Mixing
How to deal with your research results becoming obsolete?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My coworkers are pursuing a generalization of one of my (recent) results. Is it wrong of me to frown a little on this? I would prefer it if they had an original idea of their own, or that if that they had to generalize a result, it would either be one of their own or one of someone they do not know.
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art). I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
Please note: I do not mean for this to be read as a rant or a complaint. I do understand how science works by expanding on previous knowledge. I just want to know how others feel about the prospect of their research becoming obsolete, and how to approach that from the perspective of someone in the beginning (and at the same time, possibly the end) of their academic career. I imagine that for a professor such a thing would not be a big deal, for a number of different reasons.
citations emotional-responses
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My coworkers are pursuing a generalization of one of my (recent) results. Is it wrong of me to frown a little on this? I would prefer it if they had an original idea of their own, or that if that they had to generalize a result, it would either be one of their own or one of someone they do not know.
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art). I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
Please note: I do not mean for this to be read as a rant or a complaint. I do understand how science works by expanding on previous knowledge. I just want to know how others feel about the prospect of their research becoming obsolete, and how to approach that from the perspective of someone in the beginning (and at the same time, possibly the end) of their academic career. I imagine that for a professor such a thing would not be a big deal, for a number of different reasons.
citations emotional-responses
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
1
Why aren't you cooperating with them on the generalization? It seems both natural and proper.
– Buffy
1 hour ago
I don't have time to focus on that now. I have to create an important deliverable for another project.
– Asdf
47 mins ago
Isn't this a fairly common and natural pattern in academic research? (I'm not an academic)
– Jamie Clinton
10 mins ago
@Jamie Yes, but you can still be upset when it happens. At least when it happens to you for the first time, I think. Later, I guess that you have learned to deal with it, and it also becomes less important.
– Asdf
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My coworkers are pursuing a generalization of one of my (recent) results. Is it wrong of me to frown a little on this? I would prefer it if they had an original idea of their own, or that if that they had to generalize a result, it would either be one of their own or one of someone they do not know.
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art). I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
Please note: I do not mean for this to be read as a rant or a complaint. I do understand how science works by expanding on previous knowledge. I just want to know how others feel about the prospect of their research becoming obsolete, and how to approach that from the perspective of someone in the beginning (and at the same time, possibly the end) of their academic career. I imagine that for a professor such a thing would not be a big deal, for a number of different reasons.
citations emotional-responses
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
My coworkers are pursuing a generalization of one of my (recent) results. Is it wrong of me to frown a little on this? I would prefer it if they had an original idea of their own, or that if that they had to generalize a result, it would either be one of their own or one of someone they do not know.
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art). I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
Please note: I do not mean for this to be read as a rant or a complaint. I do understand how science works by expanding on previous knowledge. I just want to know how others feel about the prospect of their research becoming obsolete, and how to approach that from the perspective of someone in the beginning (and at the same time, possibly the end) of their academic career. I imagine that for a professor such a thing would not be a big deal, for a number of different reasons.
citations emotional-responses
citations emotional-responses
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
asked 1 hour ago
Asdf
39111
39111
1
Why aren't you cooperating with them on the generalization? It seems both natural and proper.
– Buffy
1 hour ago
I don't have time to focus on that now. I have to create an important deliverable for another project.
– Asdf
47 mins ago
Isn't this a fairly common and natural pattern in academic research? (I'm not an academic)
– Jamie Clinton
10 mins ago
@Jamie Yes, but you can still be upset when it happens. At least when it happens to you for the first time, I think. Later, I guess that you have learned to deal with it, and it also becomes less important.
– Asdf
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Why aren't you cooperating with them on the generalization? It seems both natural and proper.
– Buffy
1 hour ago
I don't have time to focus on that now. I have to create an important deliverable for another project.
– Asdf
47 mins ago
Isn't this a fairly common and natural pattern in academic research? (I'm not an academic)
– Jamie Clinton
10 mins ago
@Jamie Yes, but you can still be upset when it happens. At least when it happens to you for the first time, I think. Later, I guess that you have learned to deal with it, and it also becomes less important.
– Asdf
9 mins ago
1
1
Why aren't you cooperating with them on the generalization? It seems both natural and proper.
– Buffy
1 hour ago
Why aren't you cooperating with them on the generalization? It seems both natural and proper.
