> Edit: I also don't see why the role of "data gatherer" can't be more prestigious.
I agree wholeheartedly. If datasets are so valuable that lots of people can easily capitalise on them and produce great science, then the creation of those datasets should be rewarded similarly to an extremely valuable paper.
Machine learning seems to be a field that this is going pretty well in, people are publishing their models and datasets more so that I can grab a trained model of a huge image recognition neural net and try it out on my own data.
> As long as there's a place where you can publish those papers and make the data available it would probably also be a paper that is good for your career by a metric that seems to matter a lot.
I'd personally like to see a shift away from requiring a paper to cite a dataset. But I don't think that really alters your point.
(disclaimer, I work for Digital Science which is a parent company of figshare, but this is a personal opinion)
I agree wholeheartedly. If datasets are so valuable that lots of people can easily capitalise on them and produce great science, then the creation of those datasets should be rewarded similarly to an extremely valuable paper.
Machine learning seems to be a field that this is going pretty well in, people are publishing their models and datasets more so that I can grab a trained model of a huge image recognition neural net and try it out on my own data.
> As long as there's a place where you can publish those papers and make the data available it would probably also be a paper that is good for your career by a metric that seems to matter a lot.
I'd personally like to see a shift away from requiring a paper to cite a dataset. But I don't think that really alters your point.
(disclaimer, I work for Digital Science which is a parent company of figshare, but this is a personal opinion)