Voce 1:
Voce 2:
Voce 3:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Thursday, 18 June 2009
PhD course on Scientific information dissemination
I've been suggesting that PhD students at my department - and at my university as well - should be offered a seminar/course on "Scientific information dissemination" (I should find a better title, actually...). Topics:
S.
- how to write a research paper
- how to give a good presentation
- tools for writing and presenting
- Web 2.0 as a scientific dissemination tool (blogs, wikis, youtube, facebook, etc.)
S.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Research evaluation & bibliometrics
At my university there is a strong push, by... someone, to use bibliometric indicators to evaluate research productivity. My position is:
BTW, so far I did not get much success - they just pretend I'm not saying anything. Well, actually they've changed from using bibliometrics to evaluate single researchers (a position that demonstrated their level of... erm let's be polite and say "expertise"...) to using bibliometrics to evaluate groups of researchers. But I'm stubborn ;-)
Anyway, I'm writing this post because I'm happy that in the last REF report one can read:
And, yes, of course, let's see if bibliometrics-retractors will take this into account, or just pretend it doesn't exist.
S.
- Bibliometrics is useful. It would be crazy not to use it.
- Bibliometrics is not enough. It would be equally crazy to rely on bibliometrics only. A more general, scientometrics-based approach, should be used.
- Expert peer review, informed by bibliometrics but not only, is the only reliable evaluation mechanism.
- Evaluation needs resources (money, people, time, data, ...).
- Evaluation strategies and approaches should be decided by evaluation experts, not by beginners.
BTW, so far I did not get much success - they just pretend I'm not saying anything. Well, actually they've changed from using bibliometrics to evaluate single researchers (a position that demonstrated their level of... erm let's be polite and say "expertise"...) to using bibliometrics to evaluate groups of researchers. But I'm stubborn ;-)
Anyway, I'm writing this post because I'm happy that in the last REF report one can read:
There was a strong consensus that bibliometrics are not sufficiently mature to be used formulaically or to replace expert review, but there is considerable scope for citation indicators to inform expert review in the REF.Let's see if bibliometrics enthusiast at my university will take this into account, or just pretend it doesn't exist.
And, yes, of course, let's see if bibliometrics-retractors will take this into account, or just pretend it doesn't exist.
S.
Friday, 29 May 2009
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Friday, 24 April 2009
Monday, 20 April 2009
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice - ChronicleReview.com
-
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice - ChronicleReview.com
- American students
- and what about non-Americans, i.e., non-native speakers? - post by stefanomizzi
-
Posted from Diigo.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
WikiTracer: Mapping the Wikisphere
-
WikiTracer: Mapping the Wikisphere
- WikiTracer is a web service providing platform-independent analytics and comparative growth statistics for wikis.
-
Posted from Diigo.
S.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Dialogue on a Midspring's Night Dream in Dagstuhl
Prologue
[Any reference to real people is not casual. You'll recognize yourself if you were there. :) ]
N.B. So what's your proposal about?
K. Yes, describe it to us.
S. You can describe it in several ways. One...
K. Oh no, it can't work.
M. Sure it can't, readers will not behave properly.
N.B. Poor guy, he hasn't started yet. Wait a minute.
S. That's the usual reaction: have an opinion - a strong one - before even trying to understand my model. One: in current scholarly publishing system, the reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I agree.
S. We are all reviewing more and more papers; reviewers are being paid; authors re-submit rejected papers without any change and (different) reviewers have to re-review them. And so on. The more the paper publication rate increases, the more the situation gets worst.
K.: Right. I know that. I've been working on that with Karl Popper, he was a good friend of mine. We wrote a paper on it, actually. But you should consider that if I ask people to review papers, they will do it.
S. You said that you agree that reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I'll give you an example of that. Quite a good example actually. I just asked 150 top scientists to do some reviews, and all of them agreed. None refused.