– Buffy
1 hour ago
I don't have time to focus on that now. I have to create an important deliverable for another project.
– Asdf
47 mins ago
I don't have time to focus on that now. I have to create an important deliverable for another project.
– Asdf
47 mins ago
Isn't this a fairly common and natural pattern in academic research? (I'm not an academic)
– Jamie Clinton
10 mins ago
Isn't this a fairly common and natural pattern in academic research? (I'm not an academic)
– Jamie Clinton
10 mins ago
@Jamie Yes, but you can still be upset when it happens. At least when it happens to you for the first time, I think. Later, I guess that you have learned to deal with it, and it also becomes less important.
– Asdf
9 mins ago
@Jamie Yes, but you can still be upset when it happens. At least when it happens to you for the first time, I think. Later, I guess that you have learned to deal with it, and it also becomes less important.
– Asdf
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Short answer, two possible approaches:
collaborate with your coworkers. From what you write, it sounds like they may have already suggested and you may have been hesitant because you wanted unique ownership. Science is collaborative and you will both benefit from this collaboration
keep being original, create new streams of research. Some academics enjoy new challenges, then get quickly bored and prefer variety (broadness of research areas to cover) to depth (being leading expert in a certain subfield). There is nothing wrong with that variety.
My feeling is that you are stuck in the middle. Just pick one of two routes and you will be happy again in no time 🙂
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
Actually, I want to do something new or different. The lack of such ambition on their part is one of the things that frustrate me in this situation. I am in a new project now, so I would like to focus on that. However, I feel that they are pulling me back into the old project. I just have to commit to the new project and ignore what they are doing :)
– Asdf
32 mins ago
3
@Asdf: If your coworkers' project is beneath you, how does it diminish your work? How are they going to make your work obsolete without any new ideas? I confess I don't really get it.
– Pete L. Clark
29 mins ago
They prove the same theorem in a more general setting. The theorem is about the convergence of dynamical systems. It is interesting because it was unexpected. Now they attempt to show that the theorem applies under some weaker assumptions. This is not interesting to me, because if this type of theorem holds under the strong assumption, then someone always makes an extension under the weaker assumptions. Doing it can be hard, but the idea of doing it is super obvious. However, because this is applied math, the weaker assumptions are important for 'applications' (i.e. for motivations).
– Asdf
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
While I sympathize with you, I find it hard to answer your question.
On the one hand, as phrased you are asking whether an emotional response is valid. Well, it is not really for anyone other than you to determine the validity of your emotional responses, and in all of my experience, "That is not a valid emotional response" is rarely a useful piece of advice. On the other hand, your question is pitched in a certain level of generality, but understanding why you feel the way you do seems to require knowing more particulars of your situation than you have disclosed.
But let me say what I can and what might be helpful:
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art).
Since you speak of "theorems," I gather you are working in mathematics. (This is corroborated by one of your other questions, where you identify yourself as working in applied mathematics.) I am also a (pure) mathematician, and the way you describe "obsolescence" is neither the way I think about mathematical results nor how I have heard other mathematicians talking about them. Maybe it is quite different in applied mathematics, but in pure mathematics there is not any prescribed lifespan on papers being read and cited. To try to quantify this, I just looked back over my last 10 accepted papers, and for each one identified the earliest cited paper. Of these ten papers, the latest one was published in 1976. (Moreover the 1976 paper came from a five page note with only a few citations.) In other words, in all of my recent papers I have cited papers that are more than 40 years old, and in fact usually older than that. In my department I have many colleagues who are 10-20 years older than I but who have a similar number of publications to me (publication pressures have risen in recent years). Most of these colleagues have higher total citation numbers than I do -- I think because their papers from 10, 20, 30...years ago continue to be cited. My most highly cited works were published in 2013, 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2003, respectively.
[Moreover, in mathematics, citation numbers are not (yet!) the ultimate metric of academic worth. Papers written on finite graphs tend to get more citations than papers written on admissible representations of p-adic groups because there are more people working on the former and many more people who know what the former are. I think most mathematicians realize this.]
