I agree with you completely about "bad industry-focused research". It serves no end. My question is that, is it just a reflection of mediocracy and gaming/dishonesty being everywhere, including academica ?
In this case, please trying to take shortcuts towards their goal of improving the amount of publications and grant approvals. There is reward in the system for this kind of behaviour. You being a reviewer/jury position unfortunately do not have the luxury of a filter.
Is there a way to early catch this , by looking at past trends ?
Slight detour is that this is one of my rationale for spending time reviewing papers for journals/conferences. In average, only 10 to 20% of papers I review really stands out or appeal to me, which is correlated to acceptance rate of a top journal/conference.
I worked in industry research for a long time and almost every intern or new hire came in with laughably wrong assumptions, but it wasn't due to mediocracy, gaming, or dishonesty. They just didn't have anywhere to learn from. Their assumptions were copied from earlier "best paper" winners in the field whose assumptions were copied from a random previous paper whose assumptions were probably mostly speculation.
In this case, please trying to take shortcuts towards their goal of improving the amount of publications and grant approvals. There is reward in the system for this kind of behaviour. You being a reviewer/jury position unfortunately do not have the luxury of a filter.
Is there a way to early catch this , by looking at past trends ?
Slight detour is that this is one of my rationale for spending time reviewing papers for journals/conferences. In average, only 10 to 20% of papers I review really stands out or appeal to me, which is correlated to acceptance rate of a top journal/conference.