I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system (2013)
It should be noted that the scientists themselves, and particularly the top scientists, since the others are not as easily heard or listened to, have largely contributed to the development of this particular academic system in which the quality of one's work and academic decisions (recruitment, tenure, salary) are evaluated primarily, but not exclusively, by:total number of publications, citations, grants obtained and their monetary values, number of students, impact factor of the journals in which the research was published, h-index, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and public visibility.Did I miss anything?For once, neither politicians nor administrators were responsible for a system of "perverse incentives," since these gray figures are not involved in either hiring or tenure decisions.Case in point: one of the leading scientists in a field in which I dabble, and former chief scientist of The Nature Conservancy, routinely had his name on dozens of articles each year. Given the volume of his other academic commitments, at most he would be able to take a look at those papers, certainly he was not able to contribute meaningfully to (any of) them. So why does a top scientist, at the end of his career, whose place in the pecking order is established, still feel this need to have his name on papers to which he has contributed nothing, instead of taking a different path, in which he demonstrates, with facts, that unattainable "productivity" is not what scientists should aspire to?Someone might say, "Well, maybe it's not him, but his students or collaborators who want his name, so they can say they published a paper with an important scientist." And why would they want to say that? To impress other scientists, the ones who will give them professorships, appointments, fellowships, etc.A world I am lucky to have left behind.