S. Ok, sure, but we're talking about something different here.
N.B.: Guys, just look at your hands. You can see some body language there. But I don't understand what you're talking about.
S. - Ok, I'll show you some slides (picks up his laptop - a Mac, of course)
N.S. I'll go and grab some cheese. I'm hungry. They did not give us enough food for dinner.
A. I'm not hungry at all.
S. We're eating far too much.
A. I'll have some wine.
Everybody: Me too!
S. So; One: reviewers are a scarce resource. Two: there are a lot of readers out there.
D. Lots of what?
S. Readers. Scientists that read scientific papers, form an opinion about them, and take that opinion in their mind - or maybe share it with a few colleagues. The scientific community as a whole does not benefit from reader's knowledge. The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field could do something similar to Web 2.0 by exploiting the "wisdom of readers": a scholarly paper is refereed by 2, 3, maybe 4 researchers, but it is hopefully read by dozens (10^1), hundreds (10^2), or even thousands (10^3) of researchers. And these researchers usually form an opinion about the paper. And this opinion is usually left inside their mind, or communicated in a very informal manner. We're just using the logarithm of the reading power that we have!
M. Wait wait, log of thousands is 3 not 4, you're cheating!!!
S. Sorry, ok, that's wrong, I had too much cheese... erm, beer, but you should get the whole idea anyway. It's log(x-1)...
M. You're cheating again! log(x-1) is undefined for no readers.
S. Come on... (lifting the middle finger of his right hand - and having some cheese)
D. Jesus these guys are crazy.
M. So what? Who cares? That's bullshit.
N.B. Are you suggesting to use readers judgments?
M. But you have to prove that your system is better than the h-index. The h-index measures researcher quality. I do have a high h-index.
S. Yes and no. Wait a minute and you'll see.
N.B. So you're going to suggest to use readers judgments. Oh no that can't work. I feel like a Strasbourg goose, but I'll have some more cheese anyway.
N.S. Yef cheefe if fey goot. Pfleafe, hafe fome. Gulp. But do you mean that if a student of mine judges my paper as crap I should be penalized for that?
S. To a certain extent yes. But, wait a minute, can I have some cheese?
D. - "Jesus, these guys are crazy."
S. We're eating far too much.
M. I'll go and skype my daughters. As we will see later, that'll be the last serious thing for today.
S. Readers judgments will be weighted on the basis of how good they are.
K. Right. But who decides if I am a good reader? I could, of course, but not anybody can. If you put a cat in a box and ask him to judge your papers, would you be happy? And what if the cat is dead? You know this is a known paradox in Quantum Mechanics, and it has actually been studyed by me and Zeilinger when he was a PhD student of mine. We proved that the cat paradox can be solved if you consider the probabilistic deontic paranormal logic of the unjustified true beliefs.
S. You are a good reader if you express good judgment.
K. Right. But ...
S. Stop stop stop! If you start again with that we won't get anything. So: the goodness of your judgment depends on the score of the paper after the last reader has read it. Of course you don't have the final paper score at that time; you can approximate it by using the current score. And this approximation will be revised as time goes on and new judgments on the same paper are expressed: this will cause the paper score to change, and the goodness of previous judgments to change as well, and so on. It's complex, but it's recursive, like PageRank, and this animation on my slides shows that...
K. (having some wine) So my judgment is good if it is close to the current paper score.
S. Yes and no.
K. Oh, we're playing quantum logic here. You know that in the 40es when a was a PhD student in Transilvania with Heisenberg we proved that, in quantum mechanics, professors can be old and young at the same time, provided that...
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
D. S., I'm wondering what kind of beer are you drinking?
S. It's not the beer, it the glass. This is the wrong glass for that kind of beer. You'd better drink it from the bottle. Like grappa.
N.S. Grappa? Who said grappa??
A. Friend, he said that, but there's no grappa here.
N.S. He's no more my friend.
