And people here keep getting ruder and ruder for no reason. It’s not like I have any actual authority to make this happen.

I mean, you could have just said “I don’t like that idea because I’m not creative or innovative enough to contribute something of value that would be cited by others, so that would have prevented me for padding my resume with the stuff that I was able to produce.” That would have been much more courteous.

The woman didn’t sign a EULA with the vendor.

I would say your three reqs are met.

Sue the software company for defamation.

Just being “quotable” isn’t going to get you cited (and thus paid). Your work has to be worth being quoted.

Right now, the vast vast majority of published academic work is absolute garbage that no one will ever care about. Even most of the people writing and publishing the garbage barely care about their own garbage. It’s just cranking gears to pad their resumes.

If we rewarded people for high value work, and incentivised cranking out garbage, then we would get more high value work.

And how will has that really worked?

Wouldn’t publishing a lot of quotation worthy work be better than publishing a lot of work that isn’t quotation worthy?

Right. And shouldn’t those people be compensated for their work?

Under my system, a reseacher would be incentivised to sue the publisher claiming their research should have been cited. If anything it would create “research trolls”.

However, a researcher could purchase professional insurance that would handle those claims.

Can’t or won’t?

That… Is some fucked up shit.