UPDATE 11.10.2015. What happened since the beginning of the “contest”? Nothing. My guess is that they are going to follow the exact literary sense of their announcement. It is a classic sign of cronyism. They write 3 times that they are going to judge according to the file submitted (the activity of the candidate as it looks from the file), but they don’t give other criteria than the ones from an old law. In my case I satisfy these criteria, of course, but later on they write about “candidates considered eligible”, which literary means candidates that an anonymous board considers they are eligible and not simply eligible according to the mentioned criteria.
Conclusion: this is not news, is dog bites man.
I may be wrong. But in the case I’m right then the main subject (namely what happens in a real situation with open access practices in case of a job opening) looks like a frivolous, alien complaint.
The split between:
– a healthy, imaginative, looking to the future community of individuals and
– a kafkian old world of bureaucratic cronies
is growing bigger here in my country.
UPDATE 14.10.2015: Suppositions confirmed. The results have been announced today, only verbally, the rest is shrouded in mystery. Absolutely no surprise. Indeed, faced with the reality of local management, my comments about open access and open source practices are like talking about a TV show to cavemen.
There is a statement I want to make, for those who read this and have only access to info about Romanians from the media, which is, sadly, almost entirely negative.
It would be misleading to judge the local mathematicians (or other creative people, say) from these sources. There is nothing wrong with many Romanian people. On the contrary, these practices which show textbook signs of corruption are typical for the managers of state institutions from this country. They are to be blamed. What you see in the media is the effect of the usual handshake between bad leadership and poverty.
Which sadly manifest everywhere in the state institutions of Romania, in ways far beyond the ridicule.
So next time when you shall interact with one such manager, don’t forget who they are and what they are really doing.
I am not going to pursue a crusade against corruption in Romania, because I have better things to do. Maybe I’m wrong and what is missing is more people doing exactly this. But the effects of corrupt practices is that the state institution becomes weaker and weaker. So, by psycho historic reasons🙂 there is no need for a fight with dying institutions.
Let’s look to the future, let’s do interesting stuff!
This is real: there are job openings at the Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian academy, announced by the pdf file
The announce is in Romanian but you may notice that they refer to a law from 2003, which asks for a CV, research memoire, list of publications and ten documents, from kindergarden to PhD. On paper.
That is only the ridicule of bureaucracy, but the real problems were somewhere else.
There is no mention of criteria of selection, members of the committee, but in the announcement is written 3 times that every candidate’s work will be considered only as it appears from looking at the file submitted.
They also ask that the scientific, say, part of the submission to be sent by email to two addresses which you can grasp from the announcement.
So I did all the work and I hit a wall when I submitted by email.
I sent them the following links:
– my homepage which has all the info needed (including links to all relevant work)
– link to my arxiv articles
because all my published articles and all my cited articles, published or not) are available at arXiv
– link to the chemlambda repository for the programming, demos, etc part
I was satisfied because I finished this, when I got a message from DanTimotin@imar.ro telling me that I have to send them, as attachment, the pdf files of at least 5 relevant articles.
In the paper file I put 20+ of these articles (selected from 60+), but they wanted also the pdf files.
I don’t have the pdfs of many legacy published articles because they are useless for open access, you can’t distribute them publicly.
Moreover I keep the relevant work I do as open as possible.
Finally, how could I send the content of the github repository? Or the demos?
So I replied by protesting about the artificial difference he makes between a link and the content available at that link and I sent a selection of 20 articles with links to their arXiv version.
He replied by a message where he announced that if I want my submission to be considered then I have to send 5 pdfs attached.
I visited physically Dan Timotin to talk and to understand why a link is different from the content available to that link.
He told me that these are the rules.
He told that he is going to send the pdfs to the members of the committees and it might happen that they don’t have access to the net when they look for the work of the candidate.
He told me that they can’t be sure that the arXiv version is the same as the published version.
He has nothing to say about the programming/demo/animations part.
He told that nobody will read the paper file.
I asked if he is OK if I make public this weird practice and he agreed to that.
Going back to my office, I arrived to find 9 pdfs of the published articles. In many other cases my institute does not have a subscription to journals where my articles appeared, so I don’t think that is fair to be asked to buy back my work, only because of the whims of one person.
Therefore I sent to Dan Timotin a last message where I attached these 9 pdfs, I explained that I can’t access the others, but I firmly demand that all the links sent previously to be sent to the (mysterious, anonymous, net deprived, and lacking public criteria) committee, otherwise I would consider this an abuse.
I wrote that I regret this useless discussion provoked by the lack of transparency and by the hiding behind an old law, which should not stop a committee of mathematicians to judge the work of a candidate as it is, and not as it appears by an abuse of filtering.
After a couple of hours he replied that he will send the files and the links to the members of the committee.
I have to believe his word.
That is what happens, in practice, with open access and open science, at least in some places.
What could be done?
Should I wait for the last bureaucrat to stop supporting passively the publishing industry, by actively opposing open access practices?
Should I wait for all politicians to pass fake PhDs under the supervision of a very complacent local Academia?
Should I feel ashamed of being abused?