I am sharing below the content of an email that I sent to two co-authors of a recent article published in a reputable Elsevier journal:
Dear Colleagues Yeonsoo Park and
Dukrok Suh,
first of all my
congratulations on your interesting study that was put online on
December 17 in the journal Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, titled “How are ‘Pasteur researchers’ formed and what
contributions do they make? A case study of a research institute in
Korea”.
I couldn't help but notice the absence
of the term "serendipity" in your paper, a pivotal element
in scientific breakthroughs. Heinström &
Sormunen https://pachecotorgal.com/2022/11/14/serendipity-in-science-and-the-stalling-of-the-scientific-progress/or
could it be that you have used “Bohr researchers” type as per
Stokes taxonomy as a proxy of serendipity ?
I also noticed that you give a lot of
importance to patents. Could that mean that you are not aware of the
fact that "Patents seem to have no clear effect on economic
growth in the panel supporting new insights by Sweet and Eterovic
(2019)"https://pachecotorgal.com/2022/04/06/european-commission-officials-claim-theres-an-unhealthy-obsession-with-patents/or
on the fact that last year an article in The Economist showed that
millions of patents are just intellectual
junk ? https://pachecotorgal.com/2022/08/31/the-economist-the-inventors-whose-patents-are-worth-billions/
By the way, about what constitutes
the most efficient method for financing scientific
endeavors (with maximum impact) have you read the article that
was recently published in The Economist's edition “The World
Ahead
2024”. ? https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-economist-world-ahead-2024what-is.html
