so h-values may have an inherent bias toward research that is quicker to conduct and thus results in quicker and more frequent publications. 3. For any specific paper, it's worth considering why it's being cited. A paper can be cited as an exemplar of a particular phenomenon (look at what we found with our excellent study!). But a paper can also be cited for a host of other reasons, such as to demonstrate a need for additional research in a particular area or to highlight the methodological failures of previous studies. On the one hand, it is exciting to see my work cited. Given the fact that research is a lengthy process, it can feel good to see the reinforcement from past projects as I'm working on my ongoing projects. At the same time, I try not to worry too much about metrics. Do good work. It will get published in good journals. People will cite it. None of that guarantees you'll be an academic rock star who publishes in the very highest impact factor journals or who has one of the highest h-values among your colleagues. But unless you care about that, you don't have to make that your goal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 4.912821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6,
"raw_score_rejected": 5,
"seconds_difference": 3948,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your intuitions are right and I personally would love the system to change. Take a look at the DORA declaration and it’s signatures.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 3.846154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 23388,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Maybe I'm cherrypicking or misunderstanding the offending quote (@OP, do you have a link?) but I found it rather uplifting--don't judge researchers by the work at the beginning of their careers. I for one know a lot of my early work was not good because it was either inherited data, something I wasn't interested in (but my advisor was), something I didn't have the money to run properly, or just my generally naivete and lack of experience",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 3.846154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 5674,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To be honest, I would never judge a PhD on the number of citations they have. That depends way more on whether the idea was good and worked and on many other things that were out of their control. Number of citations is a measure of impact in the field. Why would we expect all new phds to have had a big impact? That's silly. Number of publications in reputable journals is a good \"barrier to entry\" kind of thing. By that I mean, if a new PhD has 1 publication in a poor journal, that's a good sign things didn't go well. If they have 8 publications in top journals, they were doing something right. Going deeper than that might not be fair, but there is a difference between those 2 candidates well beyond their advisors name, school name, etc.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue is that, it’s not really possible for most people to assess work by reading it - academic writing is generally obscure enough that unless you’re in the field, or maybe the sub-field, or the sub-sub-field, you can’t understand the work and it’s context well enough to distinguish mediocre work from brilliant work. That’s why administrators are so focused on it, but for instance my field (math) is so specialized that there’s typically at most one person in the department who can really assess the quality of someone’s work for themself, so the rest of us how to depend on proxies like where it was published and many citations it has.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 3.846154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3728,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For the most part, it is a d*** measuring contest (and I'm deliberately using that term, it's a male-driven system).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your intuitions are right and I personally would love the system to change. Take a look at the DORA declaration and it’s signatures.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For the most part, it is a d*** measuring contest (and I'm deliberately using that term, it's a male-driven system).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 4.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 10052,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As my friend always says, if you win the rat race, then you are a rat.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In my field it’s more about venues and who you publish with. There’s a handful of high profile conferences that you really need to publish in even during your graduate studies — also to get seen when presenting and to network. Journals are less important, and impact factor is not much of a consideration, but there are a few important ones that will get you noticed (typically ACM Transactions). On the other hand, in my native country they’ve developed a tiered system of venues that is used to assess your research production. It’s an imperfect system but gives PhD students and postdocs an idea of where to publish for impact.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As my friend always says, if you win the rat race, then you are a rat.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 4.884615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 4831,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As my friend always says, if you win the rat race, then you are a rat.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your intuitions are right and I personally would love the system to change. Take a look at the DORA declaration and it’s signatures.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As my friend always says, if you win the rat race, then you are a rat.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 4.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 18579,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue? | 07cdc204d1eec8f3359f420dea48e95ab60f84490e4a0ec3163500e3a9d17d16 | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As my friend always says, if you win the rat race, then you are a rat.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Maybe I'm cherrypicking or misunderstanding the offending quote (@OP, do you have a link?) but I found it rather uplifting--don't judge researchers by the work at the beginning of their careers. I for one know a lot of my early work was not good because it was either inherited data, something I wasn't interested in (but my advisor was), something I didn't have the money to run properly, or just my generally naivete and lack of experience",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "You know my h-index, not my story. As a disclaimer, I don't know shit about fuck. I've done around a year of research and only starting post-grad this year. Today, I was reading a thread on this subreddit asking how bad it was to publish in a low-impact journal. One of the replies struck me, which was: 'I believe, it is not professional to try to measure a researcher with articles at the beginning of his/her academic life. I would personally consider citations, number of views, etc. more important rather than where the work was published.' To me there's a glaring omission which is the quality of the researcher's work. Assessing their work by reading it, seeing how well they write, etc. On one hand, I can see why this is important. High-quality publications act as proofs of the researchers' ability, production, etc. Maybe this is considered the most non-discriminatory and least subjective. And when deciding whether someone is worth admitting/hiring/sucking up to etc., who cbs to read someone's work when they can peep their h-index. For a noob like me, it isn't intuitive yet to assess a piece of work based on what journals they have published. But with some of my colleagues, it's the first point of reference. I get it's the game, and to win, you gotta play. But who would want to win a rigged game. Is this a common gripe amongst academics? And if so is the space moving away from that? Or am I being dramatic and exaggerating a non-issue?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As my friend always says, if you win the rat race, then you are a rat.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 4.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "sml92y",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 865,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.9
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.