So I have to wonder about the specific situation you are describing. In a different question, you mention a colleague of yours who worked on the same problem as you and came up with a result that was in some but not all ways more general, and then you published at least two papers together. I don't understand why this would "short circuit" your citations. Now you describe a situation in which your colleagues are working on generalizing one of your results, apparently without any new ideas. In this latter situation especially, I would expect that if they publish an improvement of your results using ideas essentially due to you, then that should augment your results in every way (including citations), not detract from it. (You are aware that senior mathematicians do this all the time, and the work of their students is usually viewed as an extension of their own work, I trust?)
Then you say:
I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
If it gets to the point of an independently published generalization of your work, then I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever if your coworkers were involved. However, before that happens the fact that it is your coworkers puts you in a much better situation: namely, in the worst case you have much more advance knowledge of what they are working on and can plan accordingly. In the best case you can pursue a collaboration with them in whatever way seems best to you.
If I may take a guess -- are you perhaps most upset by the fact that your coworkers have chosen to pursue these generalizations of your work without your involvement, so that they seem to be competing with you right under your nose? I could understand why that would be upsetting. If you feel that way, I think you should be much more proactive about collaborating with them.
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Short answer, two possible approaches:
collaborate with your coworkers. From what you write, it sounds like they may have already suggested and you may have been hesitant because you wanted unique ownership. Science is collaborative and you will both benefit from this collaboration
keep being original, create new streams of research. Some academics enjoy new challenges, then get quickly bored and prefer variety (broadness of research areas to cover) to depth (being leading expert in a certain subfield). There is nothing wrong with that variety.
My feeling is that you are stuck in the middle. Just pick one of two routes and you will be happy again in no time 🙂
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
Actually, I want to do something new or different. The lack of such ambition on their part is one of the things that frustrate me in this situation. I am in a new project now, so I would like to focus on that. However, I feel that they are pulling me back into the old project. I just have to commit to the new project and ignore what they are doing :)
– Asdf
32 mins ago
3
@Asdf: If your coworkers' project is beneath you, how does it diminish your work? How are they going to make your work obsolete without any new ideas? I confess I don't really get it.
– Pete L. Clark
29 mins ago
They prove the same theorem in a more general setting. The theorem is about the convergence of dynamical systems. It is interesting because it was unexpected. Now they attempt to show that the theorem applies under some weaker assumptions. This is not interesting to me, because if this type of theorem holds under the strong assumption, then someone always makes an extension under the weaker assumptions. Doing it can be hard, but the idea of doing it is super obvious. However, because this is applied math, the weaker assumptions are important for 'applications' (i.e. for motivations).
– Asdf
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Short answer, two possible approaches:
collaborate with your coworkers. From what you write, it sounds like they may have already suggested and you may have been hesitant because you wanted unique ownership. Science is collaborative and you will both benefit from this collaboration
keep being original, create new streams of research. Some academics enjoy new challenges, then get quickly bored and prefer variety (broadness of research areas to cover) to depth (being leading expert in a certain subfield). There is nothing wrong with that variety.
My feeling is that you are stuck in the middle. Just pick one of two routes and you will be happy again in no time 🙂
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
Actually, I want to do something new or different. The lack of such ambition on their part is one of the things that frustrate me in this situation. I am in a new project now, so I would like to focus on that. However, I feel that they are pulling me back into the old project. I just have to commit to the new project and ignore what they are doing :)
– Asdf
32 mins ago
3
@Asdf: If your coworkers' project is beneath you, how does it diminish your work? How are they going to make your work obsolete without any new ideas? I confess I don't really get it.
– Pete L. Clark
29 mins ago
They prove the same theorem in a more general setting. The theorem is about the convergence of dynamical systems. It is interesting because it was unexpected. Now they attempt to show that the theorem applies under some weaker assumptions. This is not interesting to me, because if this type of theorem holds under the strong assumption, then someone always makes an extension under the weaker assumptions. Doing it can be hard, but the idea of doing it is super obvious. However, because this is applied math, the weaker assumptions are important for 'applications' (i.e. for motivations).
– Asdf
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Short answer, two possible approaches:
collaborate with your coworkers. From what you write, it sounds like they may have already suggested and you may have been hesitant because you wanted unique ownership. Science is collaborative and you will both benefit from this collaboration
keep being original, create new streams of research. Some academics enjoy new challenges, then get quickly bored and prefer variety (broadness of research areas to cover) to depth (being leading expert in a certain subfield). There is nothing wrong with that variety.
