This is very important. Writers like Matt might do well to factor in the &quot;academic&quot; constraints much like he encourages them to do for industry. I ran into this in a discussion with Anti on prior art for Rump Kernels. Learned a bit in that discussion but his troubles getting approval stood out:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10141736" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10141736</a><p>I had heard about BS in academia where only paper output, grants, citations, and so on count. That Anti had to fight to get them to care about his work being implemented speaks wonders about how this works out in practice. Had he only cared about academic success, he could&#x27;ve dropped some light technical details and graphs in the paper then been done with it while the idea collected dust. Many benefited from him fighting the tide on it to produce good papers <i>and</i> an implementation.<p>I&#x27;m not in academic circles but I bet many face the same battle. With the pressure, it might be impossible for them to produce the desired output on their own within their constraints. Or so difficult many give up. Perhaps we should encourage them to have one good line of research they string out over years for quality and ensuring delivery while doing lots of nice papers in between to keep institutions happy. Think that might work?