Who Decides the Value and the Credibility of Research Work


I am astonished by the flood of fantasy paper in my field at least and see it day after day get recognition although it has no real application and some researchers play around the data.

What freaks me out is that some researchers who play around with data and make false propaganda about their work are keynote speakers at conferences.

I am not sure what is the caliber of the integrity, day after day, I recognize it is not the objectivity of the research, but having allies and that is problem in my filed at least, they cite each other, praise their counterparts work as well. In the end, that seems fake, there must be a real critique for the work as well.

Another point, every paper I saw or review they try to use hype words to give a value to their research although they don't have a real contribution and get accepted.

Another point is I see the research as a trend and we didn't ask ourselves whether there is a realistic behind the researches.

My question is: What I should do to prove myself in that situation, if I publish my method, I am expecting that I will be out of the loop. I feel I am kind of have to praise their work unless I will be nothing.

I am indeed frustrated because I feel the researcher who dominates my field are hypocrite and they want to praise their work so that they can get funding and more collaborations, is that the research meant to be?


So basically everyone is corrupt in your field but you?
Is this the message you are trying to convey here because that's how I read your post.
I am not sure this attitude is going to be particularly helpful to you.


I am sorry if my post made you think I am saying that. disclaimer: I am not saying I am the perfect and genius one. As I mentioned before my sub-field is so much pretty small as I said dominated by specific researchers who publish, editors of some journals as well. In the other side, there are good researchers but doesnot have the clout as the researcher who publish their method and cite each other and want every junior to follow them blindly as if there is a paper criticize them this could endanger their funding and collaborations as well. What I am trying to say it is like a a collective groups collaborate, cite each other and you cannot find any criticism in their approach although it has ( one paper published that, but again those were individual researchers outside this network. I dont know how to explain my point of view very well, but I can say it like tyranny system dominated by few researchers who bring each others in conferences as speakers etc. Maybe I am not good enough to the academic level and that is something is going to be revealed in the coming months maybe the problem is in myself.


monkiaa, you have just described academia in its current state. Due to scarcity of grants, researchers are trying their absoulte best to publish and collaborate and yes they usually cite each other to get higher citation and online presence. And yes, any research field will be dominated by the few elite Profs whom many are trying to be in good books with, in order to survive in their career.

Gone are the days where researchers can study anything they like to advance knowledge. These days, they need to get in line with the latest hype (specific topics where grants are normally awarded) and take care of themselves and their staff and students. The pursuit of knowledge is wonderful, but unfortunately this requires money/grants which are very limited.

To say these researchers are hypocrite is too much. They are only trying to survive. I know that you have been through a lot but I believe you must open your eyes to the current state of academia rather than live in a world of ideals. Perhaps now as you are searching for a new PhD you may have more time to think if you wish to join this broken world of academia or maybe you are better off working in the industry.