My feeling is that you are stuck in the middle. Just pick one of two routes and you will be happy again in no time 🙂
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
Short answer, two possible approaches:
collaborate with your coworkers. From what you write, it sounds like they may have already suggested and you may have been hesitant because you wanted unique ownership. Science is collaborative and you will both benefit from this collaboration
keep being original, create new streams of research. Some academics enjoy new challenges, then get quickly bored and prefer variety (broadness of research areas to cover) to depth (being leading expert in a certain subfield). There is nothing wrong with that variety.
My feeling is that you are stuck in the middle. Just pick one of two routes and you will be happy again in no time 🙂
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
answered 45 mins ago
famargar
2,1511422
2,1511422
Actually, I want to do something new or different. The lack of such ambition on their part is one of the things that frustrate me in this situation. I am in a new project now, so I would like to focus on that. However, I feel that they are pulling me back into the old project. I just have to commit to the new project and ignore what they are doing :)
– Asdf
32 mins ago
3
@Asdf: If your coworkers' project is beneath you, how does it diminish your work? How are they going to make your work obsolete without any new ideas? I confess I don't really get it.
– Pete L. Clark
29 mins ago
They prove the same theorem in a more general setting. The theorem is about the convergence of dynamical systems. It is interesting because it was unexpected. Now they attempt to show that the theorem applies under some weaker assumptions. This is not interesting to me, because if this type of theorem holds under the strong assumption, then someone always makes an extension under the weaker assumptions. Doing it can be hard, but the idea of doing it is super obvious. However, because this is applied math, the weaker assumptions are important for 'applications' (i.e. for motivations).
– Asdf
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Actually, I want to do something new or different. The lack of such ambition on their part is one of the things that frustrate me in this situation. I am in a new project now, so I would like to focus on that. However, I feel that they are pulling me back into the old project. I just have to commit to the new project and ignore what they are doing :)
– Asdf
32 mins ago
3
@Asdf: If your coworkers' project is beneath you, how does it diminish your work? How are they going to make your work obsolete without any new ideas? I confess I don't really get it.
– Pete L. Clark
29 mins ago
They prove the same theorem in a more general setting. The theorem is about the convergence of dynamical systems. It is interesting because it was unexpected. Now they attempt to show that the theorem applies under some weaker assumptions. This is not interesting to me, because if this type of theorem holds under the strong assumption, then someone always makes an extension under the weaker assumptions. Doing it can be hard, but the idea of doing it is super obvious. However, because this is applied math, the weaker assumptions are important for 'applications' (i.e. for motivations).
– Asdf
13 mins ago
Actually, I want to do something new or different. The lack of such ambition on their part is one of the things that frustrate me in this situation. I am in a new project now, so I would like to focus on that. However, I feel that they are pulling me back into the old project. I just have to commit to the new project and ignore what they are doing :)
– Asdf
32 mins ago
Actually, I want to do something new or different. The lack of such ambition on their part is one of the things that frustrate me in this situation. I am in a new project now, so I would like to focus on that. However, I feel that they are pulling me back into the old project. I just have to commit to the new project and ignore what they are doing :)
– Asdf
32 mins ago
3
3
@Asdf: If your coworkers' project is beneath you, how does it diminish your work? How are they going to make your work obsolete without any new ideas? I confess I don't really get it.
– Pete L. Clark
29 mins ago
@Asdf: If your coworkers' project is beneath you, how does it diminish your work? How are they going to make your work obsolete without any new ideas? I confess I don't really get it.
– Pete L. Clark
29 mins ago
They prove the same theorem in a more general setting. The theorem is about the convergence of dynamical systems. It is interesting because it was unexpected. Now they attempt to show that the theorem applies under some weaker assumptions. This is not interesting to me, because if this type of theorem holds under the strong assumption, then someone always makes an extension under the weaker assumptions. Doing it can be hard, but the idea of doing it is super obvious. However, because this is applied math, the weaker assumptions are important for 'applications' (i.e. for motivations).
– Asdf
13 mins ago
They prove the same theorem in a more general setting. The theorem is about the convergence of dynamical systems. It is interesting because it was unexpected. Now they attempt to show that the theorem applies under some weaker assumptions. This is not interesting to me, because if this type of theorem holds under the strong assumption, then someone always makes an extension under the weaker assumptions. Doing it can be hard, but the idea of doing it is super obvious. However, because this is applied math, the weaker assumptions are important for 'applications' (i.e. for motivations).