M. I've just seen that my h-index is almost as K.'s.
N.B. I do feel like a Strasbourg goose now. I'll go and grab some cheese. And go to bed. It can't work. Democracy is not science.
S. I told you it's not democracy.
Epilogue of the prologue (i.e., after some cheese/wine/beer)
S. BTW, I even published a paper on it.
N. When? Where?
K. Why I don't know it?
S. 2003, On a peer reviewed journal. JASIST.
K. Ok, send me the paper. I'd love to read it.
K. Ok, send me the paper, so you stop saying stupid nonsense bullshit.
N.S. Yes send the paper.
N.S. You're no more my friend.
The cat in the box: meow!
A. Have you seen Copenhagen by M. Frayn?
D. These guys are crazy.
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
C. (just passing by) Guys, we're eating far too much!!
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
References:
S.
[Any reference to real people is not casual. You'll recognize yourself if you were there. :) ]
N.B. So what's your proposal about?
K. Yes, describe it to us.
S. You can describe it in several ways. One...
K. Oh no, it can't work.
M. Sure it can't, readers will not behave properly.
N.B. Poor guy, he hasn't started yet. Wait a minute.
S. That's the usual reaction: have an opinion - a strong one - before even trying to understand my model. One: in current scholarly publishing system, the reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I agree.
S. We are all reviewing more and more papers; reviewers are being paid; authors re-submit rejected papers without any change and (different) reviewers have to re-review them. And so on. The more the paper publication rate increases, the more the situation gets worst.
K.: Right. I know that. I've been working on that with Karl Popper, he was a good friend of mine. We wrote a paper on it, actually. But you should consider that if I ask people to review papers, they will do it.
S. You said that you agree that reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I'll give you an example of that. Quite a good example actually. I just asked 150 top scientists to do some reviews, and all of them agreed. None refused.
S. Ok, sure, but we're talking about something different here.
N.B.: Guys, just look at your hands. You can see some body language there. But I don't understand what you're talking about.
S. - Ok, I'll show you some slides (picks up his laptop - a Mac, of course)
N.S. I'll go and grab some cheese. I'm hungry. They did not give us enough food for dinner.
A. I'm not hungry at all.
S. We're eating far too much.
A. I'll have some wine.
Everybody: Me too!
S. So; One: reviewers are a scarce resource. Two: there are a lot of readers out there.
D. Lots of what?
S. Readers. Scientists that read scientific papers, form an opinion about them, and take that opinion in their mind - or maybe share it with a few colleagues. The scientific community as a whole does not benefit from reader's knowledge. The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field could do something similar to Web 2.0 by exploiting the "wisdom of readers": a scholarly paper is refereed by 2, 3, maybe 4 researchers, but it is hopefully read by dozens (10^1), hundreds (10^2), or even thousands (10^3) of researchers. And these researchers usually form an opinion about the paper. And this opinion is usually left inside their mind, or communicated in a very informal manner. We're just using the logarithm of the reading power that we have!
M. Wait wait, log of thousands is 3 not 4, you're cheating!!!
S. Sorry, ok, that's wrong, I had too much cheese... erm, beer, but you should get the whole idea anyway. It's log(x-1)...
M. You're cheating again! log(x-1) is undefined for no readers.
S. Come on... (lifting the middle finger of his right hand - and having some cheese)
D. Jesus these guys are crazy.
M. So what? Who cares? That's bullshit.
N.B. Are you suggesting to use readers judgments?
M. But you have to prove that your system is better than the h-index. The h-index measures researcher quality. I do have a high h-index.
S. Yes and no. Wait a minute and you'll see.
N.B. So you're going to suggest to use readers judgments. Oh no that can't work. I feel like a Strasbourg goose, but I'll have some more cheese anyway.
N.S. Yef cheefe if fey goot. Pfleafe, hafe fome. Gulp. But do you mean that if a student of mine judges my paper as crap I should be penalized for that?
