This nice paper “Academia’s obsession with quantity” touched a nerve for me. Two excerpts:

Clearly we are under multiple pressures as scientists, exemplified in being simmered down to a single number (impact factor, h-index; ok, that’s two numbers) by administration and government. This results in blinkered “excellence” initiatives, our own increasing boasting style

and poor reproducibility (occasionally nearly down to 10%!)

The reproducibility initiative seems just the thing we need. Further, scientific progress needs a pyramid of achievements – if you take away the base of a pyramid (your common-or-garden scientist) the top cannot rest in thin air – so I’m not totally dissatisfied ;-) with my middling place in that hierarchy with an h-index of 36 (sic!). Consequently I agree that we should consider “Slow Science” as a generalization of resulting in better quality, if lower quantity. But this may just be my age – I do understand that young budding scientists bear the full grunt of career pressure. Still – “generating wisdom” is the one achievement persistent in the long run. And examples cited above make me happy, indicating there’s a growing number of colleagues realizing this.

Ok, enough ranting, I actually have work to do, revising a paper, administrative stuff, …

PS: the image below is a screen shot from , following John Timmer’s example in ars technica.