Paul Graham wrote an essay that will get people talking: You Weren’t Meant to Have a Boss. The gist of the argument is that large groups like research centers, companies and universities are inefficient artificial constructs limiting people’s freedom. I believe this sentence says it all:

It will always suck to work for large organizations, and the larger the organization, the more it will suck.

Anyone who has worked in a large research projects knows that one of two things tends to happen. When the project is well structured, nothing interesting happens. Papers will get published, but no new insight will be produced. Sometimes the odd graduate student will have used his scholarship money to do something exciting, but he will have broken the rules by doing so. On the other hand, when the project has no strong leadership, people will tend to go work on their own and interesting results may come forth, but the big project will basically be an afterthought.

So, why do funding agencies keep on fostering large projects? Almost surely because it sounds good on paper, and it is easier to manage than a large number of small projects. I have yet to see any serious study showing that large projects are a better way to invest the tax payer’s money. Another argument I sometimes hear is that below-average researcher do better under the guidance of visionaries. I wonder whether any study supports this claim?

Do people in large research centers or large universities produce more? I think that you will find that highly productive groups in large centers work in small units that are largely independent of each other. Hence, I do not think that large centers or large universities are more productive. However, they may attract better people, mostly because going to work at a smaller place is riskier, Paul pointed out this problem:

The average MIT graduate wants to work at Google or Microsoft, because it’s a recognized brand, it’s safe, and they’ll get paid a good salary right away. It’s the job equivalent of the pizza they had for lunch.

I would add that a job at a larger place looks better on your resume. If, as a scientist, you choose to go work at a tiny university, people will assume, sometimes rightly so, that you were not offered a job at a larger organization.

As someone who worked at the largest research institution in Canada (by the number of researchers), I can tell you that large size does not make you better. Having access to a lot of smart people is nice, except that sharing an employer is not a great way to ensure fruitful communication. My own productivity was low until I started saying no to large projects. I find that I am most productive when I work on my own small projects with a few hand-picked people. I find that fighting to keep my freedom and independence is key to producing higher quality research.

Disclaimer. I don’t measure my own productivity solely by the number of papers written. Working 6 months on a single paper — as I have been doing recently — is not being unproductive, because we got interesting results all through the process. I don’t feel compelled to submit ten variants of the same paper to feel productive.

According to an article in the New York Times, drinking beer is correlated negatively with scientific productivity. What is surprising is that even small quantities of beer are correlated with decreases in productivity.

But correlation is not causality. They have not shown that drinking beer makes you less productive. They have shown that people drinking beer are less productive. (It is not the same!)

Source: Scott Flinn.

On my blog, the best content is in the comments. Sébastien reminded me of this fact today by offering a link to an article in Physics Today by Lee Smolin. The gist of the paper is that scientists feel a lot of pressure to follow the lead of powerful senior scientists. It is much easier to be productive when you follow established techniques. Any prospective Einstein is crushed by the system.

There are many reasons for rejecting a paper. The authors might have failed to communicate their results efficiently. There may be a flaw in the science. Or the authors might have cheated. These flaws come from oversights, incompetence, and lack of ethics. But most importantly, they may all be motivated by the greed to publish more and faster.

Today is a bad day. I reviewed or rereviewed 5 papers from 3 different sources today. The best of these papers is a case of self-plagiarism. Three of the five papers were written by inexperienced students, or they appear to be, with minimal or no supervision from a senior researcher. The last one might have made a good blog post.

I believe that we are due for a revolution in science. We need to definitively stop counting the number of papers people produce. This game has run its course. If I interpret what I read correctly, it has become quite a bit counterproductive.

I propose that people list their two biggest accomplishments. It could be an experiment or a theorem they proved. To improve your case, you need to outdo one of your two biggest accomplishments to date. It does not matter if you publish 50 papers a year: you only improve your status if you outdo yourself in a big way.

Students can get started quickly. Senior researchers will have a harder time making progress. I submit to you that industry already works this way. Senior engineers are only as reputed as their two biggest most-difficult projects. It does not matter if you completed 120 small projects.

C.V.s would now fit in a single page. Tell us where you work, where you got your Ph.D. and what the two big things you did are. That is it.

Michael Nielsen posted a link to a paper in Science stating that the lone scientist is outgunned by teams and collaboration. Keith Sawyer supports this claim and gives more details.

In Computer Science, there are so few single-author papers — how can you do a sane analysis? I propose the following comparison.

Single-author papers are riskier, but can be more original:

• You can work on weird or highly risky projects: you only have to convince yourself.
• You can fool yourself and waste much time.
• You have to wait for formal peer review before you get feedback. Fast feedback tends to help you improve faster.
• You have to increase your breadth. You may need to run your own experiments as well derive new theories.
• Except for a few reviewers, you may end up being the sole human being to know about your contribution.

Multi-author papers are safer, but can get bureaucratic:

• You have to choose safe topics if you want others to be interested.
• If the idea is bad and you are not too intimidating, your partners let you know early on.
• You can learn fast from the expertise of your co-workers.
• You often do not fully appreciate and understand the work delegated to others. You tend to focus on what you know best and become more specialized.
• Your partners are likely to cite your joint work and tell others about it.

Clearly, if your goal is to build up your career, I would say that working with others is a good idea. However, producing a paper on your own shows that you do not need to rely on others. It shows your independence. It shows your breadth.

I have always had solo projects. They tend to be more painful, but somehow, I always have good reasons to push them forward. Mostly, it allows me to produce work without compromising on my (crazy) ideas. I can take risks without feeling guilty. Sometimes I get lucky. Sometimes I waste months in vain.

My theory is that solo authors take more risks and more often end up with poor, unciteable work especially if they lack maturity and skills. However, I predict that if you focus on senior researchers, you will find that solo papers are as good as collaborative work. The only exception to this rule would be senior researchers who enter a new field.