S. To a certain extent yes. But, wait a minute, can I have some cheese?
D. - "Jesus, these guys are crazy."
S. We're eating far too much.
M. I'll go and skype my daughters. As we will see later, that'll be the last serious thing for today.
S. Readers judgments will be weighted on the basis of how good they are.
K. Right. But who decides if I am a good reader? I could, of course, but not anybody can. If you put a cat in a box and ask him to judge your papers, would you be happy? And what if the cat is dead? You know this is a known paradox in Quantum Mechanics, and it has actually been studyed by me and Zeilinger when he was a PhD student of mine. We proved that the cat paradox can be solved if you consider the probabilistic deontic paranormal logic of the unjustified true beliefs.
S. You are a good reader if you express good judgment.
K. Right. But ...
S. Stop stop stop! If you start again with that we won't get anything. So: the goodness of your judgment depends on the score of the paper after the last reader has read it. Of course you don't have the final paper score at that time; you can approximate it by using the current score. And this approximation will be revised as time goes on and new judgments on the same paper are expressed: this will cause the paper score to change, and the goodness of previous judgments to change as well, and so on. It's complex, but it's recursive, like PageRank, and this animation on my slides shows that...
K. (having some wine) So my judgment is good if it is close to the current paper score.
S. Yes and no.
K. Oh, we're playing quantum logic here. You know that in the 40es when a was a PhD student in Transilvania with Heisenberg we proved that, in quantum mechanics, professors can be old and young at the same time, provided that...
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
D. S., I'm wondering what kind of beer are you drinking?
S. It's not the beer, it the glass. This is the wrong glass for that kind of beer. You'd better drink it from the bottle. Like grappa.
N.S. Grappa? Who said grappa??
A. Friend, he said that, but there's no grappa here.
N.S. He's no more my friend.
M. I've just seen that my h-index is almost as K.'s.
N.B. I do feel like a Strasbourg goose now. I'll go and grab some cheese. And go to bed. It can't work. Democracy is not science.
S. I told you it's not democracy.
Epilogue of the prologue (i.e., after some cheese/wine/beer)
S. BTW, I even published a paper on it.
N. When? Where?
K. Why I don't know it?
S. 2003, On a peer reviewed journal. JASIST.
K. Ok, send me the paper. I'd love to read it.
K. Ok, send me the paper, so you stop saying stupid nonsense bullshit.
N.S. Yes send the paper.
N.S. You're no more my friend.
The cat in the box: meow!
A. Have you seen Copenhagen by M. Frayn?
D. These guys are crazy.
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
C. (just passing by) Guys, we're eating far too much!!
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
References:
- Monthy Python Spam video on YouTube; actually I prefer this version with Japanese (?) subtitles
- The paper (in a preprint version)
- A blog (discussing similar themes, and one more), and another post on another blog, and an interesting related project.
S.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
What's wrong with scholarly publication
At the recent grappa ehm liquidpub workshop, I maintained the following position:
1) In today's scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field, peer review is the scarce resource. There is not enough reviewing force; reviews are often done quickly, if not badly; there is almost no acknowledgment for being a good peer reviewer; etc.
2) The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field is not learning from what is being done for quality control out there on the Web: Web 2.0 (whatever it is) exploits the wisdom of crowd to attach ratings, opinions, tags, etc. to digital objects, apparently in an effective way. Think of digg, delicious, reddit, ebay, epinions, slashdot, karma, etc. etc.
3) The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field could do something similar by exploiting the "wisdom of readers": a scholarly paper is refereed by 2, 3, maybe 4 researchers, but it is hopefully read by dozens (10^1), hundreds (10^2), or even thousands (10^3, 10^4) of researchers. And these researchers usually form an opinion about the paper. And this opinion is usually left and lost inside their mind, or communicated in a very informal manner. We, the scholars community, are just using the logarithm of the reading (and reviewing/rating/judging/evaluating) power that we have!