– Asdf
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
While I sympathize with you, I find it hard to answer your question.
On the one hand, as phrased you are asking whether an emotional response is valid. Well, it is not really for anyone other than you to determine the validity of your emotional responses, and in all of my experience, "That is not a valid emotional response" is rarely a useful piece of advice. On the other hand, your question is pitched in a certain level of generality, but understanding why you feel the way you do seems to require knowing more particulars of your situation than you have disclosed.
But let me say what I can and what might be helpful:
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art).
Since you speak of "theorems," I gather you are working in mathematics. (This is corroborated by one of your other questions, where you identify yourself as working in applied mathematics.) I am also a (pure) mathematician, and the way you describe "obsolescence" is neither the way I think about mathematical results nor how I have heard other mathematicians talking about them. Maybe it is quite different in applied mathematics, but in pure mathematics there is not any prescribed lifespan on papers being read and cited. To try to quantify this, I just looked back over my last 10 accepted papers, and for each one identified the earliest cited paper. Of these ten papers, the latest one was published in 1976. (Moreover the 1976 paper came from a five page note with only a few citations.) In other words, in all of my recent papers I have cited papers that are more than 40 years old, and in fact usually older than that. In my department I have many colleagues who are 10-20 years older than I but who have a similar number of publications to me (publication pressures have risen in recent years). Most of these colleagues have higher total citation numbers than I do -- I think because their papers from 10, 20, 30...years ago continue to be cited. My most highly cited works were published in 2013, 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2003, respectively.
[Moreover, in mathematics, citation numbers are not (yet!) the ultimate metric of academic worth. Papers written on finite graphs tend to get more citations than papers written on admissible representations of p-adic groups because there are more people working on the former and many more people who know what the former are. I think most mathematicians realize this.]
So I have to wonder about the specific situation you are describing. In a different question, you mention a colleague of yours who worked on the same problem as you and came up with a result that was in some but not all ways more general, and then you published at least two papers together. I don't understand why this would "short circuit" your citations. Now you describe a situation in which your colleagues are working on generalizing one of your results, apparently without any new ideas. In this latter situation especially, I would expect that if they publish an improvement of your results using ideas essentially due to you, then that should augment your results in every way (including citations), not detract from it. (You are aware that senior mathematicians do this all the time, and the work of their students is usually viewed as an extension of their own work, I trust?)
Then you say:
I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
If it gets to the point of an independently published generalization of your work, then I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever if your coworkers were involved. However, before that happens the fact that it is your coworkers puts you in a much better situation: namely, in the worst case you have much more advance knowledge of what they are working on and can plan accordingly. In the best case you can pursue a collaboration with them in whatever way seems best to you.
If I may take a guess -- are you perhaps most upset by the fact that your coworkers have chosen to pursue these generalizations of your work without your involvement, so that they seem to be competing with you right under your nose? I could understand why that would be upsetting. If you feel that way, I think you should be much more proactive about collaborating with them.
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
While I sympathize with you, I find it hard to answer your question.
On the one hand, as phrased you are asking whether an emotional response is valid. Well, it is not really for anyone other than you to determine the validity of your emotional responses, and in all of my experience, "That is not a valid emotional response" is rarely a useful piece of advice. On the other hand, your question is pitched in a certain level of generality, but understanding why you feel the way you do seems to require knowing more particulars of your situation than you have disclosed.
But let me say what I can and what might be helpful:
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art).
Since you speak of "theorems," I gather you are working in mathematics. (This is corroborated by one of your other questions, where you identify yourself as working in applied mathematics.) I am also a (pure) mathematician, and the way you describe "obsolescence" is neither the way I think about mathematical results nor how I have heard other mathematicians talking about them. Maybe it is quite different in applied mathematics, but in pure mathematics there is not any prescribed lifespan on papers being read and cited. To try to quantify this, I just looked back over my last 10 accepted papers, and for each one identified the earliest cited paper. Of these ten papers, the latest one was published in 1976. (Moreover the 1976 paper came from a five page note with only a few citations.) In other words, in all of my recent papers I have cited papers that are more than 40 years old, and in fact usually older than that. In my department I have many colleagues who are 10-20 years older than I but who have a similar number of publications to me (publication pressures have risen in recent years). Most of these colleagues have higher total citation numbers than I do -- I think because their papers from 10, 20, 30...years ago continue to be cited. My most highly cited works were published in 2013, 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2003, respectively.
[Moreover, in mathematics, citation numbers are not (yet!) the ultimate metric of academic worth. Papers written on finite graphs tend to get more citations than papers written on admissible representations of p-adic groups because there are more people working on the former and many more people who know what the former are. I think most mathematicians realize this.]
So I have to wonder about the specific situation you are describing. In a different question, you mention a colleague of yours who worked on the same problem as you and came up with a result that was in some but not all ways more general, and then you published at least two papers together. I don't understand why this would "short circuit" your citations. Now you describe a situation in which your colleagues are working on generalizing one of your results, apparently without any new ideas. In this latter situation especially, I would expect that if they publish an improvement of your results using ideas essentially due to you, then that should augment your results in every way (including citations), not detract from it. (You are aware that senior mathematicians do this all the time, and the work of their students is usually viewed as an extension of their own work, I trust?)
Then you say:
I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
If it gets to the point of an independently published generalization of your work, then I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever if your coworkers were involved. However, before that happens the fact that it is your coworkers puts you in a much better situation: namely, in the worst case you have much more advance knowledge of what they are working on and can plan accordingly. In the best case you can pursue a collaboration with them in whatever way seems best to you.
If I may take a guess -- are you perhaps most upset by the fact that your coworkers have chosen to pursue these generalizations of your work without your involvement, so that they seem to be competing with you right under your nose? I could understand why that would be upsetting. If you feel that way, I think you should be much more proactive about collaborating with them.
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
While I sympathize with you, I find it hard to answer your question.
On the one hand, as phrased you are asking whether an emotional response is valid. Well, it is not really for anyone other than you to determine the validity of your emotional responses, and in all of my experience, "That is not a valid emotional response" is rarely a useful piece of advice. On the other hand, your question is pitched in a certain level of generality, but understanding why you feel the way you do seems to require knowing more particulars of your situation than you have disclosed.
But let me say what I can and what might be helpful:
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art).
Since you speak of "theorems," I gather you are working in mathematics. (This is corroborated by one of your other questions, where you identify yourself as working in applied mathematics.) I am also a (pure) mathematician, and the way you describe "obsolescence" is neither the way I think about mathematical results nor how I have heard other mathematicians talking about them. Maybe it is quite different in applied mathematics, but in pure mathematics there is not any prescribed lifespan on papers being read and cited. To try to quantify this, I just looked back over my last 10 accepted papers, and for each one identified the earliest cited paper. Of these ten papers, the latest one was published in 1976. (Moreover the 1976 paper came from a five page note with only a few citations.) In other words, in all of my recent papers I have cited papers that are more than 40 years old, and in fact usually older than that. In my department I have many colleagues who are 10-20 years older than I but who have a similar number of publications to me (publication pressures have risen in recent years). Most of these colleagues have higher total citation numbers than I do -- I think because their papers from 10, 20, 30...years ago continue to be cited. My most highly cited works were published in 2013, 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2003, respectively.
[Moreover, in mathematics, citation numbers are not (yet!) the ultimate metric of academic worth. Papers written on finite graphs tend to get more citations than papers written on admissible representations of p-adic groups because there are more people working on the former and many more people who know what the former are. I think most mathematicians realize this.]
So I have to wonder about the specific situation you are describing. In a different question, you mention a colleague of yours who worked on the same problem as you and came up with a result that was in some but not all ways more general, and then you published at least two papers together. I don't understand why this would "short circuit" your citations. Now you describe a situation in which your colleagues are working on generalizing one of your results, apparently without any new ideas. In this latter situation especially, I would expect that if they publish an improvement of your results using ideas essentially due to you, then that should augment your results in every way (including citations), not detract from it. (You are aware that senior mathematicians do this all the time, and the work of their students is usually viewed as an extension of their own work, I trust?)
Then you say:
I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
If it gets to the point of an independently published generalization of your work, then I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever if your coworkers were involved. However, before that happens the fact that it is your coworkers puts you in a much better situation: namely, in the worst case you have much more advance knowledge of what they are working on and can plan accordingly. In the best case you can pursue a collaboration with them in whatever way seems best to you.