Of course there's the issue of distinguishing good and bad reviewers/readers. On that, time ago, I published a (peer reviewed!) paper about an alternative/supplementary concrete mechanism to peer review:
1) In today's scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field, peer review is the scarce resource. There is not enough reviewing force; reviews are often done quickly, if not badly; there is almost no acknowledgment for being a good peer reviewer; etc.
2) The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field is not learning from what is being done for quality control out there on the Web: Web 2.0 (whatever it is) exploits the wisdom of crowd to attach ratings, opinions, tags, etc. to digital objects, apparently in an effective way. Think of digg, delicious, reddit, ebay, epinions, slashdot, karma, etc. etc.
3) The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field could do something similar by exploiting the "wisdom of readers": a scholarly paper is refereed by 2, 3, maybe 4 researchers, but it is hopefully read by dozens (10^1), hundreds (10^2), or even thousands (10^3, 10^4) of researchers. And these researchers usually form an opinion about the paper. And this opinion is usually left and lost inside their mind, or communicated in a very informal manner. We, the scholars community, are just using the logarithm of the reading (and reviewing/rating/judging/evaluating) power that we have!
Of course there's the issue of distinguishing good and bad reviewers/readers. On that, time ago, I published a (peer reviewed!) paper about an alternative/supplementary concrete mechanism to peer review:
S. Mizzaro. Quality Control in Scholarly Publishing: A New Proposal, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(11):989-1005, 2003. pdf (in a preprint version)Also, recently we've been working at applying the same model to Wikipedia, where the rules are different from the scholarly publishing world: distributed authorship, dynamic/liquid papers, implicit judgments on the basis of the amount of editing, etc. We experimentally evaluated the approach, obtaining some encouraging preliminary results. That's a second paper:
Alberto Cusinato, Vincenzo Della Mea, Francesco Di Salvatore, Stefano Mizzaro. QuWi: Quality Control in Wikipedia. In WICOW 2009: 3rd Workshop on Information Credibility on the Web in conjunction with 18th World Wide Web, Madrid, 20 April 2009, forthcoming.Time will tell if this model will be used, if it would work in the real world, etc. But for sure there is some stir about the scholarly publishing:
- A blog (discussing similar themes, and one more), and another post on another blog (Update: another one).
- Three interesting pieces.
- Some interesting web pages.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Monday, 2 February 2009
GRAPPA!!
I've been participating to an interesting workshop last week. The highlight of the workshop, from my own personal standpoint, was a work meeting I had with other colleagues during the last evening. Here is the record.
The discussion was driven by the Conversational menu (thanks Gloria):
(which also has a back - more understandable later, perhaps)
The main characters (sorry for the low quality of the photos, but as you know the iPh*ne is good for several things, including a decent network connectivity, but not good in taking photos in low light conditions):
The discussion was driven by the Conversational menu (thanks Gloria):
(which also has a back - more understandable later, perhaps)
The main characters (sorry for the low quality of the photos, but as you know the iPh*ne is good for several things, including a decent network connectivity, but not good in taking photos in low light conditions):
- Enrico, pretending to drink tea while linking Italian university situation with the ontological status of the wave functions in quantum physics:
- Joe, involved in deep discussion about the hidden relationship between written and spoken Gaelic
- Matus, devising a useless but novel system to evaluate the quality of Grappa pinot nero on the basis of drinker's judgments and their reputation
- Jim, complaining about network connectivity ("Oh if I only had go*gle here, I could understand this wave function ontological stuff...")
A mistaken photoThe wave function.
- Someone enjoying grappa - and oh yes paying attention to the wave function as well.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
A quello di Lincoln non c'era andato...
Dichiarazione del nostro pre$idente del con$iglio, rispondendo a una domanda sull'insediamento di Obama:
P.S. Sì, poi i giornali si concentrano su altro :-(
S.
"Non sono andato a quello di Bush e quindi non andrò neanche a quello di Obama"Forse qualcuno dovrebbe dirgli che all'insediamento di Bush nel gennaio 2001 lui non era presidente del consiglio?
P.S. Sì, poi i giornali si concentrano su altro :-(
S.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Professore
Mah... io non mi vergogno neanche un po', di essere professore. Anzi ne sono orgoglioso.
Ma scherziamo: un professore sarebbe peggio di un tornitore della Ferrari. Che tristezza (ne avevo già parlato)
(Update: ho scoperto che le notizie ANSA vengono cancellate dopo 24 ore...
Brunetta, sì proprio lui, ha dichiarato:
Ora puoi rileggere dall'inizio...)
S.
Ma scherziamo: un professore sarebbe peggio di un tornitore della Ferrari. Che tristezza (ne avevo già parlato)
(Update: ho scoperto che le notizie ANSA vengono cancellate dopo 24 ore...
Brunetta, sì proprio lui, ha dichiarato:
Se uno ora fa il professore, il burocrate, l’impiegato al catasto si vergogna di dire quello che fa. Se invece dice al figlio ‘faccio il tornitore alla Ferrari’, lo dice con il sorriso, con orgoglio e dignità.
Ora puoi rileggere dall'inizio...)
S.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Sette anni
Grazie alla casa nuova, siamo finalmente riusciti a organizzare per F. una festa di compleanno come si deve, con più di 15 bimbi, partita a pallone, torte, regali, e caccia al tesoro. È stato perfino divertente!
S.
Caccia al tesoro
Magari un giorno F. vuole rileggerla:
Caccia al tesoro!!
REGOLE: restate sempre tutti insieme; non correte; ascoltate quello che dice IL CAPO; quando il CAPO dice silenzio, vuol dire SILENZIO; quando il CAPO dice FERMI vuol dire FERMI!!!!; non andate nei punti pericolosi e ripidi; quando troverete il tesoro, lo dividerete in parti uguali.
SUGGERIMENTI: Troverete vari biglietti che vi condurranno, uno dopo l’altro, mistero dopo mistero, fino al TESORO. Bussola, metro e lavagna potrebbero esservi utili; ma sopratutto usate la fantasia, divertitevi e conservate tutti i biglietti che trovate...
0. Siamo al punto zero. Incomincia la caccia. Ma non dimenticatevi che siamo al punto zero...
1. Prima tappa: questa è facile. Guardate alla base del susino. Suggerimento: il susino fa le susine, dette anche prugne. Quest’anno ne ha fatte pochissime, e F. dovrebbe ricordarsene…
2. Benissimo. Ora si fa più difficile. Guardate verso Nord-Est. (sapete, vero, dov’è il Nord-Est?) Ce ne sono tre gruppi, due di tre e uno di due. Guardate BENE sotto a quello più in alto...
3. Altra tappa. Dovete risolvere un anagramma: ELMO... (sì, ce ne sono due… il vostro è quello più lontano dalla tappa 1...) E guardate in alto...
4. Bravi, mi avete trovato! Il prossimo passo è più difficile. Dovete spostarvi di 25 metri (saranno circa 40 passi) verso Est. Vi troverete vicino a un albero con il tronco grosso e tanti rami “spettinati”. Guardate bene nei buchi nel tronco...
5. Ora dovete tornare, senza correre, da dove siete partiti. E cercate queste lettere: ** *** **. E guardate bene sotto alle... rrrr... Suggerimento: sapete la canzone “La macchina del capo ha un buco...”?
6. In una delle tappe precedenti erano 8; ora sono 10. Guardate di fianco al primo, ma a partire dall’alto... Suggerimento: verso Nord-Nord-Est...
7. Altro anagramma: ELMORAGNO. Questo è più difficile; forse è meglio se usate la lavagna... Quando capite cos’è, andategli vicino e guardate all’altezza dei vostri occhi…
8. Cari esploratori, siete stati proprio bravi. Ma ora viene la prova più misteriosa, la penultima. Ancora un anagramma, ma misterioso. Per riuscire a risolverlo vi dico solo una parte delle lettere: ROR. Per trovare le altre dovete disegnare una mappa delle prime cinque tappe (e del punto zero), numerarle e CONGIUNGERLE CON DELLE LINEE. Apparirà un disegno che vi indicherà le altre lettere dell’anagramma...
9. UAU, ce l’avete fatta. Siete stati proprio bravissimi! Ora manca solo un piccolo indovinello… Cercate una specie di scatola argentata in cima a un palo nero alto circa un metro e mezzo. Suggerimento: c’è anche una bandierina rossa... IL TESORO È LÌ!!!
Thursday, 4 December 2008
PRIN 2008
Senz'altro nell'università italiana ci sono cose che non vanno: cervelli (e corpi) che emigrano, nessuno che immigra, concorsi "truccati", meccanismi di reclutamento farraginosi, mancanza di valutazione, valutazioni sbagliate, ecc. Ma c'è anche altro.
Ogni anno (a parte qualche... ritardo, ma facciamo finta di niente) il... generoso ministro per l'università e la ricerca bandisce il cosiddetto progetto PRIN (Progetti di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale). Nel 2008 il PRIN ha un budget totale di quasi 96 milioni di euro. In Italia siamo circa 60.000 docenti universitari "strutturati" (ordinari, associati e ricercatori); poi ci sono almeno altrettanti "non strutturati" che non possono fare domanda (precari, dottorandi, assegnisti di ricerca, ecc.)
Semplice calcolo: quanto tocca in media a ogni ricercatore italiano?
96.000.000 / 60.000= 1.600 euro considerando solo gli strutturati
96.000.000 / 60.000 / 2 = 800 euro considerando tutti
Certo, questi sono finanziamenti a progetto, non a pioggia, e quindi questo calcolo lascia un po' il tempo che trova. Però vorrà pur dire qualcosa...
Senz'altro nell'università italiana ci sono cose che non vanno. Questa è una di quelle.
P.S. Una considerazione: con un progetto europeo si viene finanziati per cifre dell'ordine di qualche centinaio di migliaia di euro. Cosa mi conviene fare? Cercare di vincere un PRIN all'anno per 100 volte o un progetto EU per una volta?
S.
Ogni anno (a parte qualche... ritardo, ma facciamo finta di niente) il... generoso ministro per l'università e la ricerca bandisce il cosiddetto progetto PRIN (Progetti di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale). Nel 2008 il PRIN ha un budget totale di quasi 96 milioni di euro. In Italia siamo circa 60.000 docenti universitari "strutturati" (ordinari, associati e ricercatori); poi ci sono almeno altrettanti "non strutturati" che non possono fare domanda (precari, dottorandi, assegnisti di ricerca, ecc.)
Semplice calcolo: quanto tocca in media a ogni ricercatore italiano?
96.000.000 / 60.000= 1.600 euro considerando solo gli strutturati
96.000.000 / 60.000 / 2 = 800 euro considerando tutti
Certo, questi sono finanziamenti a progetto, non a pioggia, e quindi questo calcolo lascia un po' il tempo che trova. Però vorrà pur dire qualcosa...
Senz'altro nell'università italiana ci sono cose che non vanno. Questa è una di quelle.
P.S. Una considerazione: con un progetto europeo si viene finanziati per cifre dell'ordine di qualche centinaio di migliaia di euro. Cosa mi conviene fare? Cercare di vincere un PRIN all'anno per 100 volte o un progetto EU per una volta?
S.
F.
- Papà, giochiamo un po' con la ricetrasmittrice...
...
... ricetrasmittente?
- No, no, "ricetrasmittrice" è più bello.
Oltre a ricevere e trasmettere, mittricia pure.
S.
...
... ricetrasmittente?
- No, no, "ricetrasmittrice" è più bello.
Oltre a ricevere e trasmettere, mittricia pure.
S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)