If I may take a guess -- are you perhaps most upset by the fact that your coworkers have chosen to pursue these generalizations of your work without your involvement, so that they seem to be competing with you right under your nose? I could understand why that would be upsetting. If you feel that way, I think you should be much more proactive about collaborating with them.
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
While I sympathize with you, I find it hard to answer your question.
On the one hand, as phrased you are asking whether an emotional response is valid. Well, it is not really for anyone other than you to determine the validity of your emotional responses, and in all of my experience, "That is not a valid emotional response" is rarely a useful piece of advice. On the other hand, your question is pitched in a certain level of generality, but understanding why you feel the way you do seems to require knowing more particulars of your situation than you have disclosed.
But let me say what I can and what might be helpful:
The way I see it, a paper has a certain lifespan in terms of being read and cited. Once it has been generalized, that lifespan is in most cases over. If someone wanted to understand a theorem, they would probably look for the most general version. Of course, this does not always apply, for example if the work represents a milestone of some kind. One consequence of obsolescence is the stream of citations to my paper is short circuited. This will, in a sense, benefit them at my expense. Of course, I realize that my paper will eventually (hopefully) be generalized and become obsolete (i.e. no longer state-of-the-art).
Since you speak of "theorems," I gather you are working in mathematics. (This is corroborated by one of your other questions, where you identify yourself as working in applied mathematics.) I am also a (pure) mathematician, and the way you describe "obsolescence" is neither the way I think about mathematical results nor how I have heard other mathematicians talking about them. Maybe it is quite different in applied mathematics, but in pure mathematics there is not any prescribed lifespan on papers being read and cited. To try to quantify this, I just looked back over my last 10 accepted papers, and for each one identified the earliest cited paper. Of these ten papers, the latest one was published in 1976. (Moreover the 1976 paper came from a five page note with only a few citations.) In other words, in all of my recent papers I have cited papers that are more than 40 years old, and in fact usually older than that. In my department I have many colleagues who are 10-20 years older than I but who have a similar number of publications to me (publication pressures have risen in recent years). Most of these colleagues have higher total citation numbers than I do -- I think because their papers from 10, 20, 30...years ago continue to be cited. My most highly cited works were published in 2013, 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2003, respectively.
[Moreover, in mathematics, citation numbers are not (yet!) the ultimate metric of academic worth. Papers written on finite graphs tend to get more citations than papers written on admissible representations of p-adic groups because there are more people working on the former and many more people who know what the former are. I think most mathematicians realize this.]
So I have to wonder about the specific situation you are describing. In a different question, you mention a colleague of yours who worked on the same problem as you and came up with a result that was in some but not all ways more general, and then you published at least two papers together. I don't understand why this would "short circuit" your citations. Now you describe a situation in which your colleagues are working on generalizing one of your results, apparently without any new ideas. In this latter situation especially, I would expect that if they publish an improvement of your results using ideas essentially due to you, then that should augment your results in every way (including citations), not detract from it. (You are aware that senior mathematicians do this all the time, and the work of their students is usually viewed as an extension of their own work, I trust?)
Then you say:
I just rather prefer that it wasn't my coworkers who are working towards that goal (they even started while I was still drafting my paper).
If it gets to the point of an independently published generalization of your work, then I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever if your coworkers were involved. However, before that happens the fact that it is your coworkers puts you in a much better situation: namely, in the worst case you have much more advance knowledge of what they are working on and can plan accordingly. In the best case you can pursue a collaboration with them in whatever way seems best to you.
If I may take a guess -- are you perhaps most upset by the fact that your coworkers have chosen to pursue these generalizations of your work without your involvement, so that they seem to be competing with you right under your nose? I could understand why that would be upsetting. If you feel that way, I think you should be much more proactive about collaborating with them.
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
answered 38 mins ago
Pete L. Clark
112k23300459
112k23300459
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117868%2fhow-to-deal-with-your-research-results-becoming-obsolete%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Why aren't you cooperating with them on the generalization? It seems both natural and proper.
– Buffy
1 hour ago
I don't have time to focus on that now. I have to create an important deliverable for another project.
– Asdf
47 mins ago
Isn't this a fairly common and natural pattern in academic research? (I'm not an academic)
– Jamie Clinton
10 mins ago
@Jamie Yes, but you can still be upset when it happens. At least when it happens to you for the first time, I think. Later, I guess that you have learned to deal with it, and it also becomes less important.
– Asdf
9